J(E)DI 2010 1

Taylor/Naputi Theory
INDEX
Dispo good............................................................................................................................................2
Dispo bad..............................................................................................................................................3
Conditionality Good.............................................................................................................................4
Conditionality Bad................................................................................................................................5
Multiple CPs Good...............................................................................................................................6
Multiple CPs Bad.................................................................................................................................
2NC CPs Good.....................................................................................................................................!
2NC CPs Bad........................................................................................................................................"
Multiple #$tors Good.........................................................................................................................%&
Multiple #$tors Bad............................................................................................................................%%
'nternational (iat Good.......................................................................................................................%2
'nternational (iat Bad.........................................................................................................................%3
Consult Good......................................................................................................................................%4
Consult Bad........................................................................................................................................%5
Topi$al CPs Good...............................................................................................................................%6
#gent CPs Good.................................................................................................................................%
#gent CPs Bad...................................................................................................................................%!
P'Cs Good..........................................................................................................................................%"
P'Cs Bad.............................................................................................................................................2&
Te)tual Co*petition Best...................................................................................................................2%
(un$tional Co*petition Best..............................................................................................................22
Negati+e (iat Good.............................................................................................................................23
No Negati+e (iat.................................................................................................................................24
,e+eran$e Per*s Good.......................................................................................................................25
,e+eran$e Per*s Bad.........................................................................................................................26
'ntrinsi$ness Per*s Good...................................................................................................................2
'ntrinsi$ness Per*s Bad.....................................................................................................................2!
Multiple Per*s Good.........................................................................................................................2"
Multiple Per*s Bad............................................................................................................................3&
T( Per*s Good...................................................................................................................................3%
T( Per*s Bad.....................................................................................................................................32
No Te)t to t-e Per*............................................................................................................................33
.ague Per*s Good.............................................................................................................................34
.ague Per*s Bad................................................................................................................................35
No Te)t to t-e #lt Bad........................................................................................................................36
(loating P'Cs Good............................................................................................................................3
(loating P'Cs Bad...............................................................................................................................3!
.ague #lts Good.................................................................................................................................3"
.ague #lts Bad...................................................................................................................................4&
J(E)DI 2010 2
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Dispo good
%. 't/s re$ipro$al0 '1 t-e #11 gets *ultiple tests o1 our ad+o$a$y2 3e s-ould get t-e sa*e. Dispo ensures $o*petiti+e e4uity
2. 5ey to negati+e 1le)ibility06ur only burden is to dispro+e t-e plan. Being able to test it at *ultiple le+els is essential to
neg strategy and ground2 3-i$- out3eig-s t-eir +oters be$ause neg 1le)ibility is 7ey to balan$ing a *assi+e a11 side bias.
3. T-e #lternati+e is 3orse0#bsent dispo2 t-e CP $ould be $onditional03-i$- is in1initely unpredi$table 1or t-e a112 68
t-e status 4uo2 3-i$- t-ey -a+e in1inite prep to de+elop o11ense against2 and un$onditional CPs deny strategi$ neg
1le)ibility and aren/t real 3orld
4. 9n$ourages ,trategi$ De$ision Ma7ing0allo3ing 2N8 strategi$ options 1or$es predi$ti+e $riti$al t-in7ing0doesn/t
s7e3 ti*e be$ause 2#8 al3ays -as t-e last spee$- to e)ploit t-e negati+e and t-e ball is in t-eir $ourt0t-e 2#C -as t-e
option to straig-t:turn t-e CP as a strategi$ option to resol+e any $onne$tion to $onditionality
5. 9du$ation0't/s *ost real 3orld. Poli$y*a7ers o1ten test out proposals and de$ide t-e status 4uo is better a1ter so*e
debate. Criti$al ; strategi$ t-in7ing 3ill al3ays out3eig- t-eir abuse in 3-at 1osters a *ore produ$ti+e edu$ation
6. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. Non:uni4ue0#ll negati+e argu*ents are dispositional. T-e a11ir*ati+e isn/t $o*plaining about us potentially 7i$7ing
out o1 topi$ality or a disad t-at/s not straig-t:turned.
!. Ti*e and strategy s7e3s are ine+itable < tea*s 3ill al3ays be 1aster and t-eory and topi$ality argu*ents 3ill al3ays
produ$e a ti*e and strategi$ trade:o11 < t-e $ounterplan is pre1erable to t-ese debates be$ause it in$reases edu$ation and
e4uali=es ti*e trade o11s
". 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 3
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Dispo bad
Offense:
%. Multiple Worlds0uni4ueness2 sol+en$y2 D# lin7s2 and 7riti7s *ust be 1iltered t-roug- t3o 3orlds and 1un$tionally
argued t3i$e07ills 2#C strategy and %#8 ti*e allo$ation. #llo3s negati+e to s-i1t bet3een $ontradi$tory ad+o$a$ies.
#buse -as already o$$urred.
2. Straight turn option faors negatie0al3ays gi+es t-e negati+e t-e blo$7 1ollo3ed by t-e %#801or$es a11ir*ati+e to
narro3 debate be1ore blo$70$-oi$e to straig-t turn al3ays puts a11 at ti*e disad+antage. 't 1or$es us to eli*inate our best
de1ense and $auses t-e 2#C to re+eal our strategy2 allo3ing t-e blo$7 to e)ploit us. @etting neg di$tate a11 strategy 7ills
1airness and edu$ation.
3. Sa!e as "onditionality0Ae -a+e no $-oi$e but to per* t-e CP or t-ey $an read add:ons t-at are non:$o*petiti+e.
,traig-t turning t-e $ounterplan pro+es it is not net bene1i$ial 3-i$- is e)a$tly 3-at a per* does by pro+ing non:
$o*petition2 3-i$- a*pli1ies all our ground argu*ents. Conditionality is bad < Ma7es t-e neg a *o+ing target2 >usti1ies
*ultiple $ontradi$tory CPs2 and s7e3s 2a$ ti*e be$ause it *a7es it i*possible 1or t-e a11 to generate o11ense.
Defense
%. #$o solen"y defi"its% is a &ad interpretation''1 t-e CP is a 1or$ed $-oi$e2 t-en any part o1 t-e #11 t-e CP doesn/t
sol+e is an 6((9N,'.9 reason to do t-e plan. T-eir interpretation $onstrains #11 strategi$ $-oi$e2 so t-e ball really isn/t in
our $ourt.
2. $ot real (orld0poli$y*a7ers al3ays -a+e to deal 3it- t-e $onse4uen$es o1 any option t-ey propose to t-e go+ern*ent
or publi$. Nobody says B-ere/s an a*end*ent but '/ll 3it-dra3 it i1 you *a7e an argu*ent ' don/t li7e against it.C
3) Err aff on theory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 *
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Conditionality Good
::'n$reases ,trategi$ T-in7ing01or$es t-e #11 to -a+e good ti*e allo$ation and strategi$ t-in7ing2 3-i$- is best 1or
edu$ation. T-eir 1alse ti*e s7e3 argu*ents only *agni1y t-is
::Neg 1le) < T-e a11 -as intrinsi$ ad+antages in ter*s o1 1ra*ing t-e debate2 gi+ing bot- t-e 1irst and
last spee$-es2 and 3in/loss per$entages pro+e. T-e neg needs a +ariety o1 approa$-es to ans3er t-e a11.
to *aintain $o*petiti+e e4uity and $-e$7 #11. side bias
::re$ipro$ity0a11ir*ati+e gets 1iated ad+o$a$y and $an 7i$7 it to go 1or turns or t-eory0negati+e s-ould -a+e one too0
dispo ensures $o*petiti+e e4uity.
