Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Theory Toolkit Index: 1 Scholars Lab Theory File

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008
Scholars Lab
1 Theory File
Theory Toolkit Index

Theory Toolkit Index.......................................................................................................................1 Dispositionality Bad.........................................................................................................................2 Dispositionality Good......................................................................................................................3 Consult Good...................................................................................................................................4 Consult Bad......................................................................................................................................5 Consult CPs Bad A2: Most Real World ......................................................................................6 Consult CPs Bad - A2: not infinitely regressive .............................................................................7 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Dont Steal Entirety ...................................................................................8 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Must Defend Immediacy............................................................................9 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Aff Side Bias............................................................................................10 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Lit Checks................................................................................................11 Consult CPs Bad A2: Best Policy Option...................................................................................12 ASPEC Bad....................................................................................................................................13 ASPEC Good.................................................................................................................................14 ASPEC Good.................................................................................................................................15 ASPEC Good.................................................................................................................................16 Conditionality Bad.........................................................................................................................17 Conditionality Good Offense......................................................................................................18 Conditionality Good Defense.....................................................................................................19 Intrinsicness Bad............................................................................................................................20 Intrinsicness Good.........................................................................................................................21 Intrinsicness Good AT Kills DA Ground...................................................................................22 Intrinsicness Good AT Makes Plan Not T..................................................................................23 Intrinsicness Good AT Moving Target.......................................................................................24 Intrinsicness Good AT Infinite Regression.................................................................................25 Intrinsicness Good AT No Risk / Irresponsible..........................................................................26 Floating PICs Bad..........................................................................................................................28 Reject Alts Bad..............................................................................................................................29 Textual Competition Good............................................................................................................30 Textual Competition Bad ..............................................................................................................31 PICs Bad........................................................................................................................................32 PICs Good......................................................................................................................................33 International Actor Fiat Bad..........................................................................................................34 International Actor Fiat Good........................................................................................................35 Intrinsicness Perms Good..............................................................................................................36 Intrinsicness Perms Bad.................................................................................................................37

Scholars Lab
2 Theory File
Dispositionality Bad
1. Euphemizes conditionalityWe have to perm the CP or they can read add-ons that are non-competitive. This
answers their aff choice 2NC. Conditionality is bad Makes the neg a moving target, justifies multiple contradictory CPs, and skews 2ac time.
2. Strategy skewThe only way we can prevent a time skew is by straight-turning the net benefit, which forces us
to eliminate our best defense and causes the 2AC to reveal our strategy, allowing the block to exploit us. Letting neg dictate aff strategy kills fairness and education. 3. Grounddispo discourages us from making perms, which are key to aff strategy; they serve as a shield against non-competitive and artificially competitive CPs.
4. Multiple worlds badallowing them to establish a temporary world of argumentation muddles the debate.
Debate is about policy option advocacy, which requires consistent arguments to evaluate. The potential for contradictory arguments is a reason to reject the argument and the team.
5. Not real worldpolicymakers always have to deal with the consequences of any option they propose to the
government or public. Nobody says heres an amendment but Ill withdraw it if you make an argument I dont like against it.
6. ReciprocityWe only get to advocate one policy and cant kick out of it; they should be held to the same
standard. The CP justifies severance and intrinsic perms. 7. Voters for the reasons above and competitive equity.

Scholars Lab
3 Theory File
Dispositionality Good
1. Time and strategy skews are inevitableSome teams will always be faster, and theory and topicality arguments
will always produce a time and strategy tradeoff. The CP is preferable to these debates because it increases education and equalizes time tradeoffs.
2. TurnWe put the strategic ball in their court. They can stick us with the CP simply by straight-turning it,
which means they control where the debate goes. This turns all of their reasons why dispo is bad.
3. 2NR defines advocacywell always pinpoint our position and they get another speech. This is our worldview
on all theory questions and solves all abuse claims.
4. Non-uniqueAll negative arguments are dispositional. The affirmative isnt complaining about us potentially
kicking out of topicality or a disad thats not straight-turned. 5. Best balancewe increases education by allowing real debate to occur on the counterplan, whereas conditionality discourages the affirmative to do so and skews their strategy, and unconditionality hinders the search for the best policy option and unfairly restricts the neg. Increases critical thinking by encouraging strategic 2ACs with good time allocation and encourages affs to think more about the interaction of our arguments. Promotes crystallizationgetting rid of dead arguments allows the round to narrow down to more developed ones, maximizing depth-based education.
6. 7.
8. Offense checks abuseeven if we kick the CP, we cant retract any evidence read. That evidence can still form
the basis for a turn, and offense on the net benefit answers our strategy in both worlds. 9. Key to negative flexibilityOur only burden is to disprove the plan. Being able to test it at multiple levels is essential to neg strategy and ground, which outweighs their voters because neg flex is key to balancing an aff bias.
10. Err neg on theoryAff gets infinite prep time, the structural advantage of first and last speeches, gets to choose
how to interpret the resolution, and now presumption. Err neg to check this inherent affirmative bias in the round.
11. Rejection is the wrong remedy. Theres no in-round abuse and voting on potential abuse is like voting on a
potential disad. At worst you should drop the counterplan, not the team.

Scholars Lab
4 Theory File
Consult Good
Offense: 1. Best Policy Option If we win that multilateral action is good then consultation is the best policy option 2. Education Forces 2AC strategic thinking and increases knowledge of both domestic and international issues via the net benefits. 3. Counter-Interpretation Only allow consultation with countries that the U.S. has a formal consultation framework with solves all their offense because there are only 5 possible actors 4. Checks Aff Side Bias They speak first and last, have infinite prep time and have a higher win percentage 5. Key to Test Resolution Substantial: Capable of being treated as fact WordNet 03. Resolved: To Make a Firm Decision About American Heritage Dictionary 00. Only counterplans can effectively test each word of the resolution disads cant win alone 6. Key to Check 2AC Add-Ons Only consultation CPs allow the negative to not get beat by 2AC sandbagging Defense: 1. Reject the argument not the team 2. Not Wholly Plan Inclusive We dont advocate unilateral action. They can get offense to working with other institutions 3. Predictable Consultation CPs have been run since Jason Russell was debating - they should have blocks by now 4. Lit Checks- Our say yes evidence proves there is a direct correlation between the country being consulted and the action of the plan - - this checks the Consult Djibouti CP 5. No Artificial Competition We sever out of unilateral action and have a disad predicated off of it

Scholars Lab
5 Theory File
Consult Bad
1. they steal 1AC killing debatability because we cant leverage our 8 minutes against anything 2. time frame counterplans are illegit they create uniqueness through consulting we have to defend if the plan SHOULD pass, not WHEN future fiat is illegit because its not reciprocal 3. Regressive we could never prepare for all possibilities crushing predictability which is the gateway to fairness and education. 190 some countries, thousands of international organizations, and billions of humans could all be consulted about the plan. This is particularly dangerous for the aff given that the threshold for the negs disad doesnt need to be large if the plan does the case, forcing affs to generate offensive args against the net benefit when they ought to expect to outweigh these disads. 4. Reciprocity For the purposes of disads, the plan has no contingency, but the aff gets the right to alter only the nature of the implementation of the plan only to match neg counterplans. a. Solves their moving target argument b. Forces the aff to defend the plan c. Maintains a balance of aff and neg ground d. Generates aff predictability which is predicated on the plan.

Scholars Lab
6 Theory File
Consult CPs Bad A2: Most Real World

1. The counterplan isnt real world politicians dont reject a policy because of the need to consult someone else 2. Their real world standard is a bad a. its not reciprocal aff fiat is bound by the resolution forcing USFG action CP destroys competition b. anti-educational real world consultation is never binding

Scholars Lab
7 Theory File
Consult CPs Bad - A2: not infinitely regressive

1. Even if whoever they consult is predictable they create the capacity for anyone or any combination of agents to consult that potential abuse is voter for competitive equity 2. Competing interps is critical The standard that they apply is necessary to judge the allowable range of power of the neg. Only interpretations are not arbitrary, preventing the only our case is topical view of T.

Scholars Lab
8 Theory File
Consult CPs Bad - A2: Dont Steal Entirety

1. This is a LIE Consultation risk they say yes means they steal every aspect of the aff they pass the plan exactly as we defend 2. They create their offense we cant even read uniqueness arguments which means that the counterplan allows them to create unique offense while taking ALL of our offense which proves it is unpredictable and unfair.

