Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SDI 2008 KMT Theory
SDI 2008 KMT Theory
KMT
THEORY
THEORY......................................................................................................................................................................1 TOPICALITY IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE.................................................................................................................2 COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS GOOD.............................................................................................................3 COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS BAD................................................................................................................4 EFFECTS TOPICALITY BAD....................................................................................................................................5 EFFECTS TOPICALITY GOOD.................................................................................................................................6 CONDITIONALITY BAD...........................................................................................................................................7 1AR CONDITIONALITY EXTS DISPOSITIONALITY COUNTERINTERP...................................................8 1AR CONDITIONALITY EXTS #1 STABLE ADVOCACY..............................................................................9 1AR CONDITIONALITY EXTS #2 TIME/STRAT SKEW...............................................................................10 1AR CONDITIONALITY EXTS #3 DEPTH VS. BREADTH...........................................................................11 1AR CONDITIONALITY EXTS #4 RECIPROCITY........................................................................................12 CONDITIONALITY GOOD (1/2).............................................................................................................................13 CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2/2...............................................................................................................................14 DISPOSITIONALITY BAD......................................................................................................................................15 PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS ILLEGITIMATE......................................................................................16 1AR EXTS - #1 MOOTS 1AC................................................................................................................................17 1AR EXTS - #2 PLAN WRITING..........................................................................................................................18 1AR PICS EXTS #3 UNPREDICTABLE...........................................................................................................19 PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS LEGITIMATE..........................................................................................20 Textual Competition Good ........................................................................................................................................21 Functional Competition Good....................................................................................................................................22 AGENT CPS BAD.....................................................................................................................................................23 50 STATE UNIFORM FIAT BAD............................................................................................................................24 50 STATE UNIFORM FIAT GOOD.........................................................................................................................25 ...................................................................................................................................................................................26 Lopez CP BAD...........................................................................................................................................................26 INTERNATIONAL ACTOR FIAT BAD..................................................................................................................27 CONSULTATION CPS BAD....................................................................................................................................28 2NC CPS GOOD........................................................................................................................................................29 2NC CPS ILLEGITIMATE........................................................................................................................................30 NO TEXT TO THE K ALTERNATIVE BAD..........................................................................................................31 FLOATING PIKS BAD.............................................................................................................................................32
KMT
KMT
KMT
KMT
KMT
KMT
CONDITIONALITY BAD
Conditionality is a voting issue 1. destroys stable advocacy - policymakers dont advocate multiple paradoxical positions. This destroys realworld education. 2. strategy and time skew- the conditional nature of the CP means that the 2AC is mooted by the potential for the kick-out. The Aff cant control the policy advocacy in the round guts in-round decision-making. 3. depth over breadth- conditionality means shallow debates on more arguments instead of one developed in-depth position. Forcing the Negative to stick with one advocacy increases the depth of the debate. 4. not reciprocal- The affirmative cant kick out of the plan and has to defend it then so should the negative. 5. Interpretation Negatives are allowed on dispositional CP solves your offense and gives the Aff some strategy against the CP.
KMT
KMT
KMT
10
KMT
11
KMT
12
KMT
the purpose of mixed scanning as the "provision of alternative sets of action policies," using evaluation. []
the design methods. and something he calls "planning balance sheet" (p. 340). No details are provided concerning these techniques and Chadwick's endorsement of mined scanning "as a highly acceptable meta-procedure" is based on his judgment that it is flexible but not on an empirical study. Wright (1977) follows a similar tack.
Parkinson (1980) applies the mixed-scanning approach in an attempt to develop a new policy-making model for the educational system in Ohio, superior to the existing one. The approach used in the educational system before Parkinsons endeavor was relatively incremental; contextual considerations were neglected (1980, p. 161 1. Following the mixed-scanning approach, Parkinson developed a model that defines policy first on a broad level and then evaluates policy on an incremental level. To incorporate the mixed-scanning approach, Parkinson suggested that there is a need to establish a meta policy group with the capability to maintain broad perspectives needed for longer range planning. -without destroying the need for individuals and groups to research and provide information on specific policy issues which are of particular interest themselves (1980. p. 169). Parkinsons study is normarive in
that it is prescriptive; he did not study the results of shifting io the mixed-scanning model he favored in his study.
13
KMT
14
KMT
DISPOSITIONALITY BAD
Dispositionality is a voting issue 1. dispositionality is the same as conditionality - even if we straight turn it they can still advocate a independent da to case that over comes the advocacy and the plan we can never stick them with the cp killing education and fairness 2. strategy and time skew- the conditional nature of the CP means that the 2AC is mooted by the potential for the kick-out. The Negative could potentially read 10 different dispositional policy arguments the Aff cant fairly answer all of those worlds. 3. not reciprocal- the affirmative cant kick out of the plan and has to defend it then so should the negative. 4. counter interp- we can straight turn the net benefit but also get 1 theory arg other than dispo bad and a perm that is not intrensic.
15
KMT
**CONDITIONAL PICS ARE UNIQUELY ABUSIVE - RESIDUAL ARGUMENTS - because of the inclusive nature of the counterplan, there are residual effects of the offense that apply to the plan. This makes it impossible for the affirmative``` to read offense.
16
KMT
17
KMT
18
KMT
19
KMT
20
KMT
21
KMT
22
KMT
23
KMT
24
KMT
25
KMT
Lopez CP BAD
LOPEZ FIAT IS A VOTING ISSUE Double Actor Fiat Bad having both the federal and state governments act is unfair because its not reciprocal and it negates our USFG key warrant which is the only predictable strategic check against the states counterplan - it is not reciprocal with Aff fiat power 50 State Fiat Bad there is not literature on all 50 states acting in unison which denies our ability to produce comparative solvency arguments and its not reciprocal because they engage 50 independent actors we only get one
26
KMT
27
KMT
28
KMT
29
KMT
30
KMT
31
KMT
32