::Not any 3orse t-an disp0Dispo is 3orse be$ause it gi+es t-e illusion o1 a 1alse strategi$ $-oi$e. T-at leads to e+en
3orse 2#C de$isions
::Ti*e and strategy s7e3s are ine+itable < tea*s 3ill al3ays be 1aster and t-eory and topi$ality argu*ents 3ill al3ays
produ$e a ti*e and strategi$ trade:o11 < t-e $ounterplan is pre1erable to t-ese debates be$ause it in$reases edu$ation and
e4uali=es ti*e trade o11s
::2#C ans3ers are $onditional0a11 is only stu$7 3it- a 2#C arg i1 3e e)tend it02#C $an gi+e se+eral alternati+es and
per*s to a $riti$is* or turns and uni4uness argu*ents against a disad and %#8 $an be sele$ti+e0i1 3e straig-t turn your
alternati+e to a $riti$is* or per* you $an >ust ignore it and it goes a3ay. Conditionality is re$ipro$al and insures
$o*petiti+e e4uity.
::Drop THIS argu*ent not t-e tea*0best 1or t-e #11. be$ause it returns us to de1ending t-e status 4uo 3-ere t-ey -a+e
in1inite prep ti*e to de+elop " *inutes o1 o11ense
::9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
::status 4uo not e4uitable ad+o$a$y0a11ir*ati+e gets in1inite prep ti*e to atta$7 t-e status 4uo03e/re al3ays already "
*inutes be-ind on t-e status 4uo0$onditionality $-e$7s in1inite prep.
::not *ultiple 3orlds0only *atters on % or 2 o11:$ase. T-ey $an still straig-t turn t-e net:bene1its to garner o11ense2 e+en
i1 3e 7i$7 t-e CP in t-e 2N8
::no argu*ent irresponsibility0t-e >udge 3ould eit-er +ote against us any 3ay or tan7 our spea7s. Co*paring CPs to
ra$is* is a >o7e at best be$ause it/s not a +alue >udge*ent
:: 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 +
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Conditionality Bad
,onditionality is &ad and a oting issue for "o!petitie e-uity and edu"ation.
OFFENSE:
/) Ti!e0Strategy S1e(0,andbags t-eir strategy until t-e 2N8. (or$es t-e%#8 into an un>ust ti*e s7e3 3-ere t-ey -a+e
to ans3er t-e CP and t-e status 4uo. Ma7es it i*possible to de+elop o11ense2 or 1or$es us into an in-erently non:strategi$
position o1 straig-t:turning e+eryt-ing in t-e %#8 or get $rus-ed in t-e ti*e:trade o11. 5ills all a11 1le)ibility and
1un$tionally s-ortens t-e 2#C
2) Ma1es "ounterplan ris1 free offense and defense0%#8 $annot e)tend o11ense on 7i$7ed Counterplan0negati+e
1or$es ans3ers and *a7es no strategi$ $on$ession07ills $o*petiti+e e4uity0a11 is stu$7 3it- ad+antages2 3-i$- *eans
it/s not re$ipro$al.
,) 3egit!i4es per! ado"a"y and !ultiple per!s0t-ey be$o*e t-e only $-e$7. 6t-er3ise2 no #11. $ould 3in 3it-out
o11ense. T-ey *aintain $o*petiti+e e4uity be$ause it/s re$ipro$al.
D) 5ro!otes argu!entatie irresponsi&ility0Dusti1ies using ra$ist and se)ist language 3it-out liability. T-is is anti:
edu$ational and/or *eans 3e s-ould be able to 7i$7 out o1 t-e plan in t-e %#8 be$ause 3e/re not responsible 1or t-e %#C
DEFENSE:
/) Dispo soles all their offense0't/s *ore real 3orld ; gi+es t-e #11. t-e strategi$ option to straig-t turn in t-e 2#C2
3-i$- in$reases strategi$ t-in7ing on a le+el playing 1ield and still allo3s 1or neg 1le)ibility
2) $ot re"ipro"al0Dusti1ies t-e a11 7i$7ing $ase and reading a ne3 one in t-e 2#C2 se+eran$e and intrinsi$ness0i1 t-e neg
$an $-ange t-eir ad+o$a$y 3-ene+er t-ey 3ant2 t-e a11 s-ould be able to do t-e sa*e. T-is 3ould be 3orse 1or t-e Neg
,) $egation theory doesn6t "he"1'$ounteprlan 1or$es a double turn bet3een t3o args t-e neg runs0pro+es t-e +arious
reasons to negate are not $onsidered in isolation. Negati+e ad+o$a$y *ust be $onsistent be$ause 3e lose i1 our ans3ers
aren/t.
D) $ot 1ey to find the &est poli"y option0doesn6t in"rease "riti"al thin1ing0it doesn/t in$rease $riti$al t-in7ing or 1ind
t-e best poli$y option be$ause 3-ene+er t-e neg is put in a toug- position t-ey/ll >ust 7i$7 t-e $ounterplan
E) The 2lo"1 "he"1s /ff side &ias0t-ey -a+e t-e %3 *inute blo$7 to t-e 5 *inute %#8 and t-ey -a+e issue $-oi$e
7) Err aff on theory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 8
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Multiple CPs Good
%. Neg (le)ibility0Ae s-ould be able to test all parts o1 t-e #11. 1ro* *ultiple angles. 'n1inite prep *eans t-ey s-ould be
prepared 1or all o1 t-ese CPs any3ay. Multiple CPs allo3 t-e Neg. to balan$e t-at in1inite prep2 3-ereas 1or$ing only one
CP arti1i$ially $onstrains our ability to $-e$7 t-eir in1inite prep ti*e
2. ,trategi$ T-in7ing0(or$es t-e a11. to *a7e strategi$ $-oi$es 3-en and i1 t-e de$ide to ans3er *ultiple approa$-es.
T-is 1oster *ore in:dept- debates 3-ere t-e 2#C $an utili=e t-e per*utations bet3een t-e CPs
3. Best Poli$y 6ption0#s a poli$y*a7er2 you 1irst responsibility is to 1ind t-e *ost sol+ent and net:bene1i$ial poli$y.
Multiple CPs are real:3orld be$ause politi$ians o1ten 1lip:1lop or o11er *ultiple +ersion o1 a proposal
4. T-e #lternati+es are 3orse03e $ould -a+e easily read e+ery CP te)t toget-er as one in a $o*ple) paragrap- t-at 3ould
su$7 up prep ti*e trying to de$ip-er2 not to *ention t-e nig-t*aris-:loo7ing per*utations. #ll o1 t-is detra$ts 1ro* t-e
edu$ational potential o1 ea$- option
5. Ti*e and strategy s7e3s are ine+itable < tea*s 3ill al3ays be 1aster and t-eory and topi$ality argu*ents 3ill al3ays
produ$e a ti*e and strategi$ trade:o11 < t-e $ounterplan is pre1erable to t-ese debates be$ause it in$reases edu$ation and
e4uali=es ti*e trade o11s
6. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 9
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Multiple CPs Bad
Multiple ,5s are &ad and a oting issues for "o!petitie e-uity and edu"ation.
#. Ti*e ; ,trategy ,7e30't/s i*possible generate o11ense or straig-t turn e+ery CP. (or$es us into per*uting t-e* all2
3-i$- is de1ense. 't/s a s-otgun approa$- to debate t-at under*ines $o*petiti+e e4uity
B. 9du$ation03e lose t-e bene1it o1 an in:dept- edu$ation. T-is *eans our sear$- 1or t-e best poli$y option is s-allo3 at
best. 6ne CP +ersus t-e plan allo3s 1or t-e deeper2 $o*parati+e debate 3-ere 3e learn *ore about t-e issues.
C. Not 8eal Aorld0People in Congress don/t o11er *ultiple plans to address t-e sa*e issue #T T?9 ,#M9 T'M9.
Congress 3ould loo7 at t-e %NC and as7 3-i$- 3on you 3ere ad+o$ating. T-is is t-e opposite o1 edu$ational.
D. 't/s Not 8e$ipro$al0T-e #11 only gets one test o1 t-e status 4uo2 t-ey s-ould only get one CP 1or $o*petiti+e e4uity
9. Negation t-eory doesn/t $-e$70't/s >ust a s*o7es$reen t-e negati+e -ides be-ind to a+oid topi$ edu$ation o+er t-e $ase.