Scholars Lab
9 Theory File
Consult CPs Bad - A2: Must Defend Immediacy

1. Either: A) No part of the text says immediate proves the CP isnt competitive and the perm solves OR B) We defend the immediacy of the plan we dont spike out of ANY disads or counterplans FIAT is the least means necessary - they dont negate the plan, means that you vote aff because both sides say the plan SHOULD pass 2. This is arbitrary it isnt a reason why passing the plan now is bad it is a reason why waiting to do something else is good proves that the CP is contrived with no strategic cost against the negative killing reciprocity 3. this legitimizes DELAY counterplans which are uniquely abusive because they make debate about absurdity we can never predict, research, or defend against them. 4. theres no offense they have zero reason why the aff defending immediacy in a world of an artificial counterplan is good for debate

Scholars Lab
10 Theory File
Consult CPs Bad - A2: Aff Side Bias

1. Consultation Counterplans go too far they eliminate the entirety of the 1ac and ALL predictable 2ac offense PLUS they give the negative INFINITE PREP against the aff by creating artificial offense 2. The side bias doesnt exist they block to check any structural aff bias

Scholars Lab
11 Theory File
Consult CPs Bad - A2: Lit Checks

1. There is no literature yes they may have evidence about X_____ in Africa, but its not in context of the plan and the CP 2. LITERATURE is a bad standard A. literature is limitless hemorrhoids in Djibouti, Nietzsche, super-intelligent dinosaurs proves its arbitrary and provides no fair check B. not educational its a matter of what is best for topic-specific debate NOT what is available

Scholars Lab
12 Theory File
Consult CPs Bad A2: Best Policy Option

A Best policy arguments allows us to use private fiat or make run abusive strategies if it resulted in a good policy. B Even if we search for the best policy the search must be reciprocal. Our specific abuse claim should be preferred over their general warrant. C Justifies severance and intrinsic perms because those would be the best policy option.

Scholars Lab
13 Theory File
ASPEC Bad
First offense 1) Arbitrary. Their interp is always that we have to specify one more thing than is in plan. This kills aff predictibility, so to meet we would need an 8 minute plan text and the neg would always win on plan doing nothing. 2) Counter Interp: agent is normal means. This solves their offense by allowing debates about what normal means is, and is most predictable because its in the literature. 3) Neg ground. With thousands of USfg agencies, we could specify them into bad or unpredictable ground. 4) Counter interp: we can specify status quo plan implementation in cross x. This gives the neg link ground to agent DAs. 5) Checks neg bias Topic. a) No aff advantage areas. b) Generics. Ks, politics, and domestic agent cps link to everything. c) Structural. The neg block puts the 1ar at a time disadvantage, preventing good arguments for the 1ar or good extensions for the 2ar. 6) Justifies agent Counterplans. This is a voter a) Utopian. No utopian decision maker means that counterplan isnt a test of opportunity cost. b) Limits. Real world decision framework is the only non-arbitrary way to limit CPs. c) Ground. No lit assumes a choice between two different agents. d) Topic education. We already know about courts, were here to research Africa. And, the defense 1) Potential abuse isn't a voter. There is potential that the neg runs a new counterplan in the 2nr. 2) DAs solve their offense. We still learn about implementation. 3) Not 90% of solvency. Elmore is talking about solvency mechanism and implementation, not just the agent. 4) No impact to ground loss. They only lose bad ground. 5) Still resolved. a) Resolved means we just have to be definite in affirming the resolution, not about the agent. Their interp means that we are indefinite because we wrote Sub-Saharan Africa instead of listing all the countries. b) Resolved is before the colon. That means that the USfg is resolved about passage. This is best because theirs allows an infinite number of k frameworks.

Scholars Lab
14 Theory File
ASPEC Good
A. Violation The aff should specify its agent within the USfg. Government power is divided into 3 branches Rotunda, professor of law at the University of Illinois, 2001 [Richard, 18 Const. Commentary 319, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE, AND MORRISON, l/n, (m7,06)]
No one denies the importance of the Constitution's federalist principles. Its state/federal division of authority protects liberty - both by restricting the burdens that government can impose from a distance and by facilitating citizen participation in government that is closer to home. n8 Chief Justice Rehnquist, for the majority, agreed. The "Framers crafted the federal system of government so that the people's rights would be secured by the division of power." n9 The Framers of our Constitution anticipated that a self-interested "federal majority" would consistently seek to impose more federal control over the people and the states. n10 Hence, they created a federal structure designed to protect freedom by dispersing and limiting federal power. They instituted federalism [*321] chiefly to protect individuals, that is, the people, not the "states qua states." n11 The
Framers sought to protect liberty by creating a central government of enumerated powers. They divided power between the state and federal governments, and they further divided power within the federal government by splitting it among the three branches of government, and they further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared) by splitting it between two Houses of Congress. n12 B. Voters 1) Solvency Deficit: 90% of solvency is dependent on implementation Elmore, Professor of public affairs at U Washington, 1980 [Political science quarterly, pg. 605, (m7,06)] Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified? Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation. 2) Ground: We cant run our specific DAs to USAID or congress, or have competitive agent CPs. 3) Real world. Policy doesnt happen without an actor. 4) Education. Key to learn about government action and implementation.

