Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 91

Theory 1/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Theory
Theory......................................................................................................................................................................1 **STATUS/MULTIPLE WORLDS**.......................................................................................................................3 Multiple Worlds Good.............................................................................................................................................4 Multiple Worlds Bad................................................................................................................................................5 Perf Cons Good........................................................................................................................................................6 Perf Cons Bad...........................................................................................................................................................7 Conditionality Bad 2AC........................................................................................................................................8 A2: Dispositionality=Conditionality.......................................................................................................................9 A2: Perms Good....................................................................................................................................................10 A2: Ground............................................................................................................................................................11 A2: Best Policy Option...........................................................................................................................................12 A2: Reject the arg not team...................................................................................................................................13 A2: Argument Diversity.........................................................................................................................................14 A2: Strategic Thinking...........................................................................................................................................15 A2: Forces Best 2AC Args......................................................................................................................................16 A2: Perms Worse...................................................................................................................................................17 A2: All Args Conditional........................................................................................................................................18 Conditionality Good...............................................................................................................................................19 Dispositionality Bad..............................................................................................................................................20 Dispositionality Good.............................................................................................................................................21 **COUNTERPLANS**...........................................................................................................................................22 Textual Competition Good.....................................................................................................................................23 Functional Competition Good...............................................................................................................................24 International Fiat Bad 2AC................................................................................................................................25 A2: Tests US action................................................................................................................................................26 A2: Its key to ground.............................................................................................................................................27 A2: Perms check....................................................................................................................................................28 International Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................29 Multi-actor Fiat Bad..............................................................................................................................................30 Multi-Actor Fiat Good............................................................................................................................................31 Object Fiat Bad......................................................................................................................................................32 Object Fiat Good....................................................................................................................................................33 Severance Perms Bad.............................................................................................................................................34 Severance Perms Good..........................................................................................................................................35 Intrinsic Perms Bad...............................................................................................................................................36 Intrinsic Perms Good.............................................................................................................................................37 Timeframe Perms Bad...........................................................................................................................................38 Timeframe Perms Good.........................................................................................................................................39 Multiple Perms Bad...............................................................................................................................................40 Multiple Perms Good.............................................................................................................................................41 Advocating Perms Bad...........................................................................................................................................42 Advocating Perms Good........................................................................................................................................43 2NC CPs Bad..........................................................................................................................................................44 2NC CPs Good........................................................................................................................................................45 Topical CPs Bad.....................................................................................................................................................46 Topical CPs Good...................................................................................................................................................47 Agent CPs Bad.......................................................................................................................................................48 Agent CPs Good.....................................................................................................................................................49 Consult CPs Bad.....................................................................................................................................................50 Consult CPs Good...................................................................................................................................................51 Condition CPs Bad.................................................................................................................................................52 Condition CPs Good...............................................................................................................................................53 Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory Michigan 2010 2/91 7WJ CCGJP PICs Bad.................................................................................................................................................................54 PICs Good..............................................................................................................................................................55 Neg Fiat Bad (it totez is)........................................................................................................................................56 Neg Fiat Good........................................................................................................................................................57 **KRITIKS**..........................................................................................................................................................58 Framework 1AC/2AC.........................................................................................................................................60 Floating PIKs Good................................................................................................................................................61 Floating PIKs Bad..................................................................................................................................................62 No Alt Text Good...................................................................................................................................................63 No Alt Text Bad......................................................................................................................................................64 **T**......................................................................................................................................................................65 Extra-T Good.........................................................................................................................................................67 Extra-T Bad............................................................................................................................................................68 FX-T Good.............................................................................................................................................................69 FX-T Bad................................................................................................................................................................70 Vagueness Good.....................................................................................................................................................71 Vagueness Bad.......................................................................................................................................................72 **DISADS**...........................................................................................................................................................73 Intrinsicness (DA)..................................................................................................................................................75 DA Intrinsicness Bad.............................................................................................................................................76 Politics DA Bad.......................................................................................................................................................77 Politics DA Good....................................................................................................................................................78 **IMPACT CALCULUS**......................................................................................................................................79 Education o/w Fairness.........................................................................................................................................80 Fairness o/w Education.........................................................................................................................................81 Topic-Specific Education o/w Critical Thinking...................................................................................................82 Critical Thinking o/w Topic-Specific Education...................................................................................................83 Breadth o/w Depth................................................................................................................................................84 Depth o/w Breadth................................................................................................................................................85 T o/w Theory.........................................................................................................................................................86 Theory o/w T..........................................................................................................................................................87 Potential Abuse is a Voter......................................................................................................................................88 Potential Abuse isnt a Voter.................................................................................................................................89 Err Aff on Theory...................................................................................................................................................90 Err Neg on Theory..................................................................................................................................................91

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 3/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

**STATUS/MULTIPLE WORLDS**

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 4/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Multiple Worlds Good


Multiple worlds are good: 1. Education multiple worlds are key to test the plan from different perspectives and gain a wider breadth of education breadth outweighs depth 2. No abuse 2 warrants: a) Reasonability we wont cross-apply contradictory arguments from one flow to another b) Multiple worldviews check the contradictory arguments exist in fundamentally different worlds meaning they dont exist simultaneously only going for one world in the 2NR solves 3. Negation theory its the negs duty to prove the plan wrong through any means possible multiple worlds are the best way to do this 4. Critical thinking the aff has to choose their best arguments and most strategic arguments 5. Counter-interpretation we get _ test of the affirmatives implementation and _ test of the affirmatives ideology solves back their potential abuse arguments and allows for the best education 6. Not a voting issue at worst you stick us with one world in the 2NR

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 5/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Multiple Worlds Bad