T-ey -a+e no rig-t to *ultiple tests to t-e #11. T-is >usti1ies *ultiple $ontradi$tory argu*ents t-at 1or$e us into double:
turns >ust to generate o11ense
3. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 :
Taylor/Naputi Theory
2NC CPs Good
%. T-ey/re @egitE0't/s a $onstru$ti+e and t-ey still get a CF on t-e CP. T-ey -a+e no in-erent rig-t to -ear e+eryt-ing in
t-e %NC. 't/s an arbitrary distin$tion.
2. 5ey To C-e$7 2#C add:ons0T-ese $an $-ange t-e entirety o1 t-e negati+e strategy. 't/s our only strategi$ option
3. Negation T-eory Dusti1ies06ur only >ob is to be N6T #((. 9+eryt-ing outside o1 #11. ground is Negati+eland. 't/s no
*ore abusi+e t-an i1 3e read anot-er position in t-e %NC and $auses a ti*e s7e3 t-ere
4. Multiple Per*s C-e$70%#8 per*utations $-e$7 any ti*e s7e3. Multiple per*s allo3 t-e* to strategi$ally test t-e CP2
3-i$- $an outstrip t-e 2N8 story
5. ,traig-t turn C-e$7s0t-e %#8 $an straig-t turn t-e CP2 3-i$- destroys t-e blo$7 as a strategi$ -edge against in1inite
prep ti*e be$ause t-e %N8 -as to no3 spend ti*e e)tending t-e CP at t-e e)pense o1 ot-er argu*ents
6. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 ;
Taylor/Naputi Theory
2NC CPs Bad
2$, ,5s are &ad and a oting issue for "o!petitie e-uity and edu"ation.
#. Ti*e ,7e30T-e %#8 -as no o11ense to e)tend 1ro* t-e 2#C. T-ere is no ti*e 1or t-e straig-t:turn option and
su11i$ient $o+erage2 *u$- less o11ense on t-e ot-er positions
B. 9du$ation01or$es a s-allo3 debate in t-e %#8. Ae don/t get an in:dept debate on t-e poli$ies and argu*ents aren/t
de+eloped. Dept- is better t-an breadt-.
C. 't/s not 8e$ipro$al0Ae $an/t read t-e plan in t-e 2#C be$ause t-ey 3ould -a+e not-ing on 3-i$- to base t-e %NCG
sa*e goes 1or t-e a11.
D. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options

J(E)DI 2010 10
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Multiple Actors Good
%. 'n$reases #11. ground09+ery additional a$tor is ne3 ground 1or t-e #11. to generate o11ense.
2. @iterature C-e$7s #buse0T-e CP is 3it-in topi$ literature2 so t-ey s-ould be prepared. T-is ans3ers t-eir predi$tability
$lai*s.
3. 8eal Aorld0Di11erent states2 agen$ies and $ountries $ooperate 3it- one anot-er on spe$i1i$ poli$y proposals. T-e
alternati+e sa$ri1i$es edu$ation on poli$y*a7ing and o+erdeter*ines predi$tability
4. Neg. (le)ibility06ur only >ob is to be N6T:#((. #ll non:#11ir*ati+e ground is Negati+eland. T-is is 7ey to $-e$7 #11
side bias.
5. 't/s not in1initely regressi+e0literature $-e$7s abuse. #s long as t-ey $an generate o11ense it/s legit.
6. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 11
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Multiple Actors Bad
1) Multiple /"tor ,5s are 2ad and a oting issue for "o!petitie e-uity.
#. 't/s Not Predi$table0T-ere are -undreds o1 agen$ies in t-e H, and $ountries in t-e 3orld and t-e states ne+er a$t in
unison. Ma7es it i*possible to prepare and generate o11ense
B. 't/s Not re$ipro$al0Ae/re stu$7 3it- t-e H,(G. T-is substantially e)pands Negati+e ground at t-e e)pense o1
$o*petiti+e e4uity
2. @iterature Doesn/t C-e$706nly a uni1ied sol+en$y ad+o$ate t-at deter*ines t-e pre$ise o1 t-e CP 3ould $-e$70t-at/s
not t-e*E Generi$ B$oop on F general issueC does not-ing 1or us
3. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 12
Taylor/Naputi Theory
International Fiat Good
%. 5ey to test to test t-e resolution: 'nternational a$tor 1iat tests t-e 3ords BHnited ,tates 1ederal go+ern*ent.C T-ey s-ould
be prepared to de1end all parts o1 t-e plan
2. 'n$reases edu$ation0Ae learn about t-e H,(G t-roug- $o*parati+e politi$al analysis o1 H, 1oreign poli$y as it
$o*pares to ot-er nations/ poli$ies. Ae learn about t3o nations2 doubling edu$ation
3. 8eal 3orld0'nternational and national a$tors bot- present +iable a$tors to trans:national issues. 't/s best 1or edu$ation
be$ause 3e learn about poli$ies outside t-e $on1ines o1 H, do$trine. 'ra4 pro+es -o3 an e)$lusi+e H, 1o$us $reates
disastrous poli$ies
4. Pro*otes $riti$al t-in7ing t-roug- sol+en$y 1o$us0,ol+en$y edu$ation is *ore i*portant t-an -ar*s edu$ation be$ause
it allo3s us to e+aluate single proble*s 3it- *ultiple approa$-es to solutions2 in$reasing proble* sol+ing s7ills.
5. #11. Gets Built:'n 611ense and ,ol+en$y De1i$its0T-ey al3ays get BH, 5eyC o11ense to le+erage against t-e CP2 3-i$-
pro+es t-ere/s no abuse
6. Ger*aneness C-e$7s 'n1inite 8egression0@ots o1 $ountries yes2 but t-ey only -a+e to be prepared to de1end t-ose 3it-
sol+en$y literature2 3-i$- $-e$7s abuse
. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
!. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 13
Taylor/Naputi Theory
International Fiat Bad
International 7iat is &ad and a oting issue for "o!petitie e-uity.
#. (iat disparity0T-e a11ir*ati+e is li*ited to one a$tor2 t-e negati+e -as a li*itless nu*ber o1 a$tors it $an $-oose 1ro*.
T-is is nulli1ies t-e in1inite prep ad+antage t-at $-e$7s t-e blo$7 strategi$ ad+antage
B. Hnpredi$table0T-ere are an in1inite nu*ber o1 international a$tors t-at t-e negati+e $ould $-oose 1ro*0T-e a11 3ould
ne+er be able to predi$t 3-i$- a$tor t-e negati+e 3ill $-oose t-is round2 3-i$- *eans 3e $ould ne+er be able to prepare
o11ense against t-ese
C. Dusti1ies 6b>e$t (iat0#llo3s t-e* to 1iat 1oreign $ountries to sol+e t-e internal li7e to a 3ar s$enario. B8ussia 3ill not
in+adeC be$o*es a legit CP
D. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 1*
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Consult Good
Offense:
%. Best Poli$y 6ption < '1 3e 3in a sol+en$y de1i$it or i*pa$t turn to t-e #11 absent $onsultation2 t-en t-e CP is t-e best
poli$y option
2. 9du$ation < (or$es 2#C strategi$ t-in7ing and in$reases 7no3ledge o1 bot- do*esti$ and international issues +ia t-e net
bene1its. Doubles t-e edu$ational bene1it
3. Counter:'nterpretation < 6nly allo3 $onsultation 3it- t-e 9H2 8ussia2 Dapan2 C-ina2 and N#T6. 't sol+es all t-eir
o11ense. T-ere/s substantial literature about t-e* all and it doesn/t outstrip #11. prep.
