Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Theory Blocks
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
50 State Fiat Bad
50 State Fiat is Bad - Vote aff:
1. It’s Utopian - The states have never enacted the same policy at the same
time
a. Education – They prevents the debate from being over realistic policy options
b. Predictability - We can’t predict what never happens
c. Literature – There is no literature refutes something that has never
happened – this destroys our ability to answer the CP
2. Infinitely regressive
a. Multi-actor fiat - They could fiat more and more actors, up to all the
governments and agencies in the world
b. They could create an infinite number of combinations of the states,
which creates unpredictable ground
3. Not reciprocal - We’re limited to the USFG. Their use of multiple actors is
unpredictable because it does not mirror the aff.
4. This is a voting issue for the reasons above and competitive equity – err aff
on theory – the negative gets the block and more diverse strategic options
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
50 State Fiat Good
50 State Fiat Good:
1. Reciprocity - They get to fiat the entire federal bureaucracy, not just a single
actor
2. Best policy option - Any preferable advocacy the aff impedes is another
reason not to vote for it
3. Resolutional wording - The phrase “federal government” in the resolution
proves that the job of the negative is to test it – this proves that the
counterplan is predictable neg ground, especially since it’s a domestic topic
4. Fair Aff Ground - They can read disads based on any state
5. Counter-Interpretation - Negs must fiat all 50 simultaneously with no delay –
this is the most predictable interpretation that allows for a fair division of
ground and literature
6. Reject the arg, not the team
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is Bad – Vote Aff:
1. Creates a moving target – the negative can change their advocacy every
speech making it impossible for the affirmative to make coherent arguments –
this kills education and debateability, because it is impossible to have an indepth debate discussion if they continously switch their advocacy
2. Decreases critical thinking and argumentative responsibility, since it allows
the negative to drop their plan under any condition
3. Strategy – the 2AC is forced to defend against multiple worlds – the ability to
kick out of the counterplan at any point during the round kills our ability to
make strategic choices – this destroys debateability, because there is no way to
tie the neg to their CP
4. Artificially inflates the status quo – It deters us from reading add-ons and
turns that the counterplan solves, which turns the search for the best policy
option and education
5. Not reciprocal - We can’t change our advocacy – proving that their rules are
unpredictable
6. Infinitely regressive – the Neg could run multiple conditional advocacies
without worrying about contradiction
7. This is a voter for fairness and competitive equity
8. Dispo solves all of their offense, by allowing the Aff to have some control
over what the Neg goes for in the 2NR
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Conditionality Good
Conditionality is Good:
1. Neg flexibility – the negative role is to negate the resolution – conditionality
provides us with a crucial strategic tool – neg flexibility is key to competitive
equity and balancing the aff bias
2. Search for the best policy option - Any preferable advocacy the aff impedes
just provides all the more reason not to vote for it
Strategic thinking – we force the aff to think strategically about which args to
make in the 2AC
3. Time and strat skews are inevitable – teams will always be faster than others
and theory and T will always produce a time and strategy trade-off
4. All args are functionally conditional – they can’t force us to go for any
particular flow
5. Most real world – politicans reject proposals in light of alternatives all the
time – debate should be no different
6. Counter-interpretation – the neg gets one conditional cp – this solves all their
contradictory and irresponsibility args
7. Err Neg on Theory – the aff gets the first and last speech, infinite prep time,
and higher win percentage
8. Reject the arg, not the team
9. Potential abuse isn’t a voter – they can’t articulate any in-round abuse – this
proves why we shouldn’t be rejected
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Dispositionality Bad
Dispositionality is Bad – Vote aff:
1. Creates a moving target – the negative can change their advocacy every
speech making it impossible for the affirmative to make coherent arguments –
this kills education and debateability, because it is impossible to have an indepth debate discussion if they continuously switch their advocacy
2. It is conditionality in disguise – we have no choice but to perm – the strategic
decisions they give us are always undesirable because it would leave us unable
to answer counterplans that are plan plus – conditionality is bad because it
justifies multiple worlds and destroys affirmative strategy
3. Time and strategy skew – it is no risk negative offense
