Theory

Theory	1

Dispositionality Bad	2

Dispositionality Good	3

Dispositionality 1AR	4

Dispositionality 2NR	5

Consult CP’s Bad	6

Consult CP’s Good	7

Consultation Perms Good	8

Condition CP Bad	9

Condition CP Good	10

Intrinsic Perms Bad	11

Intrinsic Perms Good	12

Intrinsic Perms 1AR	13

Consult Perms Bad	14

Consult Perms Good	15

Agent CPs Bad	16

Agent CPs Good	17

Agent CPs 1AR	18

Agent CPs 2NR	19

2AC International Fiat Bad	20

2NC International Fiat Good	21

1AR International Fiat Bad	22

2NR International Fiat Good	23

2AC PICS Bad	24

2NC PICS Good	25

1AR PICs Bad	26

2NR PICs Good	27

2AC Conditionality Bad	28

2NC Conditionality Good	29

1AR Conditionality Bad	30

2NR Conditionality Good	31

Dispositionality Bad

Dispositionality is a voting issue

Education – the Neg only goes for what has the least coverage and analysis, preventing in-depth discussion

Strategic Skew – dispositionality undermines Aff ability to generate offense and skews time allocation undermining Aff ability to hedge against the block

Advocacy – dispositionality prevents the Neg from learning consistent advocacies and encourages argument irresponsibility

No Offense – pre-tournament research capture all Neg offense and straight turn option is hollow, since the Neg has the block and permutations are essential Aff defense

Dispositionality Good

Dispositionality is not a voting issue (Do not read all of these, pick and choose)

Balance – Dispositionality balances against strategic advantage of case selection, AFF conditionality in the form of permutations, and many CPs would never be run without it

Policy Analysis – Hypothetical situations are critical to the method of questioning flexible policies and they are best for debating

Decision-Making – The status quo is a critical part of considering whether policies should be enacted - not having the option of the status quo would constitute an extreme departure from real decision making

Critical thinking – it forces argument thought on the fly and understanding argument interactions

Multiple perms worse – makes the Aff a moving target, creates strategy skew, and not reciprocal to our one CP

No strategic skew – CPs require time investment, arguments spillover to other issues even after the CP is gone, and time skews are inevitable

Doesn’t reduce depth of education – teams inevitably go for arguments with little coverage, justifies only runnig disads, and throwaway arguments are inevitable

No impact to multiple worlds – permutations create the same problem and complexity isn’t applied to critiques

No potential for abuse – clear limits such as only one CP check and the status quo is a logical, limited, and consistent fallback

Doesn’t justify AFF conditionality – permutations are a reciprocal form of conditionality, the plan must be the focus in order to ensure debate, and case selection is enough advantage

Doesn’t force the AFF to debate themselves – they only have to defend the plan, straight turn checks, and its counterintuitive to let them vacate defense against the status quo

Perms aren’t just tests – judges vote for them, this standard justifies intrinsicness, and the CP is also just a “test” of plan’s necessity

Doesn’t hurt advocacy – giving limited flexibility compared to the AFF produces the best balance of policy analysis and we are always rejecting the plan

No argument irresponsibility – straight turn checks, natural disincentives ensure no repugnant arguments, and other arguments don’t entail same responsibility

Reject the argument, not the team

Dispositionality 1AR

Abusive to the affirmative - This limits our options to make strategic concessions, stifling critical thinking and forcing answering of negative positions in a vacuum. This destroys 2AC time allocation and strategy- Voter for fairness and education

Conditionality solves all of their offense - It gives negative flexibility but preserves critical 2AC strategy ground.

In round abuse is a poor standard - The threshold is impossible to measure- competing interpretations is the only objective way to evaluate theory.

Fairness outweighs education - Unfair debates destroy the possibility of in depth discussion.

Even if they win education outweighs - If they win that education outweighs, we’ll still capture that- Conditionality kills education, encourages easy shallow debates by the negative.

Dispositionality 2NR

Critical thinking – it forces argument thought on the fly and understanding argument interactions

No strategic skew – CPs require time investment, arguments spillover to other issues even after the CP is gone, and time skews are inevitable

Education – Still learns about other viable policy alternatives, doesn’t detract from topic specific education. Additionally, teams always run short time suck disads, and random Ts – bad arguments are inevitable part of debate

Perms check – perms answer all this back and they aren’t just tests of competition, they are separate advocacies since judges vote for them. Perms give the affirmative offense to check back on the CP. Perms also create multiple worlds which is equivalent to running multiple dispositional CPs

Reject the argument, not the team – even if the CP is abusive, it’s a reason to reject the argument, not vote down the team, we also lost time running this CP and answering theory.