4. 'n$reases t-eir ground0T-e a$t o1 $onsultation gi+es t-e* additional lin7 or i*pa$t turn ground. #ny ne3 ground 3e
gi+e is -uge be$ause o1 a11 side bias
5. 5ey To Test t-e '**edia$y o1 t-e Plan0T-at/s $ru$ial to uni4ueness and ti*e1ra*e debates o+er t-e disads2 3-i$- is
t-e $ore o1 any poli$y strategy
Defense:
%. C-e$7s #11 ,ide Bias < T-ey spea7 1irst and last2 -a+e in1inite prep ti*e and -a+e a -ig-er 3in per$entage. 't/s -ard to
be Neg on t-is topi$
2. 8esear$- is 'ne+itable0T-ey -a+e to be prepared 1or t-e sa*e net:bene1it debate any3ay. T-e CP doesn/t e)pand #11
burdens beyond t-e nor*
3. Not A-olly Plan 'n$lusi+e < Ae don/t ad+o$ate unilateral a$tion. T-ey $an get o11ense to 3or7ing 3it- ot-er institutions
4. Predi$table < Consultation CP/s -a+e been run 1or about 2& years no3 and literature $-e$7s abuse. 6ur e+iden$e pro+es
t-ere is a dire$t $onne$tion bet3een t-e t3o $ountries. T-is $-e$7s in1inite abuse
5. No #rti1i$ial Co*petition < Ae se+er out o1 unilateral a$tion and -a+e a disad predi$ated o11 o1 it. #ll our o11ense and
literature $-e$7 any abuse
6. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 1+
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Consult Bad
1) ,onsult ,5s are &ad and a oting issue for edu"ation and "o!petitie e-uity.
#. (uture 1iat is illegit0Consultation *eans t-ere/s a delay in i*ple*entation. T-e Neg $an non:uni4ue D#/s to t-e CP
be$ause it -as passed later a1ter $onsultation and it/s not re$ipro$al.
B. Topi$ 9du$ation0Double edu$ation is a lie and 3e/d get it 1ro* t-e disads any3ay. Consultation >a$7s topi$ edu$ation
be$ause 3e only debate t-eory and t-e generi$ net:bene1it and engages in a 1or* o1 tired edu$ation < 3e t-in7 t-at
$ounterplans s-ould be spe$i1i$ to t-e topi$ 3-i$- allo3s 1or a better balan$e o1 breadt- and dept-
C. ,traig-t>a$7ets t-e #11.0,teals ""I o1 t-e %#C and i1 3e read Bsay noC args it >u*pstarts t-e lin7 to your arti1i$ial net
bene1its. 't 1or$es us to double:turn oursel+es i1 3e read any o11ense ot-er t-an B$onsultation t-eory badC and 1or$es us to
read disad lin7s against oursel+es.
D. Not Predi$table0 T-ere are in1inite $ountries and or $o*binations o1 $ountries to $onsult < Ae $ould ne+er prepare 1or
all possibilities < $rus-ing predi$tability 3-i$- is t-e gate3ay to 1airness and edu$ation. %"& so*e $ountries2 t-ousands o1
international organi=ations2 and billions o1 -u*ans $ould all be $onsulted about t-e plan. T-is is parti$ularly dangerous 1or
t-e a11 gi+en t-at t-e t-res-old 1or t-e neg/s disad doesn/t need to be large i1 t-e plan does t-e $ase2 1or$ing a11s to generate
o11ensi+e args against t-e net bene1it 3-en t-ey oug-t to e)pe$t to out3eig- t-ese disads.
2. Counter:interpretationJ T?9 N9G#T'.9 G9T, 6N9 HNC6ND'T'6N#@ C6N,H@T#T'6N C6HNT98P@#N T?#T
?#, 9.'D9NC9 #D.6C#T'NG T?#T T?9 P@#N ', HN'KH9@L 59L T6 89@#T'6N,. ,ol+es all t-eir o11ense2
in1inite regression and predi$tability
3. #rti1i$ial $o*petition < t-e $ounterplan doesn/t te)tually $o*pete 3it- t-e %#C be$ause t-e plan te)t $ould 1it 3it-in
t-eir te)t < t-at *a7es t-e $ounterplan plan plus 3-i$- >usti1ies t-e per*utationJ do t-e $ounterplan
t-is s-ould be t-e pre1erred *e$-anis* o1 e+aluating $o*petition be$ause it in$reases strategi$ t-in7ing and edu$ation
3-ile de$reasing >udge inter+ention
4. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 18
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Topical CPs Good
%. P#8#M9T8'C, DH,T'('9,J T-e %#C is an indu$ti+e 3arrant 1or t-e resolution. #11. de1ends t-e resolution t-roug-
t-e plan. 9+eryt-ing beyond t-at is negati+e ground.
2. 'TM, 89#@ A68@DJ No one in Congress 3ould say it is a bad idea to o11er a $ounter:proposal to sol+e t-e sa*e issue.
8eal 3orld poli$y *a7ers o11er and debate *ultiple +ersions o1 a NplanN. T-is is best 1or debate be$ause itMs bot-
predi$table and in$reases t-e dept- o1 edu$ation on spe$i1i$ issues.
3. N6T 6H8 BH8D9NJ T-ereMs O986 A#88#NT 1or 3-y t-e CP -as to be non:topi$al. Topi$ality is only an #((.
burden to establis- ground di+ision. T-ereMs no o11ensi+e reason 1or -olding us to t-is burden.
4. C6MP9T'T'.9 9KH'TLJ 't 1or$es Negati+es to run generi$ CPs2 3-i$- al3ays puts us at a disad+antage 1or sol+en$y
de1i$its and t-e lin7/lin7 turn debates2 as 3ell as international 1iat agent CPs2 3-i$- are 3orse 1or #11. be$ause be$ause
t-ey/re less predi$table t-an t-ose 3it-in t-e topi$ lit base.
5. B9,T P6@'CL 6PT'6NJ T-ey establis- a poli$y*a7ing 1ra*e3or7 3it- $ost:bene1it ad+antages. Ait- in1inite prep
ti*e2 t-ey $-ose t-eir ground. DonMt punis- us 1or resear$-ing a predi$table CP.
6. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 19
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Agent CPs Good
%. ,trategi$ Predi$table Ground0#gents CPs essential to $-e$7 a11 side bias and unpredi$table ad+antages. T-ey $an still
run o11ense to t-e alternate agent. T-ey/d -a+e to ans3er t-e sa*e disads any3ay. #11 s-ould -a+e to de1end t-e entirety o1
t-e plan. #gent CPs test t-e p-rase BH,(GC in t-e resolution
2. 9du$ation0Ae get a 1o$used edu$ation on t-e *et-odology o1 poli$y*a7ing. T-eir/s no uni4ue bene1it to edu$ation on
t-e #11.
3. 5ey to test "&I o1 poli$y*a7ing and t-e bul7 o1 edu$ation
9l*ore< 5rof) 5u&li" /ffairs at =niersity of Washington< 1;!& 5olyS"i >uarterly 9;?:0< p) 80+<
T-e e*ergen$e o1 i*ple*entation as a sub>e$t 1or poli$y analysis $oin$ides $losely 3it- t-e dis$o+ery by poli$y
analysts t-at de$isions are not sel1:e)e$uting. /nalysis of poli"y "hoi"es !atter ery little if the !e"hanis! 1or
i*ple*enting t-ose $-oi$es is poorly understood in ans3ering t-e 4uestion2 NWhat per"entage of t-e (or1 o1
a$-ie+ing a desired go+ern*ental a$tion is done (hen the preferred analyti" alternatie has &een identifiedPN
#llison esti*ated t-at in the nor!al "ase< it (as a&out 10 per"ent< leaing the re!aining ;0 per"ent in the
real! of i!ple!entation.