4. Artificially inflates the status quo – It deters us from reading add-ons and
turns that the counterplan solves, which turns the search for the best policy
option and education
5. Not reciprocal – We can’t change our advocacy – proving that their rules are
unpredictable
6. This is a voting issue for the reasons above and competitive equity – err aff
on theory – the negative gets the block and more diverse strategic options
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Dispositionality Good
Dispositionality is Good:
1. We put the ball in the aff’s court – they get to choose whether or not straight
turn the CP forcing us to go for it – this turns all of their offensive reasons why
dispo is bad
2. Neg flexibility – the negative role is to negate the resolution – conditionality
provides us with a crucial strategic tool – neg flexibility is key to competitive
equity and balancing the aff bias
3. Dispo is the best – it offers a key middle ground – conditionality skews aff
strategy, while unconditional CP’s limit the neg too significantly
4. We’re not conditionality – even if they want to perm, they have to make
strategic option – this increases critical thinking
5. Time and strat skews are inevitable – certain teams will always be faster than
others and theory and T will always produce a time and strategy trade-off
6. Counter-interp – the neg gets one dispositional cp – this solves all their
contradictory and argument irresponsibility args
7. Err Neg on Theory – the aff gets the first and last speech, infinite prep time,
and higher win percentages
8. Reject the arg, not the team
9. Potential abuse isn’t a voter – they can’t articulate any in-round abuse – this
proves why we shouldn’t be rejected
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Multi-Actor Fiat Bad
1. It’s Infinitely Regressive. They could fiat more actors, up to all the
governments and agencies in the world, for abusive social change. There could
also be infinite combinations of actors. Leads to unfair, unpredictable ground
distribution and an impossible research burden.
2. There’s far less comparative lit between three or more actors than between
the plan’s agent and one counterplan agent. This type of lit is key to depth of
clash and aff answer ground.
3. Real-world education. Multiple actors simultaneously deciding to cooperate
is unlikely. The counterplan provides inapplicable and unrealistic education, is
entirely unpredictable, and has no literature which is unfair.
4. Not reciprocal. We’re limited to the USFG. Their use of multiple actors is
unpredictable because it does not mirror the aff.
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Multi-Actor Fiat Good
1. Strategic Plan Writing. Forces good warrants for the agent the aff selects.
a. Key to complete topical education.
b. Better neg link ground and aff advantage ground enabling more
specific clash.
c. Advocacy education. Teaches the aff to utilize specifics to defend their
idea.
d. Prevents shifting advocacy in the realm of implementation.
2. Search for the best policy option. Any preferable advocacy the aff impedes is
a reason to reject it.
3. Neg Ground. We need multiple actors to engage all the theoretical systems
necessary to get the plan in motion. We don’t fiat the object.
4. Real-World. Multiple actors have to cooperate for anything to get done –
there are certain processes that normally operate in this way.
5. These actors comprise a unique strategy, which is key to imaginative
strategy-building, aff critical thinking, and diverse argumentation which keeps
debate interesting and motivates people to work harder.
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Multiple Perms Good
1. Testing competition of various portions of the counterplan is key to
education on those parts, aff ground against each CP plank, and the search for
the best policy option.
2. Critical Thinking. Multiple perms encourage negs to find answers that apply
to several at once.
3. Multiple neg worlds justifies. They get at least the status quo and
counterplan.
4. No abuse. They’re just tests – we’re not going to advocate them.
5. Neg block checks. They get 13 minutes to answer the perms, we get 5 to
extend them.
6. Specific Theory checks. There is a limited amount we can do without
severance or intrinsicness.
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Intrinsic Perms Good
1. It’s a test of competition - We don’t sever out of our text because we don’t
advocate the perm, but it still proves the Counterplan isn’t competitive
2. Search for the best policy option - It’s like making an amendment to the bill
in Congress
3. Ground – the more we add to our plan, the more likely it is that the neg will
be able to get additional links their args
4. Reject the arg, not the team
Theory Blocks
SDI 2013
NSS Lab
Severance Perms Good
1. It’s a test of competition - We don’t sever out of our text because we don’t
advocate the perm, but it still proves the Counterplan isn’t competitive
2. Search for the best policy option - It’s like making an amendment to the bill
in Congress
3. Key to check PICs - PICs prevent us from getting any offense while exploding
the research burden
4. Reject the arg, not the team