1. Infinitely regressive they can run any number of positions and justify it through multiple worlds 2. Argumentative irresponsibility they can run directly contradictory worlds and not have to think about how they interact or contradict 3. In-depth education we cant learn about the plan because the multiple worlds shift the focus of the debate to the different worlds 4. Not reciprocal were tied to our plan text, they can get rid of the different worlds whenever they want to 5. Counter-interpretation they get tied to one worldview solves their education and critical thinking offense because they have to choose the best world to go for 6. Voting issue for fairness and education

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 6/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Perf Cons Good


1. Interpretation: The negative is allowed to test the plan by any means necessary so long as we dont go for multiple contradictory arguments in the 2NR or cross-apply arguments from one contradictory flow to the other. This checks all abuse because theres no risk we will use their arguments against them. 2. Key to Neg Ground: Negation theory means we just have to prove the plan is a bad idea and they have to defend their plan from every possible scenario. 3. Multiple worlds good: Key to negative ground and flexibility because debate is a search for the best policy option- we should be able to use any means to prove an advocacy is better than the affirmative, which increases strategic thinking. 4. Critical thinking outweighs topic specific education: It encompasses knowledge that can be used outside of the debate round in everyday life. 5. Potential abuse isnt a voting issue: Its impossible to quantify and the ballot doesnt set a precedent- in-round abuse is the fairest way to judge theory. 6. At worst, reject the argumenta and not the team: The punishment paradigm rewards theory over substance, decreasing education.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 7/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Perf Cons Bad


Performative contradictions are voting issues1. Education: Negation theory bad- All their arguments as to why it would be good are predicated on the fact that we can answer each world they create- competitive equity precedes any of their claims. 2. Ground- Destroys switch sides debates becuase everyone will be running both sides of their arguments on the same side of the debate- decreases education beua 3. Fairness: Strat Skew- The neg can kick one argument and cross-apply our answers to the other flow, and forces us to double turn ourselves. And its infinitely regressive- This would justify a team running topicality defining a word in both ways- either way the aff would lose the debate because they cant meet both. 4. 2NR selection doesnt check abuse- The aff will be fighting an uphill battle just to get to ground-zero- any of their 2NR claims are irrelevant because theyll just take the argument we undercover the most and then cross-apply all our answers from the rest.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 8/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Conditionality Bad 2AC


Multiple conditional worlds is a voter a) It destroys rational decision making and argument development they have incentive to go for what we cover the least, theres no in-depth cost-benefit analysis other types of education are inevitable b) kills 2AC strategic thinking and offense justifies contradictory advocacies and conceding turns, we cant make strategic concessions against them c) no in-depth topic specific education they could extend five CPs in the block to spread out the 1AR d) its infinitely regressive they could read 20 CP shells e) dispositionality solves all their offense allows aff to make strategic choices [or other interpretation]

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 9/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Dispositionality=Conditionality
1. 2AC concessions outweigh they can use dispositionality to get out of arguments that allows for better argument development 2. Dispositionality is still better 1) increases in depth education forces neg to research and prep their counterplan and prepare for straight turns 2) block solves they have thirteen minutes to answer any 2AC argument 3) forces argument development they have to develop the CP and we can extend straight turns

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 10/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Perms Good


Dispositionality gets rid of the need for perms a good aff will straight turn their advocacies and wont need to go for a perm

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 11/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Ground
1. Can test the repercussions of the plan with DAs or dispositional counterplans theyre still advocacies 2. Lack of 2AC offense outweighs being unable to turn arguments to contradictory positions means we cant generate offense

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 12/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Best Policy Option


1) Turn its impossible to find that policy when multiple worldviews impair our ability to answer in-depth. Also, this is a bad interpretation for debate justifying the affirmative to advocate non-topical plans and any affirmative permutations and for the negative to advocate multiple conditional worldviews. Also, the best policy option is arbitrary there is no clear standard for what is best. 2) If they think they have the best policy option they shouldnt be afraid to advocate it dispositionally, the only difference between conditionality and dispo is that if theyre conditional they dont have to answer any of our offense to kick it

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 13/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Reject the arg not team


Reject the team their conditional worlds irreparably skewed our 2AC this is the only chance we have to answer new arguments the only way to check this back is to reject the team

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 14/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Argument Diversity


1. Forces best argument diversity they will have to read better CPs, increases argument development which outweighs 2. Infinitely regressive aff can only defend one advocacy, so should the neg its only reciprocal

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 15/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Strategic Thinking


1. Not true even if we have to pick our best arguments, we cant predict what arguments theyll run so we dont know which arguments to keep on the block were in a double bind either we have too many cards on our block and we cant cover their other positions or we dont have enough and they will always win. 2. Our interpretation solves for critical thinking we have to decide what arguments we want to read on the fly if we want the neg to go for their positions solves for all their critical thinking arguments.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 16/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Forces Best 2AC Args


1) Turn - multiple conditional worldviews allow the negative contradictory positions conceding one worldview and using the other against us or linking our offense back only to us if we make turns. The loss of time allocation from the world hampers our strategy and there is still potential abuse. 2) Time skew makes this false if the CP/K is conditional, if we read a disad to it youd just kick it and we wasted 3 minutes of the 2AC on something it took you 10 seconds to kick

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 17/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Perms Worse


1. Turn perms are just tests of competition their advocacies create new worlds that we have to answer, perms dont do that 2. We didn't create the perm, the conditional world forced us into it and conditionality still skews our strategy, also our interpretation solves this back.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 18/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: All Args Conditional


1) Multiple worlds of uniqueness are not comparable to other arguments because they skew the whole focus of the round and fairness supercedes - their interpretation grants the negative ability to advocate multiple conditional worlds, which is not reciprocal to the affirmative's sole unconditional advocacy. 2) Its a lie disads and case arguments are dispositional if theyre straight turn you have to go for it

