Your judge will never notice the difference unless you read this at a VERY SLOW pace c.Read Me BEFORE the debate!!
There are three important things to know about this file – a. This shouldn’t be a shortcut to making better arguments. Those are the basis for answering CX questions in the 2ac and for extending these arguments in the 2ar
. It should not be your plan “A” – you should be prepared to defend your affirmative. sometimes you don’t have a good set of responses or blocks to work with and you need a winning option. b. Read the file COMPLETELY before reading this in a debate – you’ll need to know the 1ar blocks well if you’re the 2ac. You should READ THE 2AC SLOWLY – this is a critical part of the strategy both because it sets up the very first argument in the 1ar overview and because it’s slightly different than most conditionality bad arguments. At the same time. Theory is difficult to win and going for this argument in any other circumstance than as a plan “B” isn’t helpfu l. That’s what this file is designed for.
Conditionality Bad – 2ac Shell
Conditionality is bad – a. Equity – it makes stable 2ac offense impossible – unlimited “negative flexibility” only produces one-sided. perf con bad – Kills education – forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory answers d. Counter-interpretation – they get one conditional advocacy or multiple dispositional advocacies
. Decision-making – it limits argument depth and pushes decision-making into the last rebuttals – these are both vital portable skills c. unfair benefits b.
There’s a reason: conditionality creates a larger chance of victory by allowing an inequitable level of flexibility. intended to 'limit the application of technology only where the [benefits are] wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction. ‘8 – Don Bradford Jr. a policymaker was to "specify the goal he seeks to attain[.] . conditionality has benefits – they’re HEAVILY weighted towards the Negative. .'" and the Toxic Substances Control Act. CBA came to prominence as part of a larger administrative law decisionmaking paradigm--so-called "comprehensive rationality"--which supplanted the incrementalism of the previous era. Alabama Law Review.
Some of the earliest examples." "The most demanding aspect of [comprehensive rationality was] the care with which it require[d] policymakers to consider the consequences of each policy option. JD from Alabama Law. While the late seventies saw a surge of legislative interest in
. For example. Almost everyone flips Neg in elims. Congress began to enact statutes that required various forms of CBA.] .1ar Overview
Conditionality is bad – four arguments up top 1. . 4. (****) Cost-benefit is the best way to decide debates – we have evidence to frame how you should make your decision
**NOTE – ONLY READ IF YOU’RE WILLING TO INVEST LOTS OF TIME IN CONDITIONALITY IN THE 1AR Hardin. passed in 1972. and was touted as "a practical way of assessing the desirability of projects. Equity – yes. loosely applied CBA to administrative decisionmaking. Vote on the exact text of your flow of the 2ac versus the 2nc – we slowed down at our own expense in a time-pressed 2ac – don’t reward the 2nc for racing through a theory block unclearly by allowing new 2nr extrapolation 2." CBA was designed to meet this demand. Use a cost-benefit paradigm – our interpretation solves their benefits – it allows one conditional advocacy or multiple dispositional advocacies. . . Decision-making – research and pre-round decision-making solve their offense – our interpretation solves argument depth and decision-making by rewarding early choices that deepen explanation. passed in 1969. . required a "'limited cost-benefit analysis' .] . Rev. 59 Ala. such as the National Environmental Policy Act. They don’t have any real cost to our counter-interpretation.. evaluate how effective each method will be in achieving the goal[. . . passed in 1976. 1135 Against this background. Equity comes first – debate is a competitive game where we debate the EVENLY BALANCED topics instead of the most interesting. identify all possible methods of reaching [the] objective[. Under the comprehensive rationality paradigm. We can’t generate unique 2ac offense and we only get one constructive to generate offense 3. the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. authorized the EPA to regulate substances that posed an "unreasonable risk" to health or safety and required consideration of the benefits of the substance and the economic costs of the contemplated regulation. Critical thinking and decision-making skills effect every moment of our lives and improve policy-making. L. [and] select the alternative that will make the greatest progress toward the desired outcome." As a result. Why else are we debating transportation? The Neg will be fine without multiple conditional advocacies. the requisite CBA became more concrete and particularized. . As time passed.
vaulted CBA to prominence as the regulatory decisionmaking paradigm of the administrative state..
Now. it was the order of a President. onto the line-by-line.CBA for government decisionmaking. not Congressional enactments.
they don’t – the 2ac can’t make good offensive decisions early in the debate. Our interpretation empowers the 2ac to direct the block’s strategy by making smart arguments
.A2 2ac Strategic Thinking
They say they force the 2ac to make better decisions – no.
the most time pressed speech.
. That means it doesn’t solve our equity or decision-making disadvantages.A2 2nc Choice Solves
They say only going for one in the 2nc solves – it doesn’t solve 2ac strategy or education – this just pushes decision-making into the 1ar.
Elims disprove – most teams flip Neg – that’s in the overview b. Research disproves – there are HUNDREDS of different arguments the Neg can choose from – there are a limited number of defensible affs c.A2 Aff Side Bias
They say there’s an aff side bias – three responses: a. multiple dispositional advocacies or the status quo – we get one unconditional plan we must always defend – that’s fair
. Our interpretation solves – you get a conditional advocacy.
A2 Everything is Conditional
They say all arguments are conditional – no. they’re not – if we turn a DA you’re stuck with it and if we prove your CP or alternative is bad you aren’t
A2 Neg Flex
They say neg flex – two responses: We solve – our interpretation enables negative flexibility while ensuring the Aff has an equitable right to generate offense – they allow an unfair level of flexibility
A2 SQ is Always a Logical Option
They say the status quo is always a logical option – three responses: 1. Pre-round prep solves this – they can research various positions and responses to determine the best one before the debate 3. Fairness turns logical policy-making – if they skew our 2ac and 1ar then we don’t have a fair chance to prove the status quo is worse than the plan
. Debate is different – policymakers don’t face arbitrary time constrains in explaining their arguments 2.
They get to read just as many advocacies if they read them dispositionally b.A2 Time Skew Inevitable
They say time skews are inevitable – two responses – a. Even if some time skew is inevitable. which force us to waste time with no strategic benefit
. Our argument isn’t about time. We can fix other sources of time skews – we can do speed drills or get more efficient. degree matters. Conditional counterplans open up new entirely new worlds with new argumentative interactions. it’s about strategy.
Advocacies are different – our T responses like reasonability are useful on each T argument – conditionality means we don’t get offense that applies to each advocacy.A2 We’d Read Multiple T Args
They say they could just read multiple T violations – two responses: a. T also doesn’t affect our strategy on substance nor does it constrain how we answer certain disadvantages and CPs. We don’t have that same ability with counterplans. 2ac strategy matters – we can affect how we deal with T by choosing an aff that goes to the core of the topic literature and we did that by reading Ports. b.
Our argument is different than the one they assume – it isn’t that you force us to contradict ourselves or that the 2ac shouldn’t be a very difficult speech – our argument is that we can’t develop meaningful offense and that is unfair because they get to develop several meaningful forms of offense without also facing some risk. If you had one conditional advocacy we could still read add-on advantages to the affirmative and if you had multiple dispositional advocacies we could read DAs to one of the CPs and stick them with it. Either way we’d have a chance to develop some form of offense
.A2 Your Interp Links to your DAs
They say our interpretation links to our offense – two responses – a.