4. N9T B9N9('T, C?9C5 #BH,9 < N9T B9N9('T, 9N,H89 @'T98#TH89 6N T?9 T6P'C ,6 T?#T T?9L
C#N G9N98#T9 6((9N,9 #G#'N,T T?9 C6HNT98P@#N
5. 59L T6 B9,T P6@'CL #N#@L,', < #@@6A, (68 T?9 DHDG9 T6 ('ND T?9 B9,T P6@'CL #T T?9 9ND 6(
T?9 86HND t-e a11 *ust de1end e+ery part o1 t-eir plan te)t in$luding t-eir agent
6. @it C-e$7s abuse0i1 3e -a+e e+iden$e t-at spea7s to t-e $p a$tion t-en t-ey s-ould -a+e been prepared. T-ey s-ould
reasonably predi$t a rele+ant agent in t-e lit *ig-t do t-eir plan
. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 1:
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Agent CPs Bad
/gent ,5s are &ad and a oting issue for "o!petitie e-uity and edu"ation.
#. #rti1i$ial Co*petition0T-e CP 1iats t-e lin7 to t-e net:bene1it2 3-i$- nulli1ies our per* ground and *oots *ost o1 t-e
%#C. Ma7es it i*possible 1or us to generate o11ense. T-eir ground is bad ground and a rigged ga*e in t-eir 1a+or
B. Not Predi$table0Ae $ould ne+er predi$t all t-e possible $ountries2 agen$ies2 NG6s2 and subsets o1 ea$-. 't/s in1initely
regressi+e. T-is *a7es it i*possible to generate predi$table o11ense and nulli1ies our in1inite prep $-e$7 against t-e blo$7
ad+antage.
C. Trades:611 Ait- Topi$ 9du$ation09a$- year is 1o$used to a di11erent topi$ to allo3 a breadt- o1 issues to be dis$ussed.
Ait-in t-at t-at2 an in:dept- dis$ussion o1 t-e topi$ is uni4uely +aluable to edu$ation. #gent CPs re1o$us debate to
t-eoreti$al net:bene1its o1 t-e pro$ess2 not substan$e
9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$
J(E)DI 2010 1;
Taylor/Naputi Theory
PICs Good
QQCounter:'nterpretationJ Neg gets one subsidy P'C. ,ol+es all t-eir o11ense. 't guarantees *ore in:dept- topi$ edu$ation
3it- *ore $o*parati+e debates on t-e a$tual subsidies. 't a+oids all t-eir agent CP argu*ents2 3-ile satis1ying predi$table
ground 1or bot- tea*s. #11. s-ould be prepared to de1end t-eir re*o+al o1 subsidies as $ore ground
Offense:
%. (or$es strategi$ plan 3riting0P'Cs are a ne$essary $-e$7 on +ague plans. T-is en$ourages 1oresig-t and in:dept-
resear$-. 8eal:3orld poli$y*a7ers $are1ully 3ord bills to ensure passage.
2. #11. s-ould de1end t-e entirety o1 t-e plan0#nyt-ing beyond t-at is negati+e ground. Net:bene1its $-e$7 abuse be$ause
it allo3s t-e* to generate o11ense. #bsen$e o1 one part s-ould be de+astating to sol+en$y or it pro+es plan is bad
3. Ground0t-ey/re t-e only 3ay t-e negati+e $an generate o11ense against a ra$is* bad a11. Ait-out t-e*2 t-e negati+e
3ould -a+e to de1end 1unda*entally untrue argu*ents li7e ra$is* good. T-e a11. $an al3ays $lai* ad+antages o11 o1 3-at
3e e)$lude0pro+es t-ere is ade4uate ground 1or bot- tea*s2 no one -as to debate t-e*sel+es
4. 9du$ation0P'Cs pro+ide a *ore in:dept- dis$ussion o1 t-e poli$y and en$ourage neg. resear$- o1 spe$i1i$ plan
strategies2 instead o1 running generi$ lin7 ground 1or t-e year. 't also 1or$es a11ir*ati+es to 1ind better *ore spe$i1i$
sol+en$y e+iden$e t-at spea7s to t-eir 3-ole $ase not >ust one part
5. ,tru$tural 'ne4uity Dusti1ies0#11 gets %
st
and last spee$- and sele$ts t-e area o1 debate. Ae s-ould be able to operate
3it-in t-at area to dispro+e t-e plan. T-eir argu*ent *agni1ies t-ere in1inite prep ad+antage and a11 side bias
Defense:
%. C-e$7 a11 side bias
C-e$7s unpredi$table 2#C add:ons. T-is topi$ -as spa$e 1or nu*erous a11ir*ati+es2 P'C, pre+ent e)ploding $lai*s in t-e
2#8.
2. P'Cs don/t steal t-e #110T-is is a 3-ine and it doesn/t *oot anyt-ing. #s long as t-ere is a possibility o1 o11ense2
t-ere/s no i*pa$t.
3. 8eal 3orld0Congress routinely o11ers di11erent +ersions o1 t-e sa*e plan 3it- *inor di11eren$es. P'Cs are no di11erent.
T-ey in$rease edu$ation on t-e i*ple*entation le+el o1 poli$y*a7ing
4. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
5. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 20
Taylor/Naputi Theory
PICs Bad
1) 5I,s are &ad and a oting issue for edu"ation and "o!petitie e-uity.
#. Ground0(or$es us to argue against t-e plan to generate o11ense and sol+en$y de1i$its to t-e CP. T-e ground t-ey/ll
$lai* is bad ground be$ause it isolates one *inis$ule di11eren$e at t-e e)pense o1 dis$ussing *ore i*portant issues 3it-in
t-e s$ope o1 t-e #11. '.9.2 3e learn about t-e *e$-anis*s2 but not t-e issues *ost rele+ant to politi$al $-ange
B. #rti1i$ially Co*petiti+e0CongratsE Lou 1ound a disad lin70doesn/t *ean you get to nulli1y t-e rest o1 *y $ase0*oots
in1inite prep:ti*e and area sele$tion ad+antage o1 t-e a11ir*ati+e and gi+es negati+e 1ree de1ense 1or t-e pri$e o1 a disad
t-ey 3ould -a+e run any3ay
C. 9n$ourages .ague Plan Ariting0T-is is 3orse 1or t-e Neg be$ause t-e 2#C $ould easily $lari1y out o1 t-e CP te)t.
Ma7es t-e* and unpredi$table *o+ing target
D. 'n1initely 8egressi+e0Dusti1ies t-e Bdo t-e plan *inus a penny CPC 3it- a .&&&&&I ris7 o1 a budget disad. T-ese are
unpredi$table and unedu$ational. Ae $ould ne+er be prepared to de1end against e+ery possible P'C
9. Dusti1ies ,e+eran$e and 'ntrinsi$ness Per*s0T-e arti1i$ial nature o1 t-e CP pre+ents any legiti*ate per*. T-ese are t-e
only per*s t-at allo3 us to $o*pete
(. @eads to ,-allo3 Debates ; 9du$ation03e ne+er learn about t-e ""I o1 t-e #11. PiCs en$ourage a ra$e to t-e botto*
in resear$- 1or s7et$-y e+iden$e and $ontri+ed one:s-ot disads. T-ese debates are unedu$ational during resear$- and t-e
round
2. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 21
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Tetual Co!petition Best
%. Most 6b>e$ti+eJ # te)t is t-e only un*o+able 3ay to deter*ine $o*petition2 gi+ing a $lear delineation.
2. Dusti1ies delay $ounter:plans 3-i$- are bad be$ause t-ey allo3 t-e negati+e to steal a11ir*ati+e ground and $-ange 3-en
t-e plan gets i*ple*ented2 3-i$- >a$7s uni4ueness on lin7 turns.
3. De$reases >udge inter+entionJ $o*paring te)ts is re*o+ed 1ro* t-e 1lo3 and re4uires no 3eig-ing o1 argu*ents2
ensuring 1airer de$isions and debate.