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 19/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Conditionality Good
1. Counter interpretation we get __ test(s) of the affs implementation and __ test(s) of the affs ideology 2. Conditionality is necessary to test opportunity cost the terminal impact is to create good decision makers, conditionality creates rational decision makers 3. Structural aff bias justifies the aff get first and last speech, they pick the focus of the debate and they get ground from mechanisms 4. Forces 2ac strategic thinking they can tailor straight turns to what the CP cant solve and are forced to pick the best arguments instead of reading down a block as well as thinking on the fly, its unique education 5. Perms are worse they dont have to choose a world until the 2AR, we dont get to compare two stable worlds, rejecting the argument doesnt solve because we already made the decision 6. All arguments are conditional CPs dont take more time to answer or develop than topicality 7. Theory interpretations are illegitimate theyre arbitrary and theyll always choose something that slightly excludes us 8. Reject the argument not the team

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 20/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Dispositionality Bad
Dispositional counterplans are a voting issue. Counter-Interpretation: The neg can choose as many unconditional advocacies as they want, forces better research because the neg has to be prepared the entirety of their counterplan and increases argument development. 1. Education: Its conditionality in disguise- they know the advantages of having us straight turn counterplans like consult, forcing us to not make the best arguments such as theory or permutations. 2. Not real world: Policymakers have to deal with the consequences of proposing an action and cant just back down when questioned about its legitimacy. 3. Ground: Perms key to aff ground- checks back non-competitive and artificially competitive counterplans. Dispositionality encourages teams to straight turn a non-competitive counterplan. 4. Reciprocity: The aff has to stick with one advocacy; so should the neg. They say neg flexibility, but that ruins aff strategy and the educational value of the debate. The neg can just read a bunch of dispositional counterplans and moot 2AC answers by kicking most of them in the block, because aff cant fairly turn all counterplans. Vote aff because on theory because otherwise it becomes a no risk option for the negative.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 21/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Dispositionality Good

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 22/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

**COUNTERPLANS**

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 23/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Textual Competition Good


1. Predictability- The plan is the focus of the debate and is the most stable advocacy in the round. Our interpretation prevents a shift in advocacy because a text is the only concrete way of evaluation throughout the round. Holding a team to their text ensures competitive equity and fair division of ground. 2. Fairness- Only a clear Brightline for evaluation can be considered, which necessitates textual competition over functional competition because functional competition is arbitrary and can be derived from anything. 3. Real World Education- The wording of legislation is a tedious process that requires great thought and consideration, and when comparing two bills the text is what the legislators consider. This forces better plan writing, increasing general education and ground as well as avoiding procedurals and vagueness arguments. 4. Eliminates abusive PICs- Textual competition allows us to filter out abusive counterplans that exclude something not in the plan that the neg can generate offense on. 5. Perm- The counterplan has to be both textually and functionally competitive. Solves back for all their offense on why functional competition is good.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 24/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

1. EducationA. Functional competition is more real world- Congressmen fight over implementation, not how the bill is specifically worded B. Best Policy Option- Tests a wider variety of solutions to the resolution and different ways to solve versus incremental textual differences. 2. Ground- Textual competition encourages vague plan writing in order to limit out textual competition, destroying neg ground. AND its infinitely regressive because any counterplan would be legit- you can just rephrase the plan text and it would compete the same way.

Functional Competition Good

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 25/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

International Fiat Bad 2AC


Our interpretation is that (pick one!) 1. they can fiat a country, not a group of countries (if they fiat a group with the US then they are not testing whether or not US action is key) 2. they can fiat organizations as long as they do not include the US 1. Nonreciprocal and delimits a) There are 194 countries and over 55,000 types of inter-governmental organizations, we cant predict which theyll pick. Having the same actor checks. b) Lit doesnt check limit explosion their net benefits are arbitrary, running them as disads solves any of their offense. 2. Theres no useful comparative evidence a) Everything is solved for by net fiat b) Any lit out there is still bad aff ground 3. No predictable education a) There isnt any one person situated to decide an international decision. b) No productive model of education debate is more effective with one actor because it guarantees clash and resolution focus.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 26/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Tests US action


1. its not a true test; theres no comparative evidence between the US and _____ 2. Disads check they test if US action is desirable DAs alone can test the US 3. Every resolution tests US action, we should test the substance of US action 4. Its a bad test its utopian and theres no actual literature 5. Specific counterplans solve generic evidence on the US doesnt apply

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 27/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Its key to ground


1. BS theres always other ground 2. Our interp limits bad ground theyre artificially inflating the value of the DA

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 28/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

A2: Perms check


1. Perms dont check they cant solve sketchy net benefits Shady net benefits cant be solved 2. Perms are meaningless because smart negs will always generate competition through other means

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 29/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

International Fiat Good

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 30/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Multi-actor Fiat Bad


Multi-actor fiat is a voting issue a) infinitely regressive infinite number of combinations the neg could fiat justifies everyone does the plan CP which destroys rational decision amking anything is a good idea if they can fiat out b) kills reciprocity aff gets one actor, so should neg. reciprocity is the baseline for switchside debate c) it fiats a solvency burden we have one actor, its unfair that they can fiat their actors work together when we cant d) its artificially competitive they couldnt prove that a single actor could do their plan so they had to inflate it e) its unresearchable there is no literature on why all their actors could cooperate single actor fiat solves their offense theres still plenty of ground

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 31/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Multi-Actor Fiat Good


Neg gets multi-actor fiat for one counterplan this is best for debate a) prevents multiple counterplans increases predictability and forces the neg to go for either the counterplan or the status quo b) tests germaneness we force the aff to have advantages with a defense of the action and their agent of action, its unique education c) It gives them more ground every actor is a new possible disad d) Every plan has multiple actors they use the federal government which is made up of thousands of people, were no worse than that its completely reciprocal e) More real-world agents cooperate to achieve goals, no project is done by one person. That proves its researchable and realist Reject the argument not the team

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 32/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Object Fiat Bad


