Macalester

Harvard 2007

PWNZ
**PICs Bad (Long)** PICs Bad: 2AC (Long)

1. Counterinterp: All PICs must have solvency advocates and be nontopical a. Key to Fairness: Eliminate 9 minutes of aff offense against the squo--entire 1AC should be a reason to vote aff AND Drive affs to defend minute changes, shifting debates from the lit, gutting topic specific education and neg strat options AND Create incentive to find most minute exclusion and net benefit AND Lack advocates, guts aff ability to generate specific offense AND Can run net benefits as disads, checking their offense AND b. Key to Education shift debates from rich, topic-centered lit to narrow, contrived net benefit literature AND don’t reflect the real world because the PIC would be a friendly amendment

Page 1 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
PICs Bad: 1AR General Overview

Our interp is that all inclusive counterplans must have solvency advocates and be nontopical. This solves all of their reasons that we should debate these issues while ensuring that the aff both has lit and is able to leverage offense against the counterplan. The kicker is that they can run the net benefit as a disad, checking their offense AND a world without PICs encourages both sides to access big impacts around which the community already has extensive background knowledge, fostering educational, in-depth, and predictable debates

Page 2 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
PICs Bad: 1AR Fairness Overview

Next, PICs undermine fairness. Group the 2AC. First, they eliminate our ability to generate offense because the 1AC is comparative to the status quo and we can’t predict silly PICs AND Second, they force affs to defense minutes policy changes, shifting debates from the core of the literature towards its margins, undermining both topic specific education and negative strategic options AND Third, it creates incentives to find the most minute PIC and net benefit, undermining fairness and topic education AND Fourth, they lack solvency advocates, which is unfair because we cannot generate specific offense Now, they say….

Page 3 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
PICs Bad: 1AR Education Overview

Next, PICs undermine education. Group the 2AC. First, aff fear of PICs and neg desire to PIC encourages both sides to defend tenuous links to maximum impacts, producing debates that seem ridiculous even to us. The counterinterp incentivizes both the aff and neg to defend robust links to their impacts, producing more indepth, educational, and topic-specific debates. AND Second, they don’t reflect the real world because the PIC would simply be a friendly amendment Now, they say…

Page 4 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Aff Bias”: 1AR

1. Empirically false: winning percentages are almost even, especially on a topic where the aff has to pressure the world’s rising superpower 2. They over-correct—our first fairness argument proves that nullify an entire aff speech 3. There is no reason why PICs are necessary to rectify these structural biases 4. Turn, neg bias: kritiks limit small affs, they have the block, lit is skewed neg, and MSU has 8 judges in the pool

Page 5 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Aff Interp Limits Negs to Bad Counterplans”: 1AR

1. Our first argument on education straight-turns this 2. Counterinterp turns this a. it encourages debates about the resolution versus the nonresolution AND b. it forces neg to have solvency advocates, which produce better counterplans and lead to better debates

Page 6 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “All Counterplans are PICs”: 1AR

Our counterinterp solves this—they can be inclusive if they have an advocate and are non-topical

Page 7 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Best Policy Option”: 1AR

1. This is solved by the counterinterp 2. Our fairness and education offense outweigh because they provide a level playing field that is key to participation, making “best policy” moot

Page 8 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Encourage In-Depth Research”: 1AR

NOTE: these are the same as “narrow the debate” answers

1. Turn: they over-correct by creating an incentive to debate uneducational, trivial issues 2. Counterinterp solves this while preserving fairness to the aff, explained above

Page 9 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ

A2 “Encourage Specific Plan Writing”: 1AR
1. Turn: risk of topic-irrelevant process and agent PICs force the aff write vague plans to dodge args against which they have no topicspecific offense 2. Turn: the counterinterp encourages specific plans around the topic to leverage offense against the counterplan

Page 10 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ

A2 “Judge Discretion Checks Abuse/No InRound Abuse”: 1AR
1. This argument is silly—decisions made in theory debates help establish the parameters for future debates 2. Turn: this claim nullifies theory-related critical thinking and education because it reduces it to the whims of the judge

Page 11 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Literature/Net Benefit Checks Abuse/Triviality”: 1AR

1. Not true: they can read all of their offense against the case sans PIC 2. Turn: they shift us to non-topic specific lit, explained above 3. Turn: they allow the neg to read the “pressure minus one” PIC and claim all disads to pressure as net benefits, ensuring muddled, uneducational debates where the aff cannot leverage specific offense

Page 12 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Most Predictable”: 1AR

1. Counterinterp solves: they have to have lit both specific to the counterplan and outside of the rez 2. There is no reason why a difference in predictability justifies an abusive counterplan 3. False: most net benefits/exclusions come from work outside of the aff and topic lit 4. It’s nonresponsive to fairness and education, which are the lens through which you evaluate theory

Page 13 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Narrow the Debate”: 1AR

NOTE: these are the same as “encourage in-depth research” answers

1. Turn: they over-correct by creating an incentive to debate uneducational, trivial issues 2. Counterinterp solves this while preserving fairness to the aff, explained above

Page 14 of 15

Macalester
Harvard 2007

PWNZ
A2 “Real World”: 1AR

1. Turn: it’s a friendly amendment, explained above 2. Fairness and education trump any simulation impacts because participation is the foundation of debate

Page 15 of 15

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful