Aff

CP
 2NC CPs
[2AC]
2NC CPs are a voter-

Fairness-

1. UNFAIR FOR THE 1AR- makes the 2ac irrelevant because the 2NC ignores it

2. NEG TIME ADVANTAGE- 1AR is short enough already, extra CPs makes it worse because the answers
are new.

Education-

1. DEPTH OVER BREADTH- 2nc CPs make the debate shallow. Debate is good for learning about a few
things-that’s why the topic is the same the entire year. 1NC CPs give more time to have an actual
debate.

2. BAD FOR NEG RESEARCh- they can just read a 2nc CP to get an easy win.

ERR AFF ON THEORY- neg gets the block and can control the debate

Defense

1. NOT RECIPROCAL- the neg can read answers and additional impacts to check back 2ac add-ons

2. NOT KEY TO TESTING THE AFF- the neg can still test without 2nc CPs

3. DOESN’T RUIN THE POINT OF A NEG CONSTRUCTIVE- they can still read new impact scenarios- the aff
doesn’t get to read another plan in the 2ac, so neither should they

4. 1NC CP SOLVE THE REST OF THEIR OFFENSE

5. Voter for education and fairness

 Agent Fiat
[2AC]
Interpretation: Agent CPs are only legitimate if they have a corporate specific solvency advocate.

voter for fairness and education—kills education because we’re focused on specifying the agent and we
don’t get to have a debate about why the plan is good or bad. Kills fairness because the CP steals the
aff’s offense in the round and the aff has nothing to fight for.

moots the 1AC—the CP takes away our offense. The affirmative team should be able to talk about why
our aff is good and weigh it against Neg offense. Without offense the aff has a large disadvantage in the
round.

Unpredictable—the CP can use any agent it wants, and there’s no way for the affirmative to be able to
predict and prepare for all of them.

Infinitely regressive—justifies ASPEC which progresses to having to specify more and more things which
kills the debate because we aren’t talking about policy, we’re talking how to specify something further
and further.

[1AR]
Extend our Interp: their CP has to have a corporate specific solvency advocate. This is better for
education because it forces the neg to have a real counter plan that’s distinct from the aff to discuss and
advocate for against the 1AC.

Extend our voter, debating about Agent CPs doesn’t actually result in more education, because we just
talk about an agent and we don’t learn anything about the actual policy or how that policy affects the
world around us. And it kills fairness for the aff because it steals aff offense.

[AT ptx]
We can still have a politics debate without Agent CPs, Agent CPs just allow the neg to steal the 1AC and
force the aff to debate it. You can still run a politics DA, you don’t have to have an Agent CP to do that.

[AT Time Spec]

The Neg still gets ground, we can still have time specific debates with Delay CPs, Agent CPs aren’t key.
 Conditionality Framework
[2AC]
Our interpretation is that the negative gets 2 conditional advocacies.

A) It’s positionally non-reciprocal, which skews procedural fairness.

B) Forces 2AC strategy skew by 1. reducing 2AC time allocation 2. creating a 2AC pin that forces us to
argue with ourselves

c) Provides better real-world advocacy skills by using comparative worlds

Voter for education and fairness

[1AR Skew-Fairness] ~1:00

Three reasons to vote on theory

1. Too many off in the 1NC kills 2AC strategic options that’s crucial to the debate space, there’s no
potential for the aff to come back. You should evaluate theory prior to the debate substance to check
for abuse.

2. Strategic equity turns their offense. The block gets more time on each arg, and can choose the
arguments the aff covered least. That makes impossible to access decision making, procedural fairness

3. You should vote on the <<actual in round abuse>> as proof of the loss of access to decision making
and procedural fairness

Interp Debate:

Prefer our interp – 2 conditional advocacies provides the best bright line for evaluating procedural
fairness against decision making skill.

*Line by Line interp

Stadards

1. Strat skew prevents access to good decision making skills, because

a. The block can choose what the least time is spent on, which moots 2AC responses
b. It shallows the debate which ruins in depth argument choice
c. Forces teams to operate