Object fiat is a voting issue 1. infinitely regressive the negative could literally fiat solvency, this destroys rational decision making 2. utopian fiat bad utopian fiat bad no literature defends their ideas, real world education is the most unique 3. kills argument development it moots the 1AC, they can solve the entire case within one plan text and theres no opportunity cost, they cant prove any forced choice between the plan and the counterplan

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 33/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Object Fiat Good


No link the counterplan isnt object fiat [explain]. Even if object fiat is generally bad, our specific counterplan is good Interpretation neg can only fiat ___. This solves their infinite regression and utopian fiat claims. Predictable their inherency arguments are arguments against the CP Key to testing the resolution forces the aff to prove that the US is key and whether ___ is necessary or sufficient. The aff can weigh their aff and read add-ons and testing the resolution is key to education, we need to challenge the solvency mechanism of the aff. Increases aff ground they can read disads to unilateral action. Best policy option should be the framework for debate the CP is most real world, its key education. Key to neg flex we should have any option to test the aff Not a voting issue, reject the argument not the team.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 34/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Severance Perms Bad


Severance perms are a voter a) moving target they can evade all of our links, this destroys cost-benefit analysis and argument development b) justifies aff conditionality its the only stable advocacy in round, letting them change their advocacy destroys debate c) increases aff side bias they can just test their way out of the link and not answer any arguments, its like tripling their 2AC time d) proves competition only way they could win a no link is by getting rid of the plan

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 35/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Severance Perms Good


Perm isnt severance [insert reason here] Rational decision making policy makers wouldnt reject for a small flaw, real world decision making is the key link into education Its a test of competition we dont sever our advocacy, just checking mutual exclusivity Reject the argument, not the team

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 36/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Intrinsic Perms Bad


Intrinsic perms are a voter a) moving target they can always add something to get out of the link, this destroys argument development b) justifies aff conditional the perm advocates the plan and other action that the 1AC does not endorse the aff is the only stable advocacy in the round, changing it ruins debate c) infinite regressive there are an infinite amount of things the perm could add to make it net beneficial, that also destroys neg ground, well always be stuck with the status quo Proves competition the only way they can win a no link is by adding something

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 37/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Intrinsic Perms Good


The perms not intrinsic ___. Even if it is, intrinsicness is better for debate a) encourages case focus if the negative cant always get competition theyll have to research more, research is the key internal link to education b) most realistic actual policymaking would allow for additions to the plan, defaulting to the best policy option is the best framework for debate c) gives the neg more ground they generate links off any intrinsic portion of the perm d) reciprocity if they can add planks onto the counterplan then so should the affirmative Reject the argument, not the team

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 38/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Timeframe Perms Bad


Timeframe perms are a voting issue: a) Ground they can always claim to do something whenever making it impossible to compete b) Intrinsic adds sequence to the plan to the 1ac which justifies unpredictable offense mooting the 1NC c) Severance they sever out of the immediacy of their aff destroying our ability to garner offense to their framework making it conditional impacted above.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 39/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Timeframe Perms Good


1. Not severance or intrinsic should just means probability or expectation (American Heritage Dictionary) were doing the plan no matter what, were just not doing it immediately 2. Theres a sequencing element to every permutation, even if its just simultaneous sequencing their interpretation means we cant perm any counterplan 3. Counter-interpretation we only get one timeframe perm solves back infinite regression 4. No ground loss well defend that the world when we do the plan/cp/alt is the same as the world when we do the alt/cp/plan means they still get links to that world 5. Not a voting issue at worst reject the perm and not the team

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 40/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Multiple Perms Bad


Multiple perms are a voter a) its not reciprocal the neg only advocates either the status quo or a counterplan, and the aff gets the plan and the perm. Multiple perms unbalances the debate, making it unfair. They could functionally have 20 distinct advocacies. b) time skew the aff can read dozens of perms in a minute, we have to treat each as a new world, that forces time tradeoff and destroys switch side debate c) moving target they can just go for the perm that had least coverage, and our answers to the perm might contradict, losing all good neg ground the damage has already been done if they kick the perms now then that proves the abuse

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 41/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Multiple Perms Good


1. counter interpretation aff can run multiple perms but can only go for 1 in the 2AR, this is best for debate a) best test of opportunity cost their argument is like saying we can only make no link on a disad, we should test the germaneness of the CP in any way possible b) forces block strategic thinking answering multiple perms teaches better efficiency, this is unique education 2. no abuse they have 13 minutes to answer the perms 3. forces better cp/alt texts vague texts force us to make multiple perms, we should go for the best policy option possible 4. just tests of competition it doesnt change our advocacy, just testing the nature of the counterplan And its reciprocal they can run as many strategic options against us as they want, we should be able to do the same. Reject the argument not the team.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 42/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Advocating Perms Bad


Advocating perms is a voting issue A) moving target they no longer advocate their plan, but plan plus. That lets them shift out of our arguments and destroys neg ground. B) perms are a link test they just test competition of the counterplan, its a hypothetical not a true alternative, theres no theoretical justification for letting them have a new advocacy C) strat skew they allow perms to be either hypothetical test or a new policy option, we dont know which of those theyll go for until the 2AR, that destroys block effectiveness and unbalances the round Letting them kick the perms now prove abuse

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 43/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Advocating Perms Good


Best policy option the point is to find the best solution to a problem. Taking the negs ideas and combining them with the aff best accomplishes this. They should be prepared they have infinite prep for the counterplan, they should be ready for any perm Encourages argumentative responsibility without advocating perms theres no strategic risk to the CP, especially if they kick it. Forcing them to answer it increases critical thinking skills. Its reciprocal they get a new policy option besides the status quo. The aff should get the perm in addition to the plan. Conditionality justifies any reason they give thats its bad to advocate perms is a reason why its bad to ditch advocacies. The negative is equally abusive. Reject the argument, not the team.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 44/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