4. Pre+ents ad+o$a$y s-i1tsJ ?olding a tea* to te)t pre+ents abusi+e s-i1ts sustaining $o*petiti+e e4uity and ground.
Mo+ing target argu*ents $an point to in:round abuse
5. 9li*inates bad generi$ CPs. 9)tra:$o*petiti+e0net bene1its are unpredi$table2 7ills a11 ground. #ll plan in$lusi+e0
t-ey deny us t-e ground to use our '#C as o11en$e. 5ill Topi$ ,pe$i1i$ 9du$ation0t-ey allo3 1or $ps li7e $onsulting
N#T62 3-i$- denies us edu$ation about H.,. #gri$ulture and 1ar*ing pra$ti$es
6. Disads sol+e t-eir o11ense < 't/s not t-at t-e a11 doesn/t de1end t-eir a11 against nor*al *eans disads2 but t-at t-ose disads
don/t deser+e t-e added ad+antage o1 3iping a3ay t-e a11 $ase.
. (un$tional $o*petition >usti1ies a11 intrinsi$ness < '1 t-e neg gets unli*ited tests o1 t-e a11 t-e a11 gets unli*ited tests o1
t-e opportunity $osts o1 t-e plan 3-i$- >usti1ies a per* to do ) on anot-er issue. ,ol+es t-eir net bene1its 3-ile passing t-e
plan2 t-e best o1 bot- 3orlds. 't >usti1ies2n$ *o+ing targets2 3-i$- s7e3 t-e %#8
!. Gra**ar ,7illsJ 'n$reases gra**ati$ally $orre$t plant te)ts be$ause being te)tually $o*petiti+e re4uires being
gra**ati$ally $orre$t. Gra**ar 7ey to predi$tability::it sets up a *edian bet3een t-e a11 and neg
J(E)DI 2010 22
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Functional Co!petition Best
Textual Competition is bad:
#. 5ills Poli$y Ma7ingJ debate as se*anti$s turns t-e a$ti+ity into 3-o $an 3rite good plans2 not 3-at t-e best poli$y
option 1or t-e real 3orld is.
B. 'n$reases >udge inter+entionJ t-e $riti$ still -as to pull te)ts and $o*pare2 3-i$- is re*o+ed 1ro* t-e 1lo3 and t-e a$tual
argu*ents against t-e $ounterplan.
C. Conte)tual analysis ine+itableJ its 4uite possible to pass $on1li$ting legislation at t-e sa*e ti*e. only a $onte)tual lense
o1 -o3 t-ey 3ould intera$t on t-e boo7s $an s-o3 $o*petition2 *a7ing our *et-od best.
D. 9n$ourages s-i1ty debateJ adding Rre>e$t plan/ to botto* o1 $ounterplan te)t *a7es any $ounterplan te)tually
$o*petiti+e. Ma7es it arti1i$ially $o*petiti+e
9. #llo3s a11 abuseJ any Rdo bot-/ per*utation 3ould 3in a round be$ause t-ey don/t 3eig- 3-et-er t-e per* is net
bene1i$ial2 destroying all negati+e $ounterplan ground 3-i$- is uni4uely 7ey on su$- a broad topi$.
(. 9n$ourages and re3ards bad plansJ .ague plans under*ine neg ground and o11er t-e a11 t-e ad+antage o1 $lari1ying later
3-at t-e loose plan *eans. Bot- under*ine balan$ed $o*petition.
G. 9du$ationJ Ae/re not Congress so t-ere/s no reason to o+er:te$-ni$ali=e plans. Te)tual $on$erns trade:o11 3it- in:dept-
dis$ussion on t-e *erits o1 t-e plan +s. CP2 sa$ri1i$ing topi$ edu$ation
Functional Competition is Better:
#. Predi$table: T-e 1un$tion o1 t-e CP is li*ited by nor*al *eans and t-e literature2 i1 our e+. ,ays t-e CP $o*petes2 t-e
a11 s-ould de1end it
B. C-e$7s abusi+e CPsJ 9)$ludes pi$7ing out o1 one 3ord 3it- a s-ady net:bene1it. T-ese are unedu$ational tests o1 t-e
plan. Most e+ery CP is te)tually $o*petiti+e2 but t-ey 1or$e a relian$e on te)tual $o*petition
C. Best test 1or e)$lusi+ityJ T-e ban t-e plan CP 3ouldn/t $o*pete be$ause t-e a11 $ould >ust 3rite not into t-eir per* te)t
to pro+e la$7 o1 $o*peteti+eness
J(E)DI 2010 23
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Negati"e Fiat Good
%. A9 D6N/T N99D # B,?6H@D N6TC (68 ('#TJ N6 89#,6N T?9 A68D B,?6H@DC D9('N9, ('#T. 'T
D9N6T9, #CT'6N2 BHT N6T N9C9,,#8'@L .'# ('#T. T?9 #@T98N#T'.9 ', N6 CP2 A?'C? @9#.9, H,
D9(9ND'NG 8#C',M G66D #G#'N,T # 8#C',M #((2 A?'C? ', T?9 A68,9 P6,,'B@9 G86HND
2. 59L T6 C?9C5 'N('N'T9 P89P T'M9J #((. G9T, 'N('N'T9 P89P T'M9 (68 T?9 C#,9. #T B9,T2 A9 G9T
,C#NT P89:86HND P89P. CPs #@@6A N9G. #N 9KH#@ (66T'NG T6 B9G'N B9TT98 D9B#T9,.
3. 89#@ A68@DJ P6@'CLM#598, ?#.9 T?9 6PT'6N T6 ,HPP68T T?9 ,T#TH, KH6 68 6((98 #
C6MP9T'NG P6@'CL. D9M6C8#T, #ND 89PHB@'C#N, 'N C6NG89,, 6(T9N D9B#T9 6PP6,'NG #ND
.98L ,'M'@#8 P86P6,#@, T6 #DD89,, ',,H9, @'59 (689'GN P6@'CL2 T?9 9C6N6ML #ND
#G8'CH@TH89. 'T/, # B9TT98 M6D9@ (68 'N:D9PT? T6P'C 9DHC#T'6N
4. B9,T (68 P6@'CLM#5'NG #ND D9B#T9J #@@6A, D',CH,,'6N 6( P6@'CL M9C?#N',M H,9D T6 T6
#DD89,, P86B@9M,2 T?9N C6MP#89 T?9 89@#T'.9 #D.#NT#G9, #ND D',#D.#NT#G9, (68 T?9
B9,T P6@'CL. T?9 #@T98N#T'.9 ', ,?68T:,'G?T9D #ND #@@6A, (68 ,?#@@6A D9B#T9,.
5. N9C9,,#8L T6 6.98C6M9 #((. ,'D9 ; @'T98#TH89 B'#,9,J T?', L9#8/, T6P'C ,6@.9NCL
@'T98#TH89 ', ?9#.'@L ,@#NT9D #((. CPs #89 C8HC'#@ T6 N9G#T'.9 G86HND #ND (#'8N9,,.
6. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. CPs are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e a11 as t-e best poli$y option and
not a reason to +ote #((.
J(E)DI 2010 2*
Taylor/Naputi Theory
No Negati"e Fiat
$@ $EA/TIBE 7I/T.
#. #,,HM9, T?9L G9T 89,6@HT'6N#@ G86HNDJ B,-ouldC only o$$urs on our ground. T-ere/s no B,?6H@D
N6TC in t-e resolution. 9+en i12 it 3ould >ust *ean a$tion s-ouldn/t be ta7en2 not t-at ot-er a$tions s-ould be.
B. N9G. ?#, T6 D9(9ND T?9 ,T#TH, KH6J 't/s $ru$ial to predi$tability and 1airness. 't/s t-e plan +s. t-e status 4uo2
3-i$- is t-e $ore o1 in-eren$y and presu*ption. Ma7es t-e* a *o+ing target in round.
C. 59L T6 C?9C5 D9B#T'NG MH@T'P@9 A68@D,J Neg. 1iat allo3s t-e* to s-i1t bet3een t-e status 4uo and t-e $p.
Ma7es us de1end *ultiple $ontradi$tory 3orlds2 arguing 1or or against t-e plan. ,7e3s 2#C ti*e ; steals our ground.
.oting issue 1or ground and 1airness.
D. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 2+
Taylor/Naputi Theory
#e"erance Per!s Good
%. Criti$al ,trategi$ T-in7ing0(or$es t-e Neg. to anti$ipate strategi$ *aneu+ering and
T-ere is still a resolutional >usti1i$ation to +ote #11.
