You are on page 1of 43

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

**Status Theory**

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is bad for the following voters 1. Doesnt help educationthe Neg can simply graze the surface of the literature and cover breadth over depth rather than actually go in depth on a topic 2. Fairness The neg can kick anything without actually planning on advocating it and the aff cant which is unfair 3. Counter-Interpretation- The Neg should only be allowed to kick the Counterplan or Kritik Dispositionally so the aff has some kind of control of the round 4. Reject the Team- The only way to discourage people from running these kind of arguments is to punish them for running them

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

Conditionality Good
Conditionality- Good 1. Aff bias- neg gets first and last speech, infinite prep, and chooses the substance of the debate 2. Reciprocal- Aff reads multiple advantages and can kick out of some if theyre disproven, neg should be able to do the same 3. Best policy option- in the real world, amendments can be made to a bill and parts can be taken out, conditionality allows the neg to find the best option 4. Portable skills- the 2ac has to be able to pick out the strongest arguments and put the most answers on those 5. Education- learn about a variety of different cps and ks, not just one every round 6. Multiple perms check- they get to make multiple perms on all the arguments and test the competition of all the ks and counterplans from all sides, if they all compete then we should be able to run them all 7. Reject the argument, not the team- then we have to defend the status quo, which shouldnt be a problem for the aff since theyve had infinite prep on it

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

Dispositionality - Good
1. Education a. Best policy option real policy makers are never forced to pass or confined to just one solution b. Forces strategic 2AC answers and critical thinking Ground -a. Neg flex Our only burden is to disprove the plan. multiple levels is vital to negative strategy and 2NR also to check aff bias Non-unique -- negative arguments are dispo. Air neg on theory aff goes first, last, and has unlimited prep. Not a voter -- Reject the argument not the team.

2.

3. 4. 5.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

Dispositionality Bad
Dispositionality is a voter 1. Strat Skew - Forces the Aff to alter their 2ac to answer arguments that will be dropped. 2ac is vital throughout the debate to regain control of the round after Neg block. Neg gets to kick out whenever they want, but we cant check back by making perms. Key to Fairness 2. Time Skew More important arguments get less time in answering off-cases the Neg will drop. Messes with time allocation. 3. Education The Neg doesnt have to understand their arguments because they drop them, preventing the Aff from learning too. 4. Depth over Breadth In depth argumentation is better than quick overview on many advocacies. Allows opportunity to learn. 5. Unfair Aff sticks with the 1AC, dont let the Neg kick out 6. Moving Target The Neg can change the definition of dispo to suit their needs, no predictable definition.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

DA Intrinsicness 2AC
2AC: DA not intrinsic a logical policymaker could pass the plan and ________.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

DA Intrinsicness 1AR
In a world of policymaking the federal government could pass the plan and pass legislation for _____. Theres no reason the issues are interconnected. Thats best because the politics DA is bad: 1. Education having every debate centered around politics takes away time from more important issues like the actual implementation of the plan. 2. Should means theoretical the plan is the focus of the debate, not what happens during the process of passing the legislation. 3. Counter-interpretation DAs are legitimate if their links are predicated off of a direct effect of the plan, not the process of passing it.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

DA Intrinsicness 2NC
The DA is intrinsic we provided a specific causal chain. The politics disad is good for debate 1. Neg ground we need generic DAs to check for unpredictable affs and large topics. 2. Real world passing any legislation through Congress has a direct effect on other Congressmen. 3. Education learning about the various constituencies and the effect of implementation is unique education that improves critical thinking which is the only portable skill and outweighs their impacts. 4. Counter interpretation any DA is legitimate as long as it proves a direct causal chain form the plan.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

**Particular CPs**

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

10

Functional Competition Good


Counterplans should be functionally competitive 1. Stops the neg from stealing the entirety of the aff- for the neg to be functionally competitive, they cannot steal the 1ac, making sure that the 1ac stays un-mooted 2. Most real-world- bills arent amended to change punctuation, they are amended to change the function 3. Limited number of CPs- the CP must compete based on a function of the plan. 4. Ground- There is always offence on how the function of the CP differs from the function of the plan 5. Functional competition is better than the alternativea. Textual competition destroys debate i. STRAT SKEW: Textual comp. allows for the 1ac to get mooted ii. EDUCATION DESTRUCTION: Textual competition turns the topic of the debate to grammar, rather than the res. b. NO COMPETITION IS STUPID AND DESTROYS DEBATE- TURNS THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE AWAY FROM THE RESOLUTION AND EDUCATION ON THE YEARS TOPIC.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