Consult CP’s Bad

Consultation CPs are abusive – they are a voting issue

Consult kills education –

It’s infinitely regressive – we can’t predict all the different combinations of actors and policy changes to the plan which shift the debate from the resolution to irrelevant net benefits and insignificant policy differences.

No Literature Base – there is so literature on other countries veto-ing US action. This kills education and clash as the aff cannot research for answers because they simply don’t exist.

Consult Kills Ground –

Time and strat skew – Steals all offense from the 1AC by simply proposing that we listen to some small country’s opinion.

CP is Plan Plus: The counterplan is plan plus, it just specifies an additional portion of the plan that the aff did not.

Voting issue – for ground, education, and fairness

Consult CP’s Good

Counter Interpretation – Only allow consultation with countries that the US has a formal consultation framework with – solves all offense

Ensures predictable literature base

Education – This year’s topic is international, therefore we should learn about the other actors out there that have interests in what action the US takes. Many countries also have military troops in the 6 areas of the topic. Best for topic specific education

Lit Checks – Checks squirrely “consult some small country” counterplans not central to the topic. There are only a few reasonably grounded counterplans which they should have prepared for which checks back all their ground and education standards.

Real World – Consult is crucial to understanding the details of international policy issues, relations, and how the United States frames multilateral issues which is a better internal link into education because it’s the point of debate.

Test of Desirability – consulting with another agent is crucial to testing whether the aff is the truly the best course of action,

Neg Flex – consult counterplans are key to negative flexibility and checking back unpredictable affirmatives. This is key to limit out tiny affirmatives – there are a lot of different troops on various missions in various divisions. It’s not realistic to expect the neg to research them all. Generic CP ground is key to check back against those affs

Err Neg on Theory - aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.

Reject the argument not the team

Consultation Perms Good

Proves the plan is good - The whole plan is in the permutation. Adding an enabling mechanism just proves that the CP doesn't compete.

Reciprocal - Neg tests the intrinsicness of advantages with counterplans, and it's crucial to affirmative ground that we can reciprocally check the intrinsicness of disadvantages and counterplans.

Education - It's a better form of policymaking to examine the intrinsic merits of the plan--it checks generic and irrelevant arguments, and boosts specific topic education.

Neg Ground - You just need to run a counterplan that has a net benefit that can't be avoided through additional policy action. Specific net benefits are better for neg ground--you just have to put in some research time and write one.

Not a voter – Reject the argument, not the team

Condition CP Bad

Kills Education

It’s infinitely regressive – we can’t predict all the different conditions the plan can place on other countries to solve. Shifts the debate away from the resolution to unpredictable small net benefits and small policy differences

Bad for ground -

Time and strat skew – Steals all offense from the 1NC by proposing some condition before we can enact the plan

Steals all Aff Offense – Conditions make it impossible to read offensive arguments because they are unpredictable which means we can’t find answers and the neg will always win

CP is Plan Plus: The counterplan is plan plus, it just specifies an additional portion of the plan that the aff did not.

Err aff on theory – Neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.

Voting issue – for ground, education, and fairness

Condition CP Good

Counter Interpretation – The negative can only use conditions written in the literature

Lit Checks – Checks squirrely conditions counterplans not central to the topic. There are only a few reasonably grounded counterplans which they should have prepare for which checks back all their ground and education standards.

Real World – The US rarely, if ever, does some action without some conditions to their action. Conditions are crucial to understanding the details of international policy issues, relations, and how the United States frames multilateral issues which is a better internal link into education because it’s the point of debate.

Neg Flex – condition counterplans are key to negative flexibility and checking back unpredictable affirmatives.

Err Neg on Theory - aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.

Reject the argument not the team

Intrinsic Perms Bad

Kills Education – shifts the debate away from the plan and to extra topical portions

Ground

Moving Target - Makes the aff a moving target because the perm can always just add things to their perms.

Not predictable – they can just add anything to the plan they won’t and it removes the debate away from the resolution

Kills DAs – they could just add an intrinisic perm to any disad to solve the impacts.

Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.

Voter for fairness, ground, and education.

Intrinsic Perms Good

Best Policy - As a judge you pretend to be the USFG--the perm is a logical policy--the logic of policymaking is the only alternative to wholly arbitrary theory that kills predictable ground.

