Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theory - Gonzaga 2014
Theory - Gonzaga 2014
**Status Theory**
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is a voter:
1. Advocacy Skills force them to defend one position throughout the entire debate,
its reciporical
2. Bad Neg Research shouldnt be rewarded for lazy neg research, force them to
find the best answer to the aff
3. Forces Contradictory Answers prevents the 2AC from reading its best offense,
could be crossapplied to another flow
4. Time Skew overspread us in the 2AC and create a shallow debate and
preventing clash and depth of education
5. Strat skew prevent us from reading our best offense out of fear of
contradictions
6. Depth over breadth it is more important to learn about things in detail than
learn little about a variety of things only debate provides this education.
7. Neg side bias the negative gets the block and pre-round disclosure
8. Its not what you do its what you justify view the debate as the interp against the
counter interp
9. Interp 1 Conditional world, prevents contradicting truth claims. Their interp is
arbitrary and self serving.
Conditionality Good
Conditionality is not a voter:
1. Decision making education forces both sides to make strategic decisions
2. Topic Specific Education key to learning about more aspects of the topic
3. 2AC critical thinking forces them to make strategic decisions to avoid
contradictions
4. Real World policy experts can have multiple idea and abandon them if they are
proven wrong
5. Best Policy Option key to test the aff from multiple angles and create a variety
of education
6. Neg flex gives the neg the ability to run different types of arguments, attacking
the affirmative and exposing more arguments
7. Skew Inevitable disads and T not covered by their interp
8. Perms check takes two seconds to make and two minutes to answer
9. Breadth over depth it is more important to learn about a variety of things in
order to create a stable grounding of knowledge.
10. Aff side bias first and last speech and infinite prep
11. No in round abuse dont make us defend every meaning of our interpretation
12. Counterinterp 1 conditional Counterplan and 1 Kritik solves their offense and
allows us to attack the aff from multiple angles.
Dispositionality Bad
Dispositionality is a voting issue. It is bad for the following
reasons:
1.
2. Unfair Aff sticks with the 1AC the entire debate, dont let
the Neg kick out arguments
3. Strat Skew- Forces the Aff to alter their 2ac to answer
arguments that will be dropped. Neg gets to kick out
whenever they want, but we cant check back by making
perms. Key to Fairness
4. Depth over Breadth the Neg doesnt fully develop their
arguments because they can drop them at any time,
preventing the Aff from learning fully. A strong depth
argumentation is better than quick overview on many
advocacies. Prevents education
5. Time Skew More important arguments get less time to be
answered and the time goes to off-cases the Neg will drop
in the end. Alters time allocation.
6. Dispositionality is conditionality in disguise. Has the same
limits as conditionality and is therefore abusive to the aff.
Reject the team, not the argument; it is key to education in the
debate.
Dispositionality Good
The negative team should be allowed to run Dispositionality.
No Neg Fiat
The Negative Should Not Get Fiat:
Theres no negative resolution. The neg side is supposed to negate the
resolution, not create one for themselves.
1. Theres no counter-resolution to justify neg fiat neg fiat creates
three problems for the entire debate:
A. First: the aff must come up with a solution to a problem the neg
causes
B. Second: the negative must prove that solution wrong- taking away
focus from the real debate and centering it on something that the neg
created only makes it worse for the neg AND aff
C. Third: moots the 1ac by stealing offense and integrating it into a
counterplan
2. This has three impacts:
A. first: fairness: Unpredictable it justifies infinite counter plans all
with obscure net benefits to beat the case takes necessary aff
ground, creates unnecessary research, and therefore kills education
B. second: Ground: Creates shallow case debate neg fiat means the
negative doesnt have to spend as much time on case we have an 8
minute 1AC for a reason make them dedicate more than a minute to
it
C.Third: education: Critical thinking plan focus good focusing on
obscure net benefits to obscure counterplans only makes it less
educational to debate- depth over breadth
EVEN IF this isnt persuasive enough for you to decide neg fiat is
abusive, neg fiat creates an aff vs aff debate. This would create an
arbitrary race to the bottom with endless perms and obscure
counterplans.
Therefore Its a voter for fairness, education, and ground it creates
an aff vs aff debate, kills education through obscure counterplans
and net benefits the aff can in no way be prepared for, and steals not
only 1ac ground but aff ground in general during the debate.
**Counterplan Theory**
PICs Good
Counter interpretation: The aff has to defend the entirety of
their Plan text
1. No Abuse: the aff checks abuse by perms
2. All counter plans are pics, not allowing them kills neg ground
3. Real world: in real life policy making you have defend your
entire bill not just the parts you want
4. Infinite prep: since the aff has infinite prep time to make their
aff they should be able defend their whole plan
5. Topic specific education: by allowing the neg to test the aff, it
allows for more discussion of the topic and therefore a better
debate and discussion of the topic
6. Critical thinking: Forces the aff to make stronger and higher
quality plan text
7. Fairness: the neg has the burden of the status quo, so the aff has
the burden of defending the plan text
8. Predictability: gives aff stable ground to debate on and not a
moving target, the neg can only use functions of the plan.
9. Reject the argument not the team: Pics are a voter
PICS Bad
Interpretation: PICs prevent education and are abusive.
Voter: PICS are a voter for education, fairness, and predictability.
Destroys education: Prevents education because the aff cannot learn from debating
against other plans and criticisms. There is no offense for the aff to fight against the neg
because the neg has stolen the affs plan.
Destroys fairness: There is an unfair research burden because the neg does not need to
research anything while the aff spends time to create a plan and results in the neg
stealing it.