2NC CPs Bad


2NC Counterplans are Voting Issues: 1. Education- In depth examination of disads is impossible if they can just counterplan to fiat out of our answers- it discourages in-depth research. 2. FairnessA. Time skew- The 1AR is already the most tiem pressured speech and counterplans take more time to answer than other arguments, they at least have to run them dispositionally so we have a way out of the counterplan. B. Strategy Skew- 2NC counterplans are unique from other argumetns because they change the world of uniqueness- we cannot make our best turns in the 2AC because they can counterplan out of them, incentivizing under-developed debates 3. Reciprocity- 2NC counterplans justify new 2AC and 1AR plan planks, destroying the possibility for fair or educational debate.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 45/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

2NC CPs Good


1. Counter-Interpretation: 2NC CPs in response to new 2AC arguments are legitimate. 1. Education- 2NC counterplans force the 1AR to use specific, critical, and in-round thinking, making the debate more educational. They increase the breadth of argumentation, allowing coverage on a wider variety of policy solutions to the alternative. 2. Ground- 2NC CPs are reciprocal with 2AC add-ons, and it was a constructive speech, meaning we can still introduce new arguments. 3. Reject the argument not the team.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 46/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Topical CPs Bad


Topical counterplans are voting issues. 1. No ground justification- Plenty of non-topical actions are possible and so there is no justification why the counterplan has to be topical they violate the neg burden of rejoinder 2. Vote aff theyre proving that the resolution is a good idea which means you affirm it by voting aff 3. Non-topical counterplans are better for debate and solve all neg offense on theory.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 47/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Topical CPs Good


1. Counter-Interpretation: The negative should be able to run all topical counterplans except those classified as plan-plan under this resolution- the Brightline exists and we should not have to defend both. -OR1. Counter-Interpretation: Neg gets one topical counterplan as a rational test of opportunity cost- the plan mechanism necessarily precludes the ability to use a different topic mechanism 2. Ground- Their interpretation would eliminate agent counterplans just because they use the USFG as an actor, but agent counterplans are good. Theyre key to topic specific education and the division of authority between Congress, the Courts, and the President on foreign policy issues and its more real world. 3. Education- Best policy option and neg flex- Debate is about the search for the best policy option, solving for all of their fairness and education arguments because if the counterplan is better than the plan then all of their arguments are arbitrary and dont apply 4. Predictability- Topical counterplans are ground in the literature and are more predictable than half the negative strategies elsewhere

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 48/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Agent CPs Bad


Agent counterplans are voting issues1. Education- Education on implementation is trading off with education about the topic itself. We always have the opportunity to learn about the processes of policies, but we have a limited time to learn about this topic, so we need to focus on the resolution. 2. Infinitely regressive- There are an infinite number of actors that the neg can choose to do the plan and still attempt to gain offense, which is unpredictable. 3. Ground- Agent counterplans force the aff to debate against themselves- a solvency deficit to the counterplan is a solvency deficit to the plan, which is unfair.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 49/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Agent CPs Good


Agent counterplans arent voting issuesCounter-Interpretation: Agent CPs with solvency advocates are legitimate. Checks back all of their offense and lit checks abuse- if they had done appropriate research on their aff they would have found literature about our counterplan. 1. Ground- Agent counterplan makes up the core of the negatives strategic options on this topic and not getting them is unfair. Opening up the topic of discussion to the implementation of policies increases aff ground by allowing them disadvantages to using certain actors. 2. Education about the implementation of foreign policies outweighs topic specific education because its useful knowledge that applies to real world policymaking. AND we increase topic education because of our specific links to a foreign policy topic and our focus on inter-relations between Congress and the president. 3. Predictable- Agent CPs are run every round and our actor has a solvency advocate. 4. They still have offense against DAs because they can make solvency deficit arguments. They should have to defend all of their plan-text, so dont give their offense any weight. 4. Not a voter- at worst reject the argument and not the team.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 50/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Consult CPs Bad


Consult Counterplans are voting issuesInterpretation: The negative is allowed to run their external net benefit as a disadvantage to the case without garnering all the affs advantages. This solves back for all of their education and ground claims. 1. Education- We are forced to scrape together answers for consult CPs because there are 193 countries and 500,000 TYPES of international organizations that can be consulted, which is infinitely regressive and doesnt allow for any in-depth education on a particular issue. 2. Ground- They can steal all offense from the 1NC by proposing that we listen t a random countrys opinion, and theyre not textually competitive, which is the only non-arbitrary default on counterplan debates. AND the counterplan is plan plus which justifies aff intrinsic and timeframe perms. 3. Predictability- There are an infinite number of actors that can be consulted and the outcome of the counterplan is never a stable advocacy so the aff can never generate offense. 4. Reciprocity- They rely on timeframe fiat but then will say that our timeframe perms are illegitimate- the theoretical objections to the neg justifies the following: Perm do the counterplan and then do the plan. This solves for the net benefit if they say yes, and if they say no, the aff turns into a DA for the CP. 5. PICs that do the entirety of the plan are illegitimate- We cant garner the 1AC as offense which uniquely skews the debate. Justifies the permutation: Perm- do the CP.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 51/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Consult CPs Good


1. Counter-Interpretation- Consult counterplans with a solvency advocate specific to the topic are legitimate. Solves back any infinitely regressive and unpredictability claims because if they had done research on the entirety of their aff they would have found literature on this counterplan. 2. EducationA. Consultation CPs check the desirability of the process by which a plan is passed and increase education about international political systems and relations between countries. B. Debate is about finding the best policy option- its not a question of whether the aff is good but whether or not its the BEST option available. If consulting before the plan is passed would create advantageous results, you should prefer the counterplan. 3. Ground- These counterplans force the aff to defend the immediate enactment of the plan which is key to the uniqueness of both aff and neg arguments. 4. Fairness- Theyre key to beat small affirmatives that dont link to anything- especially problematic on this topic because of the diversity of small roles or missions affs.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 52/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Condition CPs Bad