Scholars Lab
15 Theory File
ASPEC Good
Next, the defense: 1) Cant clarify. a. Theyre a moving target. This skews predictability and ground because they could clarify to get out of any 1nc arg. b. Not resolved American Heritage 2k [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, accessed 6-30-07] Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about 2) Cross-x doesnt check a. Pre round prep. They dont have to answer questions before the round. This kills clash because we cant prepare. b. Not binding. The judge doesnt flow it. c. Aff burden to specify in plan. We should get cross-x to get links and talk about evidence, not clarify plans. d. Regressive. Affs could read the res as plan and we would have to spend 3 min of cross-x to find out what they do. 3) Aff bias a. Structural. First and last speech, infinite prep, and 60% win skew b. Broad Topic. 48 countries and no precise definition of public health assistance means we cant get specific lit on their case. c. Moral high ground. Aff gets to help people in Africa.

Scholars Lab
16 Theory File
ASPEC Good
Agent spec is best for debate First is education: a. questions of the agent are critical to understanding implementation thats the only way to learn about policy b. generates in-depth education debates become more focused and we learn more about specific issues Second is competition: a. They justify aff conditionality - kills debatability because they can get out of any links b. specification is key to agent CP ground agent CPs are awesome 1. encourages plan focus debate by testing the merits of the actor 2. key to neg ground: lit indicates the plan is not a question of the advantages but rather implementation 3. neg flex is good aff structural bias justifies the CP All affs take non-topical action Funding and enforcement are necessary for implementation, but not sufficient to meet topic requirement. Their interp overlimits the aff. There are not an unlimited number of potential agents Solvency evidence and mechanisms check. Only a limited number of people advocate actors for public health assistance. Proves the need for CP limits If too many agents are unfair to the neg, then they are reciprocally unfair for the aff. Reject agent CPs.

Scholars Lab
17 Theory File
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is bad; its a voter for the following reasons: Offense: 1. Time/Strategy SkewThey could read 10 conditional counterplans in the 1NC and kick out of all but the one with the least offense in the block 2. Moving targetWe dont know what the issues in the debate will be until the 2NR so any offense we put on the counterplan is time wasted; this hurts fairness and education and makes it impossible to win. 3. Counter-interpretationthey should read their K/CP dispositionally; it allows the aff a change to straight-turn in the 2AC and checks any abuse. It solves all their offense. 4. Not reciprocalJustifies the aff kicking case and reading a new one in the 2AC. 5. Justifies severance and intrinsicnessif the neg can change their advocacy whenever they want, the aff should be able to do the same 6. Promotes argumentative irresponsibilitythe neg isnt responsible for their advocacy- they could run multiple contradictory arguments without any recourse Defense: 1. Perms dont check abusetheyre a test of competition, advocated perms justify intrinsicness 2. Neg flex is badThey have thousands of Ks, DAs, T violations, and whatever CPs they read dispositionally. 3. Its not real worldpolicy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation and a senator never unrolls a list of 30 bills they might advocate that day 4. Negation theory doesnt checkthey could force us to double turn ourselves answering all of their positions 5. No aff side biasthey have the 13 minute block to the 5 minute 1AR and they have issue choice 6. A conditional counterplan is different than any other conditional issueit changes whether were defending our plan against the world of a counterplan or the world of the status quo 7. There is legitimate abusethe 2AC has already happened; theyve already skewed our time and strategy 8. Not key to find the best policy option/doesnt increase critical thinkingit doesnt increase critical thinking or find the best policy option because whenever the neg is put in a tough position theyll just kick the counterplan

