BFI 2012

CP Theory

Contents
Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1
Neg Theory Arguments....................................................................................................... 2
PICs Good ........................................................................................................................... 3
Advocating Perms Bad ....................................................................................................... 4
Intrinsic Perms Bad ............................................................................................................. 5
Severance Perms Bad .......................................................................................................... 6
Multiple Perms Bad ............................................................................................................ 7
Aff Theory Arguments ........................................................................................................ 8
PICs Bad ............................................................................................................................. 9
Advocating Perms Good ................................................................................................... 10
Intrinsic Perms Good ........................................................................................................ 11
Severance Perms Good ..................................................................................................... 12
Multiple Perms Good ........................................................................................................ 13

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Neg Theory Arguments

BFI 2012

CP Theory

PICs Good
Offense:
1. Forces the affirmative to defend all parts of plan by testing the opportunity cost of
individual plan mandates.
2. Depth over breadth: Plan focus makes better debate on key issues implementation
and enforcement of transportation infrastructure policy.
3. PICs are check extra-topical planks of plan by isolating elements of the plan outside
the resolution.
4. Forces better plan writing- PICS force the aff to write their plan to avoid PICS.
Punish them for lazy plan writing.
5. Education- Our literature proves that this is a legitimate option to learn about
transportation infrastructure and its most real world. This is how congressmen
propose policy.
a. Real world argumentation is key to education because its the only thing that
gets taken beyond each round and
b. Education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize
education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the
rules
Defense:
1. All counterplans are PICS: either the cp accepts the USFG as the agent of action or
they use the plans implementation and enforcement mechanism.
2. Net benefits check abuse: part of the plan has a disadvantage to itdefend it, turn
the net benefit
3. Aff chooses the ground for debate- They get the plan we get everything else. This is
key to reciprocal fairness. PICs are neg ground and are most fair.
4. Not a reason we should lose: reject the counterplan, not the team. Well defend the
status quo.

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Advocating Perms Bad

1. Its a moving target they are changing advocacies from plan, and adding
something else plus plan. That lets them de-link all our offense and destroys all our
ground. This in turn guts all debatability for the neg.
2. Perms are only a test of links perms are only meant to test the competition of
the counterplan; its a hypothetical option, not a true policy alternative. Theres no
theoretical justification for letting them have a new advocacy.
3. It skews our strategy their sketchy strategy allows the perm to be either a
hypothetical test or a new policy option, which skews our strategy because it is
entirely unpredictable and we dont know which of they will go for until the
rebuttals. That destroys negative block and skews the parametrics of the round.
4. Vote them down for fairness and ground, and letting them kick it now just makes
the abuse worse, because it skews our strategy as stated above. The damage has
been done. Vote down the team, not just the argument.

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Intrinsic Perms Bad

1. Advocacy shift The perm is an adds something to the nature of the plan, not a test
of competitiveness.
2. Explodes aff ground--the aff could do anything to add an extra advantage to the
plan, like perm do plan and feed the starving kids in Africa. This is abusive to the
neg because it shifts from the 1AC and allows them to claim non-intrinsic or extra
topical advantages.
3. Kills clash- The affirmative doesnt have to defend an action just find another way
to solve for disads.
4. Not reciprocal--they can always perm out of our net benefit; the neg never wins a
counterplan.
5. Creates a moving target- moots the entirety of our first speech by gutting our links
to the disad.
6. Neg ground- Few if any disads are intrinsic to the affirmative plan.
7. Justifies intrinsicness responses--if they get intrinsicness arguments then so do wethere are a thousand things in the squo that could solve for the affirmative harms,
they just handed us a thousand winning conditional counterplans with no text.
8. Vote here for fairness or let us have intrinsicness arguments too.

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Severance Perms Bad

1. Proves the CP competes--if you have to take out part of the plan, the CP competes.
2. Moving Target bad- They avoid clash and change the debate by severing out of DA
links and the CPs net benefits. This is a huge time and strat skew, we base our neg
strategy off of the plan text.
3. Kills all education- they can avoid any clash in policy comparison.
4. The perm is not an advocacy, if you sever its no longer a test of competitiveness.
5. If aff can advocate the perm, they no longer have to be topical, which is the burden
of the aff.
6. Moots the 1AC by allowing the aff to jettison parts of the plan and parts of their
advoacy.
7. Ground--it destroys all neg ground because they can just de-link our offense.
8. Voter for fairness and education because when we lose our ground, we no longer
have the ability to have an educational debate, limiting us from the round.

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Multiple Perms Bad

1.

Time skew the aff is able to read perms in a short time. We have to take much
more time answering them, thats unfair because they force us to answer their new
advocacies and spend our time with theoretical arguments, destroying topic specific
education.
2. Multiple worlds- aff allows for more scenarios, exploding the topic and research
burden. The impact to this is unpredictability; they could advocate any of the perms
in the end of the round, making it impossible for the neg to win.
3. Spikes out of links- aff can just put perms on the counterplans to spike out of all
our disads makes it impossible to win that our cp is competitive.
4. Kills in-depth education the aff keeps us from talking about the actual plan and
the way it works. We come here to learn about policy and the perms take us away
from that.
Multiple perms are a voter for fairness and education.