Condition Counterplans are voting issues1. Counter Interpretation: They can run conditions as disads to the plan, which solves back all of their offense. 2. GroundA. PICs that do the entirety of the plan are illegitimate- we cannot garner any of the 1AC as offense which uniquely skews the debate and justifies the permutation: perm- do the counterplan. B. Cant generate offense- Anything the plan does, the counterplan can solve for too. C. Explodes the research burden- There are an infinite number of conditions the negative can put on the aff plan, which is infinitely regressive and gives the neg way too much ground. 3. EducationA. Destroys plan focus- Focuses the debate on the condition on which the plan is passed rather than the plan itself. B. Not competitive- the counterplan is plan-plus by adding the condition of something to the implementation of the plan and justifies the permutation: perm- do the plan and condition on another issue of equal importance.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 53/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Condition CPs Good


1. Counter-Interpretation: Condition CPs with solvency advocates are legitimate. Lit checks back all their offense, ensuring predictability and aff ground through solvency deficits and disads to the net benefit dealing with other agents. 2. Education: A. Encourages both teams to evaluate all risks of plan passage, and its key to test the word resolved and the unconditional nature of the plan. B. Debate is about finding the best policy option- its not a question of whether the aff is good but whether or not its the BEST option available. If conditioning before the plan is passed would create advantageous results, you should prefer the counterplan. 3. Ground: Forces the aff to advocate immediacy maintains the credibility of uniqueness for disadvantages and advantages for both sides of the debate, and solvency advocates check back for any possible aff ground lost. Increases neg ground because it maintains neg flex, hedges against big affirmatives, and checks squirrelly affs.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 54/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

PICs Bad
PICs are voting issues. Interpretation: Neg can run the net benefit to the PIC as a disadvantage, and they dont have to steal aff ground. This still points out the flaws of the plan without mooting 8 minutes of the 1AC. 1. Education A. Resolutional shift- Concentrates the debate on insignificant aspects of the counterplan that have nothing to do with the topic, but we have a limited amount of time to debate the resolution and now is the only time we can learn about this resolution. B. Encourages vague plan writing to avoid PICs, which decreases the development of the debate since it takes several speeches to actually know what the aff plan does. 2. Ground- Explodes neg ground because there are an infinite number of parts of the plan text that can be PIC-ed out of. For example, they could say to do the plan except spend one penny less. 3. Fairness- They kill the debate by forcing us to debate ourselves- they adopt all components of the plan except for what links to a disad, meaning they can just kick the counterplan and crossapply our arguments against us, which steals aff ground.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 55/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

PICs Good
Counter-Interpretation: The negative should get one PIC with a solvency advocate- this is both fair and education because it gives the neg flexibility and still maintains a predictable advocacy. 1. Ground- The aff should be prepared to defend the entire plan text because PICs prove that the plan is a bad idea in at least one instance, and PICs are key to checking extra topical plan planks. 2. EducationA. Forces better plan writing and critical thinking skills because unless the aff doesnt write their plan text strategically, we cant PIC out of any part of that text. B. Forces the debate to be about the specifics of the policy, which is better for topic specific education. C. Forces the debate to be about finding the best policy option- If the counterplan is better than the plan then all of their arguments are arbitrary and dont apply. This interpretation is best because its more real world. 3. Fairness- PICs are part of a critical neg strategy necessary against increasingly vague plans. 4. Predictability- These are the most predictable types of counterplans because if the aff had done adequate research on their case they would have found literature on the possible PICs, which checks back for their infinite regression arguments.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 56/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Neg Fiat Bad (it totez is)


1. No restriction on fiat- The aff only gets the USFG, but the negative can access every other actor. 2. Moots the 1AC- We argue about whether or not the counterplan solves rather than if we should pass the aff plan or not.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 57/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Neg Fiat Good


1. Education- The goal of both teams is to find the best policy option available- the aff shouldnt just have to be good, it should have to be better than any alternative because thats more real world. Real world education is key to learning about real policymaking. 2. Ground and Reciprocity- They get a proposal for change and so does the negative. This is baseline for switch-side debate- each strategic benefit should incur a strategic cost. 4. Necessary to test opportunity cost- the terminal impact to debate is to create good decision makers who can determine what is or isnt a cost and evaluate all aspects of policiescounterplans create rational decision making and increase cost-benefit analysis AND the status quo is bad and has almost no advocates, which forces us to defend morally repugnant arguments like rape or racism.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 58/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

**KRITIKS**

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 59/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 60/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Framework 1AC/2AC
Our interpretation is that the affirmative must defend a topical plan and the negative must defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. The role of the ballot should be to choose between one of those options. Violating this framework is a reason to vote affirmative: 1. Aff choice <1AC ONLY> the affirmative speaks first and sets the stage for how the rest of the round plays out; it is their burden to provide a framework for evaluation. The negative must comply with this framework or provide an alternative method of evaluation in the 1NC; allowing them to wait until the block unfairly skews both our 2AC and 1AR and is an independent voting issue for fairness. 2. Limits there are literally thousands of possible philosophical objections to the plan even if they were only limited to representation kritiks they could still criticize any of the words in our 1AC and we have no way to defend against all of them. Limiting them to only a competing policy option or the status quo solves because there are only so many options against our affirmative that are grounded in the literature meaning we can prepare. 3. Ground there is no way to garner ground against nebulous, utopian alternatives they can still have their criticisms, they just have to have a competitive policy option as the alternative. Any other type of alternative is utopian, which is an independent voting issue: a) Ground we cant find answers in the literature to utopia because it DOESNT EXIST b) Fairness utopia will always outweigh imperfection meaning that theres no way the aff can ever win 4. Topic-specific education limiting the discussion to a plan or a competing policy option grounds the debate in the resolution this is the only chance to get valuable education, as we wont be debating reductions in military presence again, but we can always learn about philosophy

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 61/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Floating PIKs Good