Scholars Lab
18 Theory File
Conditionality Good Offense

1. Breadth is better than depth a. the plan was the focus of the debate, and neg. should be able to attack the plan from multiple vantage points. b. advocacy training is central to the educational mission of debate c. Its best to force each team to "scan"the available policy options, select one and debate it to the max 2. Best policy option-many ideas must be compared to the aff in order to find the best policy option, which is the point of the round 3. Reciprocity-if the aff gets a policy option, so should the neg. The fact that the aff can perm and advocate multiple perms means that the neg can run multiple conditional counterplans 4. Neg flex The aff has intrinsic advantages in terms of framing the debate, giving both the first and last speeches, and win/loss percentages prove. The neg needs a variety of approaches to answer the aff. 5. Neg theory- Either of the squo or the plan prove the aff is a bad idea. The negs responsibility is to answer the aff by illustrating opportunity costs to the adoption of the plan. 6. Real world-in the real world, legislators are allowed to propose and drop new bills all the time 7. Harder debate is better for debate-forces us to work harder, learn more and make debate a more productive activity. It doesnt matter if it is infinitely regressive or not. 8. Best policy option-were here to see which is the best policy option, and that is best found by having multiple policy options to weigh in the round. This should be our found in the round, is thus justifies why we can advocate and then drop args. 9. Dispo doesnt solve Limits neg flex, undermines the discussion of policy options, and makes the aff capable of dictating the CP which undermines examination of logical opportunity costs of the plans adoption, preventing the degree of difficulty of debates from increasing. In effect, it bails out the aff.

Scholars Lab
19 Theory File
Conditionality Good Defense

1. Time skew inevitable-if we hadnt run another policy option, we would have just run another kick-able case arg, DA or K argument, or we could have just had more arguments on another flow 2. We arent a moving target because we will have to pick one and because the status quo is always an option a. All arguments are conditional. The aff will kick advantages and we can concede disads. All of their arguments prove the CP isnt competitive by answering the net benefits. b. If the negative claims that either of two policies is superior to the plan and one of their policies is shown to be inferior, they can still logically win on the other 3. Strat Skew is inevitable, and harder debate is better debate a. The 1AC is stacked with advantages and the SQ is not a policy option, so we have to have another policy option b. Increased critical thinking on how to answer arguments is good c. fewer arguments are not necessarily better 4. Aff bias first and last speech, frame the debate, infinite prep, and win/loss %. 5. Perms check the aff can advocate multiple worlds too. Our CPs simply test logical opportunity costs of adopting the aff. 6. Debating the Squo isnt an additional burden The 1AC is stacked against the squo, and typically includes some CP answers too.

Scholars Lab
20 Theory File
Intrinsicness Bad
A. Ground Intrinsicness allows the aff to get out of any disad, case argument, or counterplan. Even offense germaine to the plan become becomes moot the aff would win every debate and kill the activity. Importantly, these moves are unpredictable, and only predictable ground is useful. B. Limits Permitting intrinsic permutations to disads permits a world where there are 30 unpredictable advocacies in the 2AR that they can choose to go for. C. Real World Education- Allowing the affirmative to dodge arguments directly related to the plan ensures there is no discussion about relevant topics that would be discussed when the plan is passed. D. No checks Just because the aff only uses intrinsicness on one of our arguments doesnt mean that the theory doesnt allow essentially washing away of all negative disad links, especially those on critical topics like politics and economics. The intrinsicness argument could always be do the plan and dont raise rates or do the plan and have Hillary drop out of the race. E. Voter- for fairness and ground

Scholars Lab
21 Theory File
Intrinsicness Good
Intrinsicness is good. It tests the germaness of the link 1. Most real world no policy maker would ever be forced to choose between giving aid and striking Iran 2. Better Disads A. Forces clash and specific research on the topic B. Checks regressive disads like spending

Scholars Lab
22 Theory File
Intrinsicness Good AT Kills DA Ground

1. Intrinsicness forces more specific disads. Education is the terminal impact to all theory args. As long as we win that specific disads are better for education, ground loss doesnt matter 2. Good teams will always be able to generate specific links 3. No reason the neg gets generic disad ground 4. Its reciprocal to the fiat that the neg gets to CP out of advantages

Scholars Lab
23 Theory File
Intrinsicness Good AT Makes Plan Not T

1. Intrinsicness is like a permutation to the disad. That means intrinsicness only tests the direct cost of the Disad. Its not a net benefit to the plan. 2. Non Topical counter-plans mean the judge has jurisdiction over non-topical fiat as well 3. C/I the resolution only exists as a starting point for the debate. This means the neg can have all competitive alternatives to the plan, but we still get intrinsicness