11

Functional Competition Bad


Counterplans cannot be functionally competitive: 1. Does not destroy policymaking: nothing we do in this round actually matters at all to actual policymaking. 2. Does not kill topic focus: if we spend 15-45 seconds each speech on theory and the rest of the debate round on the actual topic, we still learn a lot. 3. Not infinitely regressive: these arguments have been run in debate for years, so yes there would be neg ground, but the aff would be ready to debate it 4. Does not encourage vague plan writing: debaters are smart, and they want to learn out of this activity, they would not write as little in the plan text as possible so that they dont have to defend against any counterplans, because the other team wants to learn. If they do not want to learn, then they should not be in debate to begin with 5. Functional competition bad: offense is not garnered off how the cp is functionally different than the plan

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

12

Textual Competition Good


Textual competition best: 1. Most real world- Legal policy needs to have distinctive language in order to ensure compliance, and amendments to bills arent functional, theyre textual changes to a piece of legislation. The same applies to a CP. 2. Higher quality of debate- When the aff plan and the neg counterplan focus on the text of the advocacy, it allows for a more in-depth debate about the policy in question. That a key I/L to education. 3. Theres no bright line to functional competition. Textual competition is the only way to hold a team accountable to their advocacy. Thats key to fairness. 4. Text is the basis for function- We cant accurately debate function if we dont have a static text from which we can derive that function.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

13

Textual Competition Bad


Textual competition bad: 1. Not real world- Congressmen and Senators care about the function of a given piece of legislation- not the text. Text isnt important in the context of policy debate- if the aff really wanted to be real world, they would outline the plan in pages of legislation. 2. Abusive- allows for permutations that are textually legitimate but functionally arent valid. You justify ban the plan permutations- that allows you to just spike out of your entire aff 3. CX checks functional competition- were not abusive. 4. Text is meant to ensure function- Textual competition isnt meant to be the end goal of competition, its meant to ensure functional competition 5. Kills education- functional competition ensures actual argumentation, while text comp devolves debate into a giant word game.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

14

PICS Good
Voter - PICS are good and a voting issue for fairness and education. Education - PICs allow the whole aff to be under speculation and thats how we learn. They write every part of the aff, they should be able to defend it. We should be able to do that to be most real world and make debate an effective portable skill. Fairness - PICs extend fairness, as the aff has infinite prep. The aff has an equivalent to PICs with perms. They can use perms to take our CP from us. It is impossible for a CP to not be a PIC, as it has to include at least a bit of the plan. If anything, reject the arg, not the team.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

15

PICS Bad
PICs are bad and a voting issue
EducationWhen debating our own aff we arent forced to think, takes away educational value that debate holds that we cant get elsewhere; hurts Aff and Neg teams alike. Fairness The Aff is forced to debate against their plan; the Aff will be impossible to win, for ability the neg will have to CP out of everything; resulting in the Aff having no solvency for its own. PredictabilityNeg can virtually PIC out of any part of the plan, making it impossible for the aff to predict and prepare for their arguments.

Reject the team

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

16

Conditions CP Good
Conditions CPs help education, they give a deeper understanding of the issue and help find best policy Conditions CPs are not impossible to prep, the aff knows the issues of their aff and they can always do say no Perm is not only option, aff can challenge competitiveness This is not a cheap shot - It is harder for us to prep this than them Unfair for neg: it will totally kill our strategy and ruin the debate Conditions CPs help the aff, they can always add the condition into their plan post round and debate better because of it No impact: Even if unfair, there is no reason that it will unbalance debate

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

17

Conditions CPs Bad


Steals the AFF the neg should not be allowed to take all aff ground Fairness - It allows the neg to take all of our ground by just attaching a condition and keeps us
from perming. You can win on nothing but an unrelated NB.

Education It ruins the debate by creating a world where you arent debating the best policy Abusive - We cant argue every change the Neg can think of. Predictability- It changes the debate; untopical item doesnt help with understanding.