2. 'n$reases Neg. Ground0T-ey $an run uni4ue o11ense to t-e se+ered part o1 t-e a11 and *a7e sol+en$y de1i$its.
3. Best Poli$y 6ption0#t t-e end o1 t-e round you 3ould +ote 1or t-e best poli$y option2 regardless o1 t-e initial 1or*.
4. 't/s 8eal Aorld0bills al3ays -a+e parts stri$7en 1ro* t-e* be1ore t-e 1inal +ote. Ae get a *ore in:dept- dis$ussion o1
t-e poli$ies. 9du$ation out3eig-s 1airness be$ause t-e rules 3ere $reated to *a)i*i=e edu$ation2 i1 3e 1ind a 3ay t-at
in$reases edu$ation t-e rules $an be $-anged
5. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
6. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. Per*s are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e neg as t-e best poli$y option
and not a reason to +ote against us.
J(E)DI 2010 28
Taylor/Naputi Theory
#e"erance Per!s Bad
Seeran"e is a oting issue for ,o!petitie E-uity.
#. Ground ; Predi$tability0Ma7es t-e* a *o+ing target. Ae $an ne+er generate stable o11ense i1 t-ey $an se+er out o1
our lin7s. 't/s not a test o1 $o*petition bet3een t-e plan and CP2 but t-e CP and plan *inus. T-is *agni1ies t-eir in1inite
prep ad+antage be$ause 3e $ould ne+er predi$t 3-at t-ey 3ill ad+o$ate and/or se+er out o1 in t-e 2#8.
B. Ma7es #11. Conditional0#11 $onditionality is uni4uely 3orse be$ause o1 side bias and in1inite prep. 't >usti1ies *ultiple
$onditional CPs to test t-e #11. 't/s re$ipro$al and >usti1ied in t-e blo$7
9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
J(E)DI 2010 29
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Intrinsicness Per!s Good
%. Dusti1ied to $-e$7 arti1i$ially $o*petiti+e CPs0T-ey/re t-e only option to de1end against $onsult CPs and P'Cs.
2. T-e alternati+e is stri$t te)tual $o*petition. T-at/s bad be$ause it *a7es e+ery CP $o*petiti+e by adding B+ote
negati+eC or Bre>e$t t-e a11C. 't s-ield unpredi$table CPs 1ro* per*utation ground2 3-i$- *a7es it i*possible to $o*pete
3. (or$e debate about t-e #11 < $-e$7s neg 1ro* running generi$ argu*ents. (or$ing negati+e to resear$- $ase spe$i1i$
strategies in$reasing edu$ation
4. 'n$reases Criti$al t-in7ing01or$es t-e blo$7 to *a7e s*art $-oi$es to ans3ers strategi$ per*utations.
5. 'n$reases Negati+e Ground09+ery addition is ne3 ground 1or t-e* to generate o11ense and 2NC add:ons $-e$7
6. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 2:
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Intrinsicness Per!s Bad
%. Intrinsi"ness 5er!s are a oting issue for edu"ation and "o!petitie e-uity.
#. Mo+ing Target0No negati+e $ould 3in i1 t-ey $an add t-ings to t-e plan to spi7e out o1 our o11ense. 9 $ould ne+er
predi$t all t-e possible additions in t-e 2#C2 3-i$- s7e3s %NC ; pre:round prep
B. De$reases Clas-0#llo3s t-e* to a+oid $o*parati+e argu*ents bet3een t-e plan and CP. T-is de$reases edu$ation and
*oots *ost o1 t-e %NC
C. Dusti1ies Ne3 2NC CPs to $-e$7 t-e addition0t-is is 3orse 1or %#8 ti*e s7e3s and edu$ation be$ause 3e lose
e+eryt-ing to do 3it- t-e poli$ies and 4uibble o+er si*ple additions and subtra$tions to t-e plan
2. 8e>e$t t-e #8GHM9NT #ND T?9 T9#M. T-e da*age -as already -appened. Ae -a+e to 1un$tionally start 1ro*
ground =ero a1ter t-e 2#C
3. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
J(E)DI 2010 2;
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Multiple Per!s Good
%. 5ey to Test Co*petition0Testing t-e CP on *ultiple le+els 7ey to 1inding t-e best poli$y option. '1 t-e per*s pro+e t-e
CP is not $o*petiti+e2 t-en it 3as a bun7 CP to begin 3it-
2. 5ey to C-e$7 #rti1i$ially Co*petiti+e and Hnpredi$table CPs0Multiple per*s are essential to balan$e t-e loss o1
predi$tability and strategi$ *aneu+ering. T-e $-e$7 abusi+e CPs t-at are not true opportunity $ost test o1 t-e plan
3. 8e$ipro$al0T-ey get to test t-e #11 in ter*s o1 t-e ,K and CP2 3e s-ould get *ultiple tests too. T-e alternati+e only
*agni1ies t-e blo$7 ad+antage. Per*s aren/t ad+o$a$y so t-e nu*ber is irrele+ant be$ause it doesn/t $-ange t-e blo$7
strategi$ $al$ulus or ground
4. 8e>e$t one o1 t-e per*s2 not t-e tea*. Per*s are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e neg as t-e best poli$y option
and not a reason to +ote against us. Punis-*ent doesn/t 1it t-e $ri*e
5. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 30
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Multiple Per!s Bad
%. Multiple per*s are illegit and a +oting issue 1or $o*petiti+e e4uityJ
#. Ma7es #11 a *o+ing target0allo3s t-e* to s-i1t bet3een argu*ents to a+oid our lin7s. Ae $an ne+er generate o11ense
against all o1 t-e per*s. Dusti1ies t-e #11 running *ultiple $ontradi$tory per*s2 3-i$- isn/t predi$table and s7e3s t-e blo$7
strategy
B. Multipli$ity *agni1ies abuse0Multiple per*s *agni1y t-e abuse on se+eran$e and intrinsi$ness. #dditional per*s
*ean t-e plan is no longer t-e 1o$us o1 debate2 3-i$- nulli1ies our o11ense
2. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
J(E)DI 2010 31
Taylor/Naputi Theory
TF Per!s Good
%. 5ey to Test t-e 'ntrinsi$ Nature o1 t-e CP0T-e per* test 3-et-er or not t-e CP is a 1or$ed $-oi$e against t-e plan. 't
dire$tly tests t-e opportunity $ost o1 t-eir narro3 poli$y para*eters to e+aluate si*ultaneous a$tion.
2. 8eal Aorld0People in Congress e+aluate $o*peting poli$ies and deter*ine is one s-ould be done be1ore t-e ot-er.
T-ey still get o11ense to t-e ti*e se4uen$e.
3. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
4. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. Per*s are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e neg as t-e best poli$y option
and not a reason to +ote against us.
J(E)DI 2010 32
Taylor/Naputi Theory
TF Per!s Bad
%. Ti*e1ra*e per*s are illegit and a +oting issue 1or $o*petiti+e e4uityJ
#. Mo+ing target0No Negati+e $ould e+er 3in a $o*petiti+e CP i1 t-e #11 gets to >ust say do one t-en t-e ot-er. Means
3e $an ne+er generate stable o11ense.
B. Not grounded in literature0t-is pro+es our predi$tability argu*ents. Ae lose edu$ation on t-e CP and #11.
C. ,e+ers t-e '**edia$y o1 t-e Plan0(uture 1iat is illegit. T-e #11. $an non:uni4ue our net:bene1its be$ause our lin7 -as
passed a1ter t-e CP and it/s not re$ipro$al. T-at/s $ru$ial to uni4ueness and ti*e1ra*e debates o+er t-e disads2 3-i$- is t-e
$ore o1 any poli$y strategy
2. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
J(E)DI 2010 33
Taylor/Naputi Theory
No Tet to t$e Per!