Not predictable: The neg can take out any section of the affs plan, preventing the aff
from predicting the neg and prepping for it. Leads to time skew.
Time Skew: The aff needs time to find cards to attack its own plan
REJECT THE TEAM NOT THE ARGUMENT. >:)
If the Aff gets fiat, its only fair the Neg should get fiat as well - we have to level
the playing field of the affirmative and negative, the aff gets infinite prep time and the
neg does not, the least we could do is give them both fiat
The oceans topic literally states non-military actors enact the plan and
private entities are basically the entirety of the oceans topic
The doesnt have more ground than the affthe aff gets to read usfg add ons
Justification: the CP is justified by the ethic that the aff can add
add-ons to their first speech AND the 2NC is still a constructive,
therefore, we can introduce new arguments
amount of time spent debating the topic rather than so called abuse, the aff creates the
time skew.
**Perms**
Severance Bad
1. Skew- Severance skews neg in 3 ways. First- steals all neg
ground. Second- time skews the neg. It takes 2 seconds to
sever out and completely waste the time of the 1NC. Thirdskews all neg strats. Eliminates all possible DA's because
the aff can simply sever out. Neg can't form effective
strategy if aff can't just sever out every round. Kills
fairness
2. No clash- Aff avoids any sort of clash in the debate and
instead opts to lower the education of the debate by
severance. Lack of clash kills education.
3. Aff Condo- Aff shouldn't be able to switch their plan at will.
This makes their perm unpredictable as they can simply
change a few words to form a diferent perm, meaning the
aff has an infinite number of perms they can use.
Unpredictability kills fairness.
4. Infinite Prep Time- The aff has a lot of time to before the
round to choose which plan to go for. There is no need for
a severance perm if they were truly content with the plan
they chose.
Voting Issues
1. Fairness- Fairness is voter. Aff skews neg in 3 different
ways, is unpredictable, abusive and validates a vote
against them.
2. Education- Education is voter. Aff lowers level of
education, vote against them.
Severance Good
1. Real World-Severance is the most real world. Policy makers
make amendments to policies in order to arrive at the best one.
2. Reciprocity PIC's-The neg is allowed to use a PIC (Plan
Inclusive Counterplan) and potentially PIC out of any aff. The aff
should be allowed to do the same and use severance perms to
check the fairness.
3. Reciprocity Condo-The neg can bring up multiple advocacies
and kick out of them as necessary, hence allowing them to
change positions. As such the aff should at least be allowed to
change their plan.
4. Perms Check Abuse-The neg is able to read any counterplan
or K that have nothing to do with the resolution or plan besides
an extra advantage or wording change. The aff should be
allowed to adjust the plan and perm in order to check the
competitiveness and abuse of the K/CP.
Reject the Argument not the team-More educational for both
sides.
Voters
Intrinsicness Good
A: Interpretation:
B: We meet
C: Standards:
D: Voter
A.
Intrinsicness Bad
Interpretation: The aff must not add to their advocacy when perming a neg
position.
Standards:
1. In Round Predictability: The aff gives no boundary to where the plan texts
ends therefore allowing the AFF to add in or detach anything making them a
moving target. Being bound is key to fairness.
2. Ground: This means when they are adding to their plan in the 1AR they are
taking ground away from the neg. Equal division of ground is key to fairness
because both debaters need to start on an equal playing field to have the same
chances of winning.
3. Time skew - harms fairness because whichever debater has less relevant time
will automatically be put at a disadvantage.
4. Real World: The aff simply fiats that something will happen to solve back the
harms outlined In the real world. People dont base problem solving off the ideas
that something will magically occur. Real world decisions are key to education
because this allows us to make things we learn in debate applicable later in our
lives.
**K Theory**
PIKs Good
Negative Ground Strat:
1) Piks are the only opportunity the negative has to not just criticize the affirmative
with an alt, but to give a way the plan could be put into action with the correct
methodology.
Education:
1) It lets debate look a level deeper at the fundamental issues of the affirmatives
ocean policy.
Real World:
1) In the real world policies go through this same kind of scrutiny over the content
and presentation of plans.
Defensive Answers-
1) The pik is in the 1NC meaning it is just as predictable as the K. If the affirmative
listened to kritic, it is just as predictable as going for any part of the rest of the K
and shouldnt affect the affirmative more than an additional offcase would.
Fairness:
1) Piks do not change the advocacy of the negative at all. It supports its claims on
the K with the correct methodology.
2) Piks can be answered with many of the same answers as any other CP. In order to
be fair debate would need to exclude all CPs which would crush negative
ground.
PIK Interpretation:
PIKs Bad
A. Interpretation: Floating PIKS are illegitimate.
B. Standards
Predictability
1) Allows the neg to be a moving target
2) Let the neg shift the k debate which is unpredictable and skews what was
answered in the 2ac
Fairness
Voting issue for fairness
1) The negative team can just change their advocacy with a floating PIK in the neg
block which is unfair for the aff. The 2ACs arguments become useless and the
most time pressed speech 1AR gets even more pressured which is unfair
2) Impossible for the AFF to answer a floating PIK fairly
Ground
Voting issues for ground
1) Floating PIKS steal Aff ground. They cant advocate against the K if it
encompasses their entire case. This destroys the aff ground for offense. This
means that the neg can just moot the 1AC
Education
Voting issue for education
1) This allows the neg to just prep an advocacy that steals the AFFs ideas which
destroys education for both the neg and the aff. This makes it so that there is no
education in round