Counter Interp: Legit if it they have a comparative solvency advocate

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

18

Consult CPs Bad


Consult counterplans are bad and a voter:

1. Unpredictable The negative can consult any tiny country of the 180 countries in the world. Theres no way to predict who the neg is going to consult. That undermines unlimited aff prep 2. Artificially inflates the NB takes all 1AC offense and adds any miniscule net benefit that doesnt have a significant impact 3. Kills education moots 1AC and aff research, consult CP can link to any aff every year. 4. Unfair steals entire 1AC. Any offense we read means were debating against our own aff 5. Recipriocity the affirmative can only use the USFG, neg should too 6. C/I CP is legitimate if and only if theres a piece of comparative evidence of the act of the consultation. And, NB justifies the SQ

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

19

Consult CPs Good


Education
a. Better discussion to consultation mechanisms and diplomatic knowledge b. Tests desirability in which the plan is passed

Real world- Countries engage in consultation process on international plans Research Forces research beyond the topic countries Predictability- Lit base checks Neg Ground Forces immediate enactment and governmental action, which is the lynchpin of
all neg disads- their interpretation allows aff severance

Aff Ground - Aff leverages ground on immediacy and certainty Cant use back-files Evidence of the CP must be specific to plan and squo Fairness- Checks aff on sand-bagging Aff side bias - The aff has first and last speech and unlimited prep time Counter Interpretation - Consult CP should have a mechanism which it uses; net benefits
check abuse arguments

Defaulting to theoretical reasonability best for debate- only have to win that the CP just
doesnt destroy it

Reject the Argument not the Team

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

20

International Fiat Bad


International counterplans are illegitimate --1. Time and Strat skew --- steals the 1ac and moots 8 minutes of aff speech time 2. Object fiat bad they can fiat away almost all our impact scenarios if they can fiat any country they want to do whatever they want. 3. Predictability theres hundreds of countries and thousands of international agencies its impossible to research for all of them 4. No ground forces us to debate ourselves, which jacks AFF ground and destroys our offense. They get the NEG block so you need to hold them to a high standard. 5. C/I they get any actor counterplan within the USFG solves their offense and limits the research burden and allows us to make link arguments easier Justifies permutation do both

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

21

International Fiat Good


International fiat is good: 1. Tests the affirmative they need to be able to defend the entirety of the plan 2. Best for critical thinking forcing them to debate on specific parts of the plan makes them prepare more detailed and educational answers 3. International education allows for education about international actors rather than simply the USFG 4. Its not utopian/object fiat - other countries often invest in things like the plan, it tests the plans desirability 5. It is reciprocal the USFG is made up of thousands of different actors, theres no reason why we cant fiat that many as well. 6. Err Neg on theory the aff gets infinite prep, first and last speech, and get to set the ground with the 1AC 7. Checks new affs generics are key to a debate against the infinite number of plans that are possible 8 Not a voting issue reject the argument not the team.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

22

Agent CPs Bad


1. Predictability: there are so many agents to choose from, it is impossible to research, where as choosing the USFG allows the neg to just choose from out of that. 2. Infinite regression - fairness: we are only allowed to choose from one agent, where as they are able to choose from thousands, it is unfair. 3. Kills topic specific education: not talking about the actual plan, but only talking about who does it, provides no education on the topic, this is an unfair use of plausible debate time that could be used to learn from. 4. Steals the aff: it is absolutely impossible to gather offense when all you do is make a plan.

Artifical Net Benefits are Bad:


1.

Extremely unpredictable: there is no reason why us, as debaters should have to be prepared to debate about the external action of the plan, such as who does it, but we should only be ready to defend reasons why the plan is good or bad. 2. Bad debate focus: we should not focus on an external reason to act, THIS IS BAD EDUCATION, but we should focus on the artificial net benefits means we are no longer focused on the topic 3. Strategy skew and time skew: if we straight turn, or impact turn, then they can just kick the counterplan. DONE. 4. Not an opportunity cost: No where yet have they stated a reason why the plan is actually bad, they have just talked about why another action would be good, means they have not met their neg burden and create a bad model for decision making, which is not real world.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

23

Agent CPs Good


1. Education: a. Most real-world: i. The federal government is not the only actor who can solve the resolution Predictabilitya. Agent counterplans have been used in debate for an incredibly long amount of time b. Solvency advocates show that there is enough lit on the topic to be predictable 2. Educationa. The CP is still about the resolution, the aff must defend their actor to show that their plan is the best Policy option b. Breadthi. There is a wealth of arguments for each topic. Debate is meant to be about breadth, displayed best through how the resolution is written each year. Reject the argument, not the team

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

24

Delay CPs Bad


Delay Counterplans are Bad 1. Unpredictable: Its impossible to accurately have answers on the Aff for something to happen sometime in the future 2. Education: It kills education we dont know that anything will happen for sure we just guess and the debate becomes a guessing game 3. Fairness: It forces the aff to debate against itself and detracts from the actual debate of whether the plan is good or bad, not just when it should be implemented 4. Reject the Argument and the Team: The only way to discourage people from running these kind of arguments is to punish them for running them