Reciprocal - Neg tests the intrinsicness of advantages with counterplans, and it's crucial to affirmative ground that we can reciprocally check the intrinsicness of disadvantages and counterplans.

Doesn’t Hurt Neg Ground - You just need to run a counterplan that has a net benefit that can't be avoided through additional policy action. Specific net benefits are better for neg ground--you just have to put in some research time and write one.

Not a Voting Issue - If they win the theory then the perm goes away, but the plan is still be justified. There's no abuse if you reject the perm.

Intrinsic Perms 1AR

Education – debate becomes about extra-topical planks, functionally moots the 1AR which is key to topic specific education

Unpredictable – Shifts the debate away from the resolution and the affirmative and can add portions to the aff to gain additional advantages - steals negative ground and cannot be predicted since it is not in the literature

Steals Negative Ground – Takes negative arguments and adds them to the plan as a plank, steals all negative ground which kills debate

Kills all DAs – Intrinsic perms prevent all DAs because they can add them to the plan and solve back the impacts

Voter for fairness, ground, and education.

Consult Perms Bad

Consult perms are severance – they sever out of the immediacy of the plan

Severance bad

Strategy Skew- These perms change the affirmative and makes the aff a moving target, kill the negative’s ability to form cohesive strategy to develop clash in the debate

Ground- CP is negative ground, the perm can steal the entirety of the negative’s CP, which is key to neg ground. It allows us to test the desirability of unilateral actions. Hurts competitive equity and moots the resolution by incorporating multilateral action

Kills all DAs – Allows the affirmative to sever all DA /NB links read in the 1NC. Moots the entire negative speech

Severs out of resolved

Consult severs out of the term resolved in the resolution

Resolved means set

The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised), 2005

resolved adjective

[predic., with infinitive] firmly determined to do something

Consult severs out of the certainty of plan passage. If the consulted country says no, the plan will not pass. Resolved indicates one must be firmly determined.

This is an independent voter to vote Neg – moots the resolution

Consult Perms are Intrinsic – Intrinsicness bad

Kills Education – shifts the debate away from the plan and to extra topical portions

Ground

Moving Target - Makes the aff a moving target because the perm can always just add things to their perms.

Not predictable – they can just add anything to the plan they won’t and it removes the debate away from the resolution

Kills DAs – they could just add an intrinisic perm to any disad to solve the impacts.

Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.

Voter for fairness, ground, and education.

Consult Perms Good

Perm Checks Artificial Competition

Consult isn’t real world – There is no empirical evidence for other countries vetoing US action and the US complying. The negative is forcing the CP to be competitive

Fiat abuse – The neg doesn’t reserve the right to implement the CP. It reduces all policy discussion to countries saying yes or no to the plan rather than the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal

Destroys Aff Ground – The CP should be affirmative ground, it forces the aff to debate against itself. And artificial competition forces counterplans to be competitive without a solvency advocate or realistic implications

Not severance

Perm does the entirety of the plan, doesn’t sever out of any action in the 1AC

CP IS PLAN PLUS – justifies the perm. The CP just specifies an additional portion of the plan that wasn’t specified in the 1AC

Even if they win we’re severance, severance is good

PROVES THE PLAN IS A GOOD IDEA - The portion of the plan in the permutation is justified, which means that there is a warrant to vote affirmative.

RECIPROCAL- Counterplans serve to alter the baseline neg advocacy. We should be able to amend the plan, the aff advocacy, the same way.

NO ABUSE - We made the argument in a constructive, 2AC, so they had time to respond in the debate. It's not our fault they wasted time making theory args instead of substantive responses.

TOPICALITY CHECKS ALL ABUSE - Aff should be allowed to alter the plan as much as they want in 2AC as long as it's still topical. If it's topical, then neg should be prepared to debate it, and they have the block to answer it.

NO VOTING ISSUE - If they win the theory then the perm goes away, but the plan may still be justified. There's no specific abuse and you shouldn't vote on potential abuse because if the abuse happened in the future, specific args would always check.

Agent CPs Bad

Strategy Skew – Agent counterplans make the 1AC functionally irrelevant and steal all aff ground

Forces the Aff to argue against itself- Discussions of the agent force us to argue against our own actor and it’s not key to neg ground - arguments not related to the agent can still be used against us.

Infinitely Regressive - There are an infinite number of agents to counterplan, it’s impossible to predict and creates an unfair research burden for the aff

Kills topic specific debate- Generic debates about the agent prevent more in-depth education on the crux of the topic.