1. Were functionally competitive thats best: a) Real-world debates in Congress are based on the effects of policies, not the way theyre worded b) Topic education theres specific literature about competing functions and mechanisms of troop withdrawal, there isnt about different words c) Encourages bad arguments textual competition encourages running things like E-prime and Marcuse 2. Representations matter the aff should be forced to defend the entirety of their 1AC allowing them to only defend the plan means we cant get any kritiks, which are a key tool for the neg 3. Double-bind either a) they have offense because they had a justification for their representations, or b) you vote neg because we found the best policy option and the aff couldnt defend their case 4. Counter-interpretation we can only get PIKs that have a solvency advocate solves back their infinite regression and limits arguments 5. Negation theory justifies we have to prove the plan is bad in any means if we prove that our advocacy is better we prove the plan isnt a good idea 6. Not a voter at worst you reject the parts of the alternative that advocate the affirmative

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 62/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Floating PIKs Bad


1. Infinite regression they can literally pick any word down to the to PIK out of theres no way to defend every single word or metaphor in our 1AC 2. Time and strat skew they can literally steal our entire 1AC from us, taking away one speech from us and giving them one extra 3. Negation theory means they have to prove that the plan is a bad idea they dont, they just prove that something we said is bad the plan is still good meaning that you vote aff 4. Counter-interpretation they have to be textually and functionally competitive thats best because it ensures focus on plan action and implications this is key to ensure topic-specific education 5. Turns real-world education no policy would be thrown out because it had imperialist representations 6. Voting issue for fairness and education reject the team, otherwise floating PIKs become a no-risk option for the neg

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 63/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

No Alt Text Good


1. Kills the K our alt action cant be summed up in one sentence without misconstruing it 2. Cross-x checks if they had any questions about the alt action they could have asked in cross-x 3. No shifting we have a stable advocacy, our alt solvency evidence indicates what our alternative does were not a moving target 4. Better for ground if we have a more nebulous alternative they can say more against it 5. Alt text doesnt apply voting negative is the alternative action 6. Not a voting issue at worst you reject the alternative

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 64/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

No Alt Text Bad


1. Moving target without a text to tie them down to they can shift their alternative to get out of any of our offense and encompass our entire case this is abusive because we can never get any stable ground against the alt 2. Not reciprocal the aff needs a plan text, so should the neg 3. Irreversible skew allowing them to shift their alternative in the block moots the entirety of the 2AC answers thats the only chance we get to make new arguments and is irreparable 4. Utopian alts are bad allowing them to shift their alt to do whatever they want is utopian and an independent voting issue: a) Ground we cant find answers in the literature to utopia because it DOESNT EXIST b) Fairness utopia will always outweigh imperfection meaning that theres no way the aff can ever win 5. Voting issue for fairness and education reject the team, otherwise not having an alt text becomes a no-risk option for the neg

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 65/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

**T**

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 66/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 67/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Extra-T Good
1. Were not extra-topical: _______________ 2. Ground extra-topicality gives them stronger links to generics and they can read disads to the extra-topical portions or counterplan out of them 3. Extra-T is inevitable policies dont occur in a vacuum, they always create action outside of what is intended 4. Key to education its better to learn about the effects of the plan than the plan mechanism itself means we learn about the effects of the resolution, which is what was intended 5. No abuse extra-T doesnt make us non-topical meaning they still get links to their generics and we cant spike out of anything 6. Not a voting issue at worst reject the extra-topical portions of our plan

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 68/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Extra-T Bad
1. Predictable limits allowing them to go outside of resolutional action opens up the floodgates to literally anything theres no way to predict the infinite amounts of extra-topical advantages they can garner 2. Topicality the extra-topical portions of the plan arent withdrawal from the topic countries two impacts to this: a) Topic-specific education allowing them to go outside of the topic detracts focus from the resolution that outweighs because its the only chance we get to learn about the topic b) Jurisdiction if any part of the affirmative is untopical the judge does not have the jurisdiction to vote for it

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 69/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

FX-T Good
1. Were not effectually topical: ____________ 2. Its inevitable every plan takes steps to pass, its just a matter of how many 3. Key to education: a) Real-world its key to real-world education, no policy just passes all policies take steps to pass and be implemented b) Depth we learn more in-depth about the plan by debating the steps that it takes 4. Aff ground their interpretation limits out cases like changing the withdrawal dates in Iraq and Afghanistan that are at the core of the topic this is key aff ground 5. Not a voting issue evaluate effects-topicality based on reasonability their abuse standards are predicated off of us taking a ridiculous amount of steps we dont, meaning that they dont get internal links to abuse and you default aff.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 70/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

FX-T Bad
1. Predictable limits allowing them to take steps to remove military presence opens up the floodgates they could literally take fifty steps to be topical and we couldnt predict what any of them would be 2. Makes topicality probabilistic allowing them to eventually be topical means that they could theoretically take an infinite amount of steps to be topical means that anything could eventually be topical 3. Unique abuse <explain how they garner advantages off of the steps that they take> 4. Voting issue look at the plan in a vacuum, if its not on-face topical you reject it this interpretation is better because it ensures that T is an all-or-nothing issue

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 71/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Vagueness Good
1. Cross-x checks any questions about plan action can be resolved by just asking us about it 2. Key to education: a) Topic-specific education we learn more about the resolution by debating the effects of the plan rather than the meaning of the plan text b) Critical thinking they have to listen to the whole 1AC, not the plan text and contention titles 3. 2NC checks any shifting we do in the 2AC can be answered by new 2NC arguments 4. Not a voting issue were not going to reclarify our plan to get out of any links, thatd be suicide

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 72/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Vagueness Bad
1. Ground our links are predicated off of their plan text allowing them to shift and reclarify their plan action kills our links to things like spending, process CPs, and disads predicated off of immediate withdrawal 2. Aff conditionality reclarification shifts their plan action in the 2AC this is an independent voting issue because the 1AC is the focus of the entire debate and shifting their advocacy moots the entirety of our 1NC irreparable abuse 3. Not topical resolved means to remove or dispel (doubts) thats American Heritage Dictionary in 2000 thats an independent voting issue for jurisdiction, because you cant vote for a non-topical plan