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

25

Delay CPs Good


Delay Counterplans- Good 1. Best policy option- the purpose of debate is to find the best policy option, if there is a benefit to doing the plan at a later time, we should be able to do that 2. Most real world- in the real world if there was a benefit to doing to plan later, congress people would do that. This is the best internal link to education because we should learn about how things operate in the real world 3. All CPs have a delay mechanism- consult, agent, and process counterplans can all have delay elements to them. Taking these away would kill neg ground. 4. Its predictable- the net benefit is just a DA to the implementation of plan. This is no different than any other counterplan that solves for another DA to the plan like the actor or the process. Counter interpretation: reject the argument not the team; we should still debate about issues of substance as the debate goes on, not just theoretical objections.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

26

2NC CPs Good


Education Promote education more exposure to arguments allow for more education every round Doesnt stop important discussion the best policy option is the point of the discussion, and CPs dont take much time to discuss Fairness They can still answer the 1AR has full ability to answer any arguments our CP makes Late developing arguments favor aff the 2AR gives them an advantage here No time skew it takes much longer to make a CP than answer it, trade off favors aff even if in 1AR Not overpowered even if the aff doesnt answer well we dont have the time to make it competitive

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

27

2NC CPs Bad


Fairness: Why wouldnt they have proposed this in the 1NC. It forces a rebuttal speech to
answer something for the first time, even though they could have put it into the 1NC

Predictability: We could not have known the Neg would propose a CP; steals our prep Counter Interp: It should be in the 1NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

28

**Perm Theory**

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

29

Severance Bad
Ground: the perm is a check of the competitiveness not an advocacy. So we can slightly
change the plan to check the competitiveness.

Education: in real world politics politicians make amendments to their plan to help gain
support or fix problems. We will be the future policy makers so we should practice working like them.

Fairness: The negative can read Ks and CPs that have nothing to do with the plan except a
similar funding or an advantage. The severance perm is key to checking any abusive negative CP, PIC or Vague K

Reject the Perm not the team: Voting a team down based on a theory mistake is less
educational than voting on argumentation if there is abuse drop it from the flow

Potential abuse isnt a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse; if we are debating this
then there is no abuse because it isnt Abuse its potential abuse

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

30

Severence- Good
Education: in real world politics politicians make amendments to their plan to help gain
support or fix problems

Fairness: The negative can read Ks and CPs that have nothing to do with the plan except a
similar funding or one word in the case. The Aff needs to be able to adjust the plan to be able to perm random Ks and CP and perms are vital Aff offence on CPs and Ks to check competitiveness

Ground: the perm is a check of the competitiveness not an advocacy. So we can slightly
change the plan to check the competitiveness

Reject the argument not the team: Voting a team down based on a theory mistake is
less educational than voting on argumentation if there is abuse drop it from the flow

Potential abuse isnt a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

31

Multiple Perms Bad


1. Education Instead of debating the substance of the negative advocacy we get sucked into a debate only about whether its competitive. Voter for education. 2. Time Skew Aff can simply say perm do both and the neg has to spend a lot of time responding to it makes it hard for the Neg to respond to the argument actually made against the substantive claims of the K or CP. Voter for fairness. 3. Predictability The affirmative could make any minute permutation they want impossible for the neg to predict every ridiculous perm the aff could read let alone respond to them. Voter for fairness.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

32

Multiple Perms Good


Fairness: the negative can run any amount of CPs and the Aff needs to be able to check it
and perms are the only way to check them

Time: The negative block can run any amount of new conditional counterplans and the Aff
needs to be able to answer 13 minutes of Neg arguments and perms are the quickest and best solution Ground: the perm is a test of competiveness not an advocacy. The Aff should always be able to test competiveness

Education: in real world you can do any amount of plans and pass them through Reject the argument not the team: Voting a team down based on a theory mistake is
less educational than voting on argumentation if there is abuse drop it from the flow

Potential abuse isnt a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse, if we are debating this
then there is no abuse because it isnt Abuse its potential abuse

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

33

Intrinsicness - Bad
. Moving target The neg has no idea how the case will change with the permutation destroys block strategy making it impossible to be neg. Voter for Fairness. 2. Predictability They could run an unthinkable number of intrinsic permutations neg cant predict the thousands of minute perms making them impossible to respond to. Voter for fairness. 3. Unfair Net Benefits They can add any net benefit to the permutation making it impossible to respond to - We could read a process CP and they could respond with a perm with a net benefit totally unrelated to the case that we werent prepared to respond to. Voter for fairness.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

34

Intrinsicness Good
Education: in real life lawmakers make changes to bills and add things to make it more
successful. We are the future policy makers so we should practice this skill.