Education- Since the counterplans apply to every topic, they hurt year-to-year diversity and deter debaters from case debates.

Voter for education and fairness

Agent CPs Good

Competition checks- The fact that the CP is net beneficial proves that the agent of enactment is an important part of the plan.

Interpretation - Our interpretation is that the negative gets to fiat one actor based in the literature. This solves all of their offense about education, predictable limits, and infinite regression.

Best policy option- Many times the best policy option comes from a different area of the government enacting plan. Finding best policy is key to education.

The affirmative is responsible for its agent- The aff has lots of time to think about every part of their plan – they should be responsible for picking the best agent possible.

Agent CPs are key to leveling the playing field- the affirmative is able to claim advantages from whatever agent they choose so the negative should be able to test that agent with a counterplan.

Agent CPs are a key limit on the topic- On a topic this big, agent CPs are necessary to limit the number of viable affirmatives and to give the negative generic strategies to combat the large number of cases.

Literature Checks – The literature exists and the counterplan exists to check if the aff is preferable over all alternatives – part of that is testing the agent

Aff side bias- the aff gets the first and last speech, they choose their aff and have infinite prep time.

Reject the argument not the team

Agent CPs 1AR

Infinitely Regressive- Literature exists for actions by TONS of executive agencies, bureaus, departments, etc.

Moots 1AC- It moots nearly all of the 1AC by making only the agent relevant- time constraints make this 1AC skew fatal to the affirmative.

Argument Diversity- Generic counterplans discourage engagement of specific cases. This is uniquely bad because they can run this on every topic so there is no year-to-year diversity.

No impact to best policy option- Debates must be fair. This is a game, if the game is rigged, no one will play.

Reject the team, not the argument

Agent CPs 2NR

Interpretation - One fiat based actor anchored in the literature solves back all the offense on the affirmative. Ensures predictability and neg flex without stealing aff offense

Checks Aff Side Bias - Agent counterplans are the only viable way for the negative to check back aff side bias, they get infinite prep time to prepare answers to counterplans, as well as the 1st and last speech to make extrapolations. We need agent counterplans to check against those factors.

Don’t Vote On Potential Abuse- They need to prove that we specifically did something wrong because there is always the possibility that someone will abuse a good strategy. Potential abuse makes an impossible-to-measure threshold and guarantees we’ll always lose.

Best policy option subsumes 100% of their offense- Debate is a game of education and the judge is to be educated to find the best solution to a problem. Agent CP is an integral part of that discussion and critical to ensuring that debate is meaningful.

Reject the argument, not the team

2AC International Fiat Bad

1. International fiat is bad—voting issue.

2. Research Burden—there's 193 countries—impossible to prep for all of them.

3. Object fiat—It ruins debate, we shouldn't get other countries involved, we can talk about them, but shouldn't force them to act.

4. No logical policymaker can choose between two different countries acting—destroys eduction.

5. Reject the team, not the argument.

2NC International Fiat Good

1. Education—We get to learn about the rest of the world, just caring about the US ruins our education, we can't become well-rounded people.

2. Evidence Check—we can only fiat actors that we have evidence for.

3. Fiat Should Be Reciprocal—we can only fiat one government.

4. The aff must prove that the US SHOULD do the plan if we can prove that another actor SHOULD instead vote neg.

5. Reject the argument, not the team.

1AR International Fiat Bad

1. Fairness—Unfair, aff will lose all arguments research burden makes prep impossible.

2. Education—What is learned in debate should relate to the real world.

3. Not Real World—Countries won't do this in real life, they can't force other countries to do what they don't want, we shouldn't try to do this in debate.

4. Fiat Should Be Reciprocal—Multi-actor fiat bad, international fiat bad.

5. Reject the team, not the argument.

2NR International Fiat Good

1. Evidence Check—we only fiat actors we have evidence for, this lowers the aff's research burden.

2. Fiat Should Be Reciprocal—We only use one actor.

3. Fairness—Fair, there are a lot affs that the neg must prepare for, the aff picked their strat and should be able to research and defend against what the neg may say.

4. Education—International fiat is real world, the UN has to make decisions like this all the time, we get to learn about the rest of the world.

5. Not Real World—Countries can and WILL try to force other countries to do what they don't want, it's real life.

6. Reject the argument, not the team.

2AC PICS Bad

1. Predictable Limits—There's an unpredictable amount of the neg to pic out of, creating an impossible research burden for the aff. When the aff can't prepare, it makes the debate one sided and anti educational.