Scholars Lab
24 Theory File
Intrinsicness Good AT Moving Target

1. They get more ground. They can garner offense on the intrinsic disad perm 2. Key to check Advantage and 2NC counter plans which functionally do the something 3. The plan is STATIC. They can still read their case args and disads, as long as they are good

Scholars Lab
25 Theory File
Intrinsicness Good AT Infinite Regression

1. c/I The aff only gets intrinsic perms in the 2AC 2. Regression is inevitable. Perms prove. New perms to new disads to perms would resolve in the 2ar. 3. Not possible. Infinite regression is too complicated to occur normally

Scholars Lab
26 Theory File
Intrinsicness Good AT No Risk / Irresponsible

1. Counterinterp we one intrinsicness perm per disad. The neg gets one case specific CP per advantage 2. Germane disad links solve 3. Debate over competition is inevitable. We fiat in disad takeouts that they would have to address at some point anyway

Scholars Lab
27 Theory File
K Alts Need a Text

1. Interpretation: The neg needs a written text to their advocacy. 2. Reasons to Prefer: a. Predictability: pinning the neg to a stable advocacy is key to predictable debate. No ground is usable without predictability. b. Moving Target: Neg needs an alt text so they cant change their alt to avoid arguments. The impact is time and strategy skew, which alter the nature of the entire debate. Justifies new args. c. Reciprocity: The aff presents a plan text so the neg needs a written description of the difference between the SQ and their approach. 3. Voter for fairness and education

Scholars Lab
28 Theory File
Floating PICs Bad

1. The negative should only be able to pic actual words in plan text a. plan focus good plan is the only stable ground b. predictability its more reasonable for the affirmative to have to defend their plan not any random representation an author may make within the evidence 2. Moving target it allows the negative to shift their initial alternative to subsume the affirmative which skews 2ac answers and is unpredictable 3. Justifies no alternative text which is uniquely bad a. destroys perm ground no way to test the competition of the link b. justifies aff conditionality c. forces functional competition which is bad because its unpredictable. There are an infinite number of alternative mechanisms to solve the impacts 4. Literature doesnt check abuse there is not reciprocal literature on all issues and the topic forces us to defend certain things to be topical which establishes a side bias. This solves their aff conditionality arguments. 5. Debateability floating pics essentially agree that the affirmative is a good idea, forcing the affirmative to debate against themselves 6. Including the plan within their advocacy justifies perm: do the affirmative because they agree that the plan is a good idea and that the plan can be done without linking to the criticism 7. Voting issue

Scholars Lab
29 Theory File
Reject Alts Bad

Their rejection alternative is illegitimate and a voting issue for the following reasons: 1. Ground trade-off They can find anything wrong with the affirmative as reasons to reject it and generate uniqueness but we dont get to generate any offense which means they will always control the direction of offense. Ground should always be reciprocal. 2. Education loss We dont get to discuss possible venues to solve the problems they are indicting. If their criticism is so important, then we should be able to debate and learn strategies that are compatible with it - instead they make debate a normative activity where we do nothing which their authors would indict. 3. Double bind Either a. Their evidence says nothing about rejection or rejection as a causal access to solvency which means they cant solve and their impact is non-unique. OR b. They will shift their alternative to do something more than just rejection which makes their alternative a moving target which is abusive and shifts out of all our offense affs can never win. 4. Its utopian Fiat They can claim solvency and uniqueness by arbitrarily fiating the ballot as their solvency mechanism. 5. Justifies Our Intrinsicness Perms a. Their alternative is simply a non link scenario. We cant generate offense against it or test the link which means the only way to test the germaneness of their argument is through our intrinsicness perm. b. Even if intrinsicness is bad their alt requires its usage which means rejection alternatives are bad for debate and shouldnt be allowed.

Scholars Lab
30 Theory File
Textual Competition Good

1. Most Objective: A text is the only unmovable way to determine competition, giving a clear delineation. 2. Justifies delay counter-plans which are bad because they allow the negative to steal affirmative ground and change when the plan gets implemented. 3. Decreases judge intervention: comparing texts is removed from the flow and requires no weighing of arguments, ensuring fairer decisions and debate. 4. Prevents advocacy shifts: Holding a team to text prevents abusive shifts sustaining competitive equity and ground. 5. Only true way to test competition: Without seeing what plan allows and precludes through text, competition cant be ascertained. 6. Disads solve their offense Its not that the aff doesnt defend their aff against normal means disads, but that those disads dont deserve the added advantage of wiping away the aff case. 7. Aff predictability The neg isnt the only team that deserves it. Aff predictability is limited by the wording of the plan text. Some CPs may have advantages theoretically but not meet the need to make those CPs topical. 8. Functional competitions justifies aff intrinsicness If the neg gets unlimited tests of the aff the aff gets unlimited tests of the opportunity costs of the plan which justifies a perm to do x on another issue. Solves their net benefits while passing the plan, the best of both worlds. Voting Issue