Ground: Key to Aff ground because other wise the Neg would be able to run any CP that has
nothing to do with the Aff and the Aff couldnt perm it (Example here).

Reject the argument not the team: Voting a team down based on a theory mistake is
less educational than voting on argumentation if there is abuse drop it from the flow

Potential abuse isnt a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse, if we are debating this
then there is no abuse because it isnt Abuse its potential abuse

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

35

Reject the Team


1. Precedent Not voting on our theory argument means that theyll have a further incentive to continue butchering the negs fairness and education, voting them down gives them a higher incentive to stop being abusive. 2. Whats done is done all of our voters are reasons you should reject the team the abuse has already occurred. Theyve already hindered our education and made it impossible to be the neg in this debate. The damage has been done.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

36

**K Theory**

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

37

Aff Inclusive Kritiks - Bad


1. Education: Floating PIC gets rid of the neg burden to prove exclusivity and makes the
debate about who can imagine the best advocacy rather than about the topic

2. Fairness: It is the burden of the negative to prove mutual exclusivity and without the
burden they can come up with any philosophical flaws in the assumptions of the plan and it is impossible for the aff to prep answers to all of them

3. Ground: The neg can change their advocacy in the block which makes the previous aff
speeches meaningless.

4. Reject the Team: It is the only way to set a precedent for future rounds.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

38

Aff Inclusive Kritiks - Good


1.Key to real world change- allows us to identify priorities and make rejections, forcing people to change, the implementation of the affirmative should not have to preclude the alternative, the alternative should be a mode of identification that the affirmative is bad and we have to reject it. 2. Key Neg Ground - All arguments include parts of the affirmative- they got to pick all of the
1AC and should have to defend all of it. The K aff is more popular than ever and the AIK is a critical argument to test if the affirmative presentation is flawed. Reject the argument, not the team.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

39

Vague Alts Bad


Violation: Their alternative does not have a distinct advocacy. They can change their strategy and undermines affirmative ground and fairness in this debate. Ground: Vague alts let the neg change their strategy. The aff cant pin the neg down, making affirmative offense impossible, and the neg being unpredictable. Neg has the strategic advantage of reinventing their advocacy. This skews affirmative time by forcing them to pin the negative down. Education: Vague alts make the aff go on a wild goose chase instead of focusing the debate on the topic. Vague alts are a voter because the negative is committing a strategy and ground skew.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

40

Vague Alts Good


Not a voter: Reject the argument not the team. Ground: Cross X checks. That means we cant reinvent our advocacy. Education: Turn: Vague alts solve a greater impact to education- we allow for a wider research focus and force critical thinking No bright line: No differentiation between vague and specific.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

41

Neg Fiat Bad


The negative shouldnt get fiat: 1. Best for testing the affirmative fundamentally questions whether the plan is good or not, rather than shifting the debate to whether or not there is something better than it 2. Best for breadth of education counterplans allow the negative to steal the plans offense, shifting the debate to miniscule net benefits versus the plan as a whole 3. Critical thinking forces the teams to weigh large and different scenarios rather than a relatively unimportant net benefit 4. Steals aff offense allows them to nullify our 1ACs offense by using it as their own 5. Explodes aff research burden neg has infinite disads, the aff shouldnt have to prep for CPs and Ks either 6. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and infinite generics This is a voting issue for fairness and education set a precedent against bad practices. Even if you dont buy this, you should limit the debate to plan vs. plan.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

42

Neg Fiat Good


The negative should get fiat: 1. Reciprocity if the aff gets fiat, the neg should too 2. Key to negative ground the aff gets 8 minutes of pure offense in the 1AC, we need ways to soak some of that up through CPs 3. Best for testing the affirmative tests the specifics of the plan 4. Specificity tests the 1AC in more specific ways, which is key to critical thinking 5. Allows for more diversity in debate makes debate more interesting than simply disad vs advantage constantly 6. Consistently fair the status quo often changes, conditional worlds allow for us to adapt so that times like an economic recession dont completely skew the debate 7. Err neg on theory aff gets infinite prep and first and last speeches 8. Counter-interpretation: neg gets ___ actors to fiat in ___ worlds sets a limit on negative fiat while still solving our offense Not a voting issue at most, you should reject the fiat-ed off-case positions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013

43