2. Time Skew—The neg makes the 1AC useless because they moot the entire 8 minutes of the 1AC by doing the plan and picking out of one specific entity.

3. Voter for fairness and education.

2NC PICS Good

1. PICs build the depth of debate—PICs require more research because the neg needs more specific evidence to know how to answer the aff. The aff needs more specific evidence to know what to expect from the neg’s PIC. Both sides gain research skill.

2. The aff picked their 1AC, they should be able to defend it.

3. Perms are reciprocal. If the aff can do the plan and part of the counterplan, the negs hould be able to do the counterplan and part of the plan.

4. Education—PICs make research more focused because it is difficult to find good cards.

5. Reject the argument, not the team.

1AR PICs Bad

1. Unpredictable Limits—There are too many possible topics for the aff to research, this makes it impossible to be aff.

2. Time Skew—The neg becomes lazy, because they don't have to come up with an actual plan of their own, they can just base whatever they use off of the aff's speech.

3. Voter for fairness and education.

4. PICs do not build the depth of debate, in fact, they lower the education of debate because the neg doesn't really learn anything.

2NR PICs Good

1. PICS build the depth of debate—Negs need specific evidence to asnwer the aff, the aff needs to fully prepare their affirmative to know how to answer the neg.

2. Perms are reciprocal—The aff can do the plan and part of the counterplan, the neg should be able to do the counterplan and part of the plan.

3. Limits—The limits are predictable, the aff only needs to do more research about their aff.

4. Reject the team, not the argument.

2AC Conditionality Bad

1. Irresponsible Negation—Justifies contradictory arguments, prevents coherent debates, and kills education by shifting out of offense.

2. Time Skew—The neg can just kick any argument we cover, making the 1AR impossible because we have nothing to use in the 1AR in our defense.

3. Reject the team, not the argument.

4. Counter Interpretation—Neg should run all of their Cps and Ks dispositional solves back all of their offense.

5. Reject the argument, not the team.

2NC Conditionality Good

1. Creates Better Debate—the aff always has to pick it's best argument, allowing for more in depth debate.

2. All of the negative arguments are conditional, there's no reason why the CP shouldn't be.

3. Most Real World—policy makers can change their minds at anytime.

4. Perms Check Abuse—It takes two seconds to make a perm, and the neg spends two minutes answering it back.

5. Counter Interpretation—We get one conditional advocacy per round (or however many CP or K you may be reading.)

6. It's Logical—We should never vote to do anything worse than the status quo.

7. Time Skew Inevitable—Fast debaters, and multiple T violations are time skews.

8. Reject the team, not the argument.

1AR Conditionality Bad

1. Irresponsible Negation—Kills education by shifting out of offense, it ruins debate, and becomes about conceded arguments, not arguments kept in round, it allows them to say economic collapse good, and economic collapse bad.

2. Time Skew—The 1AR is at a time disadvantage, kicking out of advocacy makes the 1AR even more difficult because we have no offense, kills education.

3. Reject the team, not the argument—rejecting the argument gives them what they want.

4. Extend our counter interpretation—Neg should run their advocacy dispositional solves back their offense by still giving them a way out, but preserving the aff's offense.

5. Perms Check Abuse—Perms are just another arguments, don't punish us for creating competitive debate.

6. Makes Debate Worse—conditionality destroys education, it's no longer about quality of argumentation but the number of arguments.

7. Reject the argument, not the team.

2NR Conditionality Good

1. Creates Better Debate—Aff picks it's best arguments to run because of the time constraint, leads to better debate

2. All negative arguments are conditional, the counterplan included

3. Real World—Policy makers can change their minds

4. Perms Check Abuse—It takes two seconds to make a perm, and two minutes to answer it

5. Extend Our Counter Interpretation—One conditional advocacy per round is fair

6. It's Logical—You can vote to do nothing

7. Time Skew—Fast debaters can go through a lot of arguments, all which could be considered T violations

8. Irresponsible Negation—if we actually doubled turned oursekves, the aff only needs to concede half of our arguments so they can win the round

9. Makes Debate Better—Good debaters have well-developed arguments, so it's still about quality, not quantity.

10. Reject the team, not the argument.

Theory File	Dartmouth 2K9	1

1

Last printed 9/4/2009 7:00:00 PM

Control + 1 – Block Headings

Trevor Chenoweth

2010-07-07

Emi

Microsoft