Scholars Lab
31 Theory File
Textual Competition Bad

1. Kills Policy Making: debate as semantics turns the activity into who can write good plans, not what the best policy option for the real world is. 2. Increases intervention: the critic still has to pull texts and compare, which is removed from the flow and the actual arguments against the counterplan. 3. Contextual analysis inevitable: its quite possible to pass conflicting legislation at the same time. only a contextual lense of how they would interact on the books can show competition, makig our method best. 4. Encourages shifty debate: adding reject plan to bottom of counterplan text makes any counterplan textually competitive. 5. Allows aff abuse: any do both permutation would win a round because they dont weigh whether the perm is net beneficial, destroying all negative counterplan ground which is uniquely key on such a broad topic. 6. Encourages and rewards bad plans: Vague plans undermine neg ground and offer the aff the advantage of clarifying later what the loose plan means. Both undermine balanced competition.

Scholars Lab
32 Theory File
PICs Bad
1. Steals aff ground- arguing against a PIC forces us to argue against our own case, hurts our ability to offensively attack the CP, this ground is key to fairness 2. Breadth is better that Depth- focusing on a portion of the plan is not as educational as evaluating it as a whole 3. Encourages vague plan writing- allowing PICs allows affirmatives to write plans that force generic strategies, that hurts education 4. PICs are regressive- allowing the neg to PIC out of one part of the plan justifies them doing the same in the block and the 2nr, this ruins debate as the debate is never about the topic but instead PICs that get out of aff offense, this ruins education 5. Clash- PICs limit aff arguments ruining clash within the debate decreasing education 6. Aff Predictability- the negative can PIC out of any country of sub-saharan Africa exploding the ground the aff has to defend, this ruins fairness 7. Reciprocity- There is no affirmative equal to PICs, they justify abusive perms like severance and intrinsic perms which makes debate unfair 8. Unpredictable Net Benefits- means we never have the pre-round preparation to garner offense against the CP voter for ground loss, fairness and education 9. There is in-round abuse- The damage has been done- the 2AC strategy is dependent on the 1NC, even if you dont buy this Potential Abuse is a voter A. In round abuse is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention ruining fairness B. If we win our interpretation is best it proves why what the other team has done deserves to be rejected 10. Argumentative Responsibility- reject the team, time skew proves the unique abuse of PICs, it limits the aff in the round, the affirmative must defend all of the plan so should the negative voter for fairness 11. PICs are not real world- Bills are amended, not rejected based on a singular flaw 12. Disads check neg ground loss- if there is one portion of our plan they think is bad they can run a DA on it

Scholars Lab
33 Theory File
PICs Good
1) Checks Inherit Aff advantages Aff picks the focus of the round, speaks first and last and gets infinite prep. 2) Most real world Bills in congress must defend every word in them, the same should apply to the Aff plan 3) Best Policy Option if we win that the counterplan is competitive and better than the plan then it shouldn't matter how the CP works. 4) Competition checks abuse the net benefit must have links to the plan with real impacts 5) Neg Ground PICs are the only way the negative can generate offense against a racism bad aff. Without them, the negative would have to defend fundamentally untrue arguments like racism good. 6) Net benefits checks abuse net benefits are a unique reason not to do the plan, and the Aff always has offense on the net benefit. 7) No potential abuse In round abuse arguments answer in round abuse, there is no reason to abuse the negative for something that didnt happen 8) plan Not a voting issue at worst you reject the CP and evaluate the net benefit against the