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 73/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

**DISADS**

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 74/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 75/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Intrinsicness (DA)
No link the disad isnt intrinsic: _______________________________________ Our version of intrinsicness is the most fair: a) Its reciprocal we test the germaneness of the disad to the plan just like CPs test the germaneness of advantages b) Its fair well only make one, solves back infinite regression c) Logical, not empirical our intrinsicness arguments are limited to responses that do not have evidence this provides the best test of the disad

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 76/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

DA Intrinsicness Bad
1. Ground allowing them to make intrinsicness allows them to spike out of all our disad links on a topic like this the disad is the key neg position 2. Infinitely regressive even if they only get one they can still put multiple planks into it and theres no limit to the planks means they can get out of all of our arguments 3. We are intrinsic <do link analysis> 4. Counter-interpretation the negative gets intrinsicness arguments that are topical solves back all of their offense while allows predictability because its germane to the resolution 5. If they get them so do we there are a hundred options that solve for the aff better congratulations, they just handed us a hundred conditional counterplans with no texts 6. Voting issue allowing the aff to go unpunished makes intrinsicness a no-risk option, allowing them to get out of our disads every round

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 77/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Politics DA Bad
1. Education- Focus on the process of a plan decreases topic specific education, which is key because we only have a year to debate about the resolution and we can learn about the policymaking process anytime. 2. Decreases the value of fiat- There is a reason why the 1AC includes advantages to its passage rather than the process by which that passage occurs.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 78/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Politics DA Good
1. Education- Increase the real world educational value of the round because we get to learn about the actual policymaking process and how bills are passed into law. 2. They encourage research- time sensitive uniqueness forces constant updates, you cant just rely on camp files throughout the year.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 79/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

**IMPACT CALCULUS**

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 80/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Education o/w Fairness


Education outweighs fairness a) Its why were in debate; if there were no education there would be no reason to do debate. b) Unfairness is inevitable youre never against a team whos exactly as good as you with a judge whos completely unbiased structural conditions mean that education should be the primary concern.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 81/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Fairness o/w Education


Fairness outweighs education a) Prerequisite to education without fairness, we wont actually learn about anything because we wont have in-depth, clash-filled debates. b) Skills without fairness we never get better at debate and improve this is key to getting the skills that we take with us outside of debate

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 82/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Topic-Specific Education o/w Critical Thinking


Topic-specific education outweighs critical thinking a) Our only shot this year is the only chance we have to learn about military deployment in the topic countries; we dont get the same research experience outside of debate. b) Critical thinking is inevitable continuing in debate means that youll have to develop those skills anyways.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 83/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Critical Thinking o/w Topic-Specific Education


Critical thinking outweighs topic-specific education a) Usefulness its the only thing we carry outside of debate we need to constantly develop these skills. b) Topic-specific education is inevitable camp, pre-season research, and tournaments all mean we learn about the resolution.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 84/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Breadth o/w Depth


Breadth outweighs depth in-depth education is inevitable because 95% of the time theres only one plan per round theres only so much we can learn about each plan, meaning that theres only a risk that learning about more is good

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 85/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Depth o/w Breadth


Depth outweighs breadth if theres an extremely wide variety of cases theres no way to research all of them, but a small amount of cases means we research each in-depth a majority of our education comes from research rather than debating, which means that research burden should be the lens for evaluating education

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 86/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

T o/w Theory
T outweighs theory a) Predictability theres literally no way to prepare for cases that arent topical without topicality they could literally run anything. b) Education narrowing the possible affirmatives to specific cases allows for in depth education about the topic instead of learning tons of things but not focusing on them. c) Jurisdiction the judge shouldnt hear cases not having to do with the resolution and nontopical cases are outside of jurisdiction. d) Turns their impacts if they were topical we wouldnt be running abusive positions.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 87/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Theory o/w T
Theory outweighs topicality because it is the only real in round abuse - this abuse causes us to undercover multiple positions including topicality which the negative block can then explode for 8 or 13 minutes proving the strategy and time skew caused by their abusive advocacies.

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 88/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Potential Abuse is a Voter


Potential abuse is a voting issue a) In-round abuse is arbitrary you can claim abuse off of anything in round only potential abuse allows for a better standard because we provide worldviews, not just random examples b) Precedent not voting on potential abuse allows for arguments to become no-risk options and the other side never loses on theory only a risk that punishing them will discourage them

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 89/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Potential Abuse isnt a Voter


Potential abuse isnt a voting issue a) Arbitrary they can literally say anything we did or could have done abused them in the round its akin to the neg saying that the aff should lose because they could have read an untopical plan b) No precedent at worst we dont run ________ anymore they cant solve for other debaters or other judges c) In-round abuse is a better standard it actually measures whether an argument hurts the quality of debate or not

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 90/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Err Aff on Theory


1. Block vs 1AR we cant answer everything in the 13 minute block in our 5 minute 1AR give us leeway 2. We have the burden of T were restrained in argument choice, they arent 3. They choose the focus of the debate even if we have the 1AC, the 1NC determines what the debate is ultimately about erring aff on theory allows for some reciprocity 4. Empirics neg win percentages are up, and most teams flip neg help correct the bias

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong

Theory 91/91

Michigan 2010 7WJ CCGJP

Err Neg on Theory


1. First and last speech they choose the focus of the debate and we cant respond to anything they say in the 2AR, meaning they can effectively get away with murder 2. Empirics in college, teams traditionally flip aff, and historically aff win percentages are higher 3. Fiat kills our ground half of our political process arguments go away because of fiat or normal means arguments we should at least have theory

Sarah/Dustin/Chuong