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Aff Theory Arguments

BFI 2012

CP Theory

PICs Bad
1. Steals aff ground- arguing against a PIC forces us to argue against our own case,
hurts our ability to offensively attack the CP, this ground is key to fairness.
2. Breadth is better that Depth- focusing on a portion of the plan is not as
educational as evaluating it as a whole.
3. Encourages vague plan writing- allowing PICs allows affirmatives to write plans
that force generic strategies, that hurts education and leads to a race to the bottom.
4. PICs are regressive- allowing the neg to PIC out of one part of the plan justifies
them doing the same in the block, this ruins debate by making it about PICs that get
out of aff offense rather than the topic. The impact here is that it destroys education.
5. Clash- PICs limit aff arguments ruining clash within the debate decreasing
debatability and quality of argumentation.
6. Aff Predictability- the negative can PIC out of any small country or amendment
or part of plan.
7. Reciprocity- There is no affirmative equal to PICs, they justify abusive perms like
severance and intrinsic perms which makes debate unfair.
8. Unpredictable Net Benefits- means we never have the pre-round preparation to
garner offense against the CP voter for ground loss, fairness and education
9. There is in-round abuse- The damage has been done- strategy is dependent on the
first speech, even if you dont buy this potential abuse is a voter
a. In round abuse is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention ruining
fairness
b. If we win our interpretation is best it proves why what the other team has
done deserves to be rejected
10. Argumentative Responsibility- reject the team, time skew proves the unique
abuse of PICs, it limits the aff in the round, the affirmative must defend all of the
plan so should the negative voter for fairness.
11. PICs are not real world- Bills are amended, not rejected based on a singular
flaw.
12. Disads check neg ground loss- if there is one portion of our plan they think is
bad they can run a disad on it.

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Advocating Perms Good

1. Best policy option the point of debate is to find the best solution to a problem.
Taking some of the negatives ideas and combining them with the affirmative best
accomplishes this.
2. They should be prepared the counterplan is their ground, which they have
infinite time to prepare, they should be ready for any kind of perm to the
counterplan. Its not our fault if theyre not.
3. Encourages argumentative responsibility without aff ability to advocate the
perm, the neg has no strategic risk at all in the counterplan the worst that happens
is they have to kick it. However, if a counterplan opens up a new affirmative option,
the neg is forced to stick to the counterplan harder and make strategic choices,
which increases education and analytical thought.
4. Its reciprocal the neg gets a new policy option besides the status quo, the
counterplan. The aff should get the perm in addition to the plan.
5. Conditionality justifies any reason they give that its bad for the affirmative to
be able to get a new advocacy is also a reason why its bad for the negative to be able
to ditch their current advocacy at any time. The negative is equally bad.

10

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Intrinsic Perms Good

Offense:
1. Most real world- If the USFG sees that their defense budget hurts the economy,
they should still pass the defense budget to preserve the country then subsidize the
economy- thats an intrinsic perm.
2. Neg ground- They get ground from every new part we add to the plan.
3. Promotes plan focus- The perm encourages the neg to stop running generic
counterplans that solve everything and research plan specific strategies.
4. Key to find the best policy option, if its a topical clarification of the plan then you
vote aff.
Defense:
1. We still prove the plan is a good idea, all the plan is in the perm. The net benefit to
the counterplan isnt intrinsic to the aff.
2. Its reciprocal- They add to the status quo with the counterplan to solve a disad, we
add to the plan with the perm.
3. Not a shift of advocacy- just a 2AC clarification and test of competitiveness.
4. Not a voter- Their arguments are only a reason to reject the counterplan, not the
team.

11

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Severance Perms Good

Offense:
1. Best policy option- If the best policy is the aff minus one minute detail, you still
affirm because that is the most solvent plan.
2. Reciprocitythey can kick out of different arguments in the neg block, we can kick
out of parts of the plan in the 2AC. And this is real world to congress, were
committees make friendly amendments all the time.
3. We dont have to defend the entirety of the plan, just prove the resolution is a good
idea. Even if we sever parts of the aff, the perm still proves that a) the counterplan
isnt competitive and b) the resolution is on par a good idea.
Defense:
1. The perms legitimate as long as we dont sever out of planks of the plan necessary
for solvency.
2. More Real world, bills always have parts stricken from them.
a. Real world is key to education because its the only thing that helps debaters
beyond the context of debate and
b. Education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize
education.
3. Reciprocal- If the neg gets to change the status quo, we get to change our plan.
4. Topicality checks abuse- we still have to be topical and thats our ground.
5. Not a voter, its an argument why we shouldnt get the perm. At worst, reject the
argument not the team.

12

BFI 2012

CP Theory

Multiple Perms Good

1. Tests of competition theyre not advocacies, so we dont open up more
worlds.
2. Neg block checks time skew neg block skews 1AR time more than perms
skew the block.
3. Reciprocal neg gets to read multiple off cases, we respond with multiple
perms.
4. Education we get to go more in-depth into the competitiveness of the
counterplan and more perms means more education.

Reject the arguments not the team- perms are just a test of competition, not an
advocacy, so we shouldnt be voted down.

13