Scholars Lab
34 Theory File
International Actor Fiat Bad

International counterplans are a voter 1) Not germane to the resolution a. Doesnt disprove aff. The reasons that the US should increase assistance are based on the actions and inactions of others. b. Not real world. No policymaker would be able to choose between the US and their actor. This kills clash and education because theres no comparative lit. 2) Justifies object fiat. Sudan stopping genocide would solve better, but neg would win every round. 3) Reciprocity. Aff is limited to the US. International fiat gives them 200 actors. 4) Regressive. Impossible for aff to prep if the neg can counterplan any agent. 5) Core Education. Their counterplan discusses the agent, which is the same every year, rather than the merits of our action. 6) Research burden. We cant get lit on 200 countries. This kills clash because we cant engage their solvency or net benefits. 7) Their interps arbitrary. Our interp is predictable because we limit to the resolutions agent. Their interp would always just be ours plus their cp, so they dont limit out anything. 8) Checks neg bias. a. Topic. No aff advantage areas. b. Generics. Ks, politics, and domestic agent cps link to everything. c. Structural. The neg block puts the 1ar at a time disadvantage, preventing good arguments for the 1ar or good extensions for the 2ar. And, the defense 1) Not a key limit. Domestic agents, different mechanisms, and topicality check unlimited affs. 2) Not key ground. Neg gets any DA or K that links and any domestic counterplan. 3) No international education. The net benefits solve if theyre germane to the aff. 4) Not ethnocentric. Other countries still act, we just cant fiat them.

Scholars Lab
35 Theory File
International Actor Fiat Good

OUR INTERPRETATIONThe negative can read one competitive policy option which advocates the action of an internationally recognized government or coalition of governments on the condition that the counter plan does not use fiat to eliminate the harms of the affirmative. DEFENSE 1. Predictable- There may be many international actors, but literature limits the number of viable options for the neg. 2. Reasonable research burden- The aff doesnt have to find evidence indicating every other country is bad, only that the US is the best. 3. Reciprocity- The aff can pick harms area, solvency mechanism, advantages and any of their permutations. The neg should be able to pick any international actor to do the plan. 4. Preserves aff ground- The aff can use the risk of a solvency deficit to weigh advantages against the CP just like they must win the risk of a no-link to weigh case against a DAturns case argument 5. Checks aff side bias- Infinite prep and first and last speech justify OFFENSE 1. Key to test to test the resolution- International actor fiat tests the words United States federal government. 2. Increases education- We learn about the USFG through comparative political analysis of US foreign policy as it compares to other nations policies. We learn about two nations, doubling education 3. Real world- International and national actors both present viable actors to transnational issues. This is magnified by the foreign nature of the topic. 4. Promotes critical thinking through solvency focus- Solvency education is more important than harms education because it allows us to evaluate single problems with multiple approaches to solutions, increasing problem solving skills.

Scholars Lab
36 Theory File
Intrinsicness Perms Good

First is our offense: 1. Key to checking abusive counterplans Keeping the equity of the debate. 2. Force debate about the Aff checks neg from running generic arguments. Forcing negative to research case specific strategies increasing education 3. Improves research burden on the negative intrinsicness perms make the neg research all possible ways their impacts can be solved. This improves clash and creates more actor specific knowledge. 4. Increases critical thinking forces teams to think quickly and effectively to answer strategic permutations. Now the defense1. Potential abuse is not a voter we didn't do it and it's impossible to quantify. Since the ballot doesn't set a precedent, in-round abuse is the fairest way to judge theory. 2. Reject the argument, not the team the punishment paradigm rewards theory over substance, decreasing education. Plus, they can't prove a reason why we jacked their ability to beat the rest of our positions.

Scholars Lab
37 Theory File
Intrinsicness Perms Bad

Intrinsicness is bad and a voting issue: 1. Decrease clash in rounds- allows the affirmative to get out of every disad or counterplan with the intrinsic permutation; it discourages participation within the activity. 2. The perm makes the aff a moving target- the permutation advocates the plan and other action that the 1AC does not endorse. Stable plans are key to predictable ground and strategy. 3. Infinitely regressive- The permutation could do the plan, the counterplan, and create world peace or feed the hungry in Africa, the negative would never be able to predict which of the thousands of different ways the affirmative could add something to the perm to get around the net benefits 4. Time and strategy skew- allowing intrinsicness perms takes all the time the negative spent developing the net benefit and the affirmative can just test their way out of it, this increases the aff side bias and is akin to doubling the 1AR's speech time 5. The perms allow for extra topical plans - which are bad for debate, because the aff can always claim to be topical by adding on extra planks to their plan text. 6. It's a voter for fairness and education.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Theory Toolkit Index: 1 Scholars Lab Theory File

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Theory Toolkit Index: 1 Scholars Lab Theory File

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

Theory Toolkit Index