%. T-ere/s no te)t to t-e per*E T-at/s a +oting issue 1or $o*petiti+e e4uityJ
#. Ground ; predi$tability0*a7es t-e* a *o+ing target 3-ere 3e $an/t generate stable o11ense. Ae $an ne+er predi$t
3-at t-e per* 3ill loo7 li7e a1ter t-e %#82 3-i$- s7e3s t-e blo$7 strategy
B. 't/s Not 8e$ipro$al0Ae -a+e to 3rite t-e plan te)t out. 6t-er3ise t-ey -a+e not-ing on 3-i$- to base t-e %NC. No te)t
to t-e per* is 3orse be$ause 3e lose t-e blo$7/s strategi$ $-e$7 on in1inite prep ti*e
C. No 611ensi+e 8eason N6T to Arite it Do3nE0't 3ould -a+e ta7en t-e* >ust a 1e3 se$onds be1ore t-e 2#C. T-ey -a+e
to 3in o11ense -ere t-at o+er3-el*s t-e strategy s7e3 and prep ti*e 3e lose during t-e 2#C2 3-i$- ans3ers t-eir CF
argu*ents
2. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
J(E)DI 2010 3*
Taylor/Naputi Theory
%ague Per!s Good
%. 'n$reases Criti$al T-in7ing0(or$es t-e Neg to *a7e strategi$ de$isions to a$$ount 1or t-e un7no3n. Hnanti$ipate
$onse4uen$es is a *a>or part o1 understanding poli$y*a7ing
2. CF C-e$7s #buse0,e$ures t-eir blo$7 prep and $-e$7s *o+ing targets.
3. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
4. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. Per*s are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e neg as t-e best poli$y option
and not a reason to +ote against us.
J(E)DI 2010 3+
Taylor/Naputi Theory
%ague Per!s Bad
%. .ague per*s are illegit and a +oting issue 1or $o*petiti+e e4uityJ
#. Destroys blo$7 preparation and en$ourages abusi+e %#8/s0T-ere/s no $-e$7 on %#8 $lari1i$ations. Ae lose prep ti*e
during t-e 2#C2 3-i$- s7e3s t-e blo$7 and *agni1ies t-eir in1inite prep ad+antage. 't *a7es t-e* a *o+ing target. Ae
$an/t generate stable o11ense
B. Pro+es per*utation is i*possible0do bot- *eans pass t-e plan and re>e$t it so t-e per* is i*possible or it is not a test
o1 $o*petition
C. (or$es us to 3aste CF0#11s are usually s-i1ty on 3-at t-e per* is and 3-at it *eans. Ae -a+e to 3aste strategi$ CF
>ust to 1igure out t-eir position and -o3 it 1un$tions.
2. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
J(E)DI 2010 38
Taylor/Naputi Theory
No Tet to t$e Alt Bad
%. T-ere/s no te)t to t-e altE T-at/s a +oting issue 1or $o*petiti+e e4uityJ
#. Ground ; predi$tability0*a7es t-e* a *o+ing target 3-ere 3e $an/t generate stable o11ense. Ae $an ne+er predi$t
3-at t-e alternati+e 3ill loo7 li7e a1ter t-e blo$72 3-i$- s7e3s t-e %#8 ti*e ; strategy. Ait-out a te)t t-ere is an
in$enti+e 1or t-e negati+e to s-i1t t-eir alternati+e to nulli1y t-e 2#C
B. 't/s Not 8e$ipro$al0Ae -a+e to 3rite t-e plan te)t out. 6t-er3ise t-ey -a+e not-ing on 3-i$- to base t-e %NC. No te)t
to t-e #lt is 3orse be$ause it *agni1ies t-e ti*e ad+antage
C. No 611ensi+e 8eason N6T to Arite it Do3nE0't 3ould -a+e ta7en t-e* >ust a 1e3 se$onds be1ore t-e %NC. T-ey -a+e
to 3in o11ense -ere t-at o+er3-el*s t-e strategy s7e3 and prep ti*e 3e lose during t-e %NC2 3-i$- ans3ers t-eir CF
argu*ents
2. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 39
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Floating PICs Good
%. Ne$essary test < t-e negati+e *ust dispro+e t-e ne$essity o1 t-e plan < our $riti$is* is essential to pro+iding t-is $-e$7
2. $riti$al t-in7ing < t-e P'5 1or$es t-e a11ir*ati+e to $onte)tuali=e t-eir a11ir*ati+e to our $riti$is* < don/t punis- us 1or
being *ore spe$i1i$ 3it- our $riti$is*
3. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
4. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. #lts are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e #11 intrinsi$ness to sol+en$y and
not a reason to +ote against us.
J(E)DI 2010 3:
Taylor/Naputi Theory
Floating PICs Bad
%. (loating P'Cs are illegit and a +oting issue 1or $o*petiti+e e4uityJ
#. No Te)t0Ae $an/t generate stable o11ense and it allo3s t-e* to *orp- t-e original argu*ent in t-e blo$7 to nulli1y t-e
2#C and s7e3 %#8 ti*e allo$ation
B. Conditional < t-is is a uni4uely bad 1or* o1 $onditionality < not only is t-eir argu*ent ne3 in t-e 2NC but 3e -a+e no
*e$-anis* to straig-t turn < t-is destroys a11ir*ati+e strategy
C. 'n1initely 8egressi+e0T-ey $an $lai* to sol+e t-e #11 and 3in a +ague net:bene1it. T-ese are unpredi$table and
unedu$ational. Ae $ould ne+er be prepared to de1end against e+ery possible alternati+e2 *u$- less identi1y t-e ones t-at
$ould be spun to sol+e t-e a11. Ait-out a sol+en$y ad+o$ate2 it/s not predi$table
2. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options
J(E)DI 2010 3;
Taylor/Naputi Theory
%ague Alts Good
%. 'n$reases Criti$al T-in7ing01or$es t-e #11. to *a7e strategi$ argu*ents to $o*pare t-e %#C to t-e 5. #11s $an still
generate o11ense and 3eig- t-e $ase2 3-i$- s-ould be t-e brig-tline 1or abuse and unanti$ipate $onse4uen$es is a *a>or part
o1 understanding de$ision*a7ing
2. CF C-e$7s #buse0,e$ures t-eir blo$7 prep and $-e$7s *o+ing targets.
3. 9rr neg on t-eory0#11 gets in1inite prep ti*e2 t-e stru$tural ad+antage o1 1irst and last spee$-es2 gets to $-oose -o3 to
interpret t-e resolution2 and no3 presu*ption. 9rr neg to $-e$7 t-is in-erent a11ir*ati+e bias in t-e round and t-e topi$.
4. 8e>e$t T?', argu*ent2 not t-e tea*. #lts are in-erently de1ensi+e positions to test t-e #11 intrinsi$ness to sol+en$y and
not a reason to +ote against us.
J(E)DI 2010 *0
Taylor/Naputi Theory
%ague Alts Bad
%. .ague alts are illegit and a +oting issue 1or $o*petiti+e e4uityJ
#. No ,table 611ense or Ground0T-ey $an al3ays reinterpret 3-at t-e alt *eans and 3-et-er or not it sol+es t-e $ase in
t-e blo$7 and nulli1y t-e 2#C. Ma7es t-e* a *o+ing target. Ae $an/t generate stable o11ense or per* ground 3-i$- puts
us at a stru$tural disad+antage
B. (or$es us to 3aste CF0%NCs are usually s-i1ty on 3-at t-e per* is and 3-at it *eans. Ae s-ouldn/t -a+e to 3aste
strategi$ CF >ust to 1igure out t-eir position and -o3 it 1un$tions.
C. 9du$ation0+agueness *eans 3e -a+e to 1o$us on pinning t-e do3n to a parti$ular ad+o$a$y instead o1 learning about
t-e #11 or t-eir ad+o$a$y proper. Clear alternati+e te)ts resol+e bot- $on$erns
2. 9rr a11 on t-eory < t-e negati+e gets t-e blo$7 and *ore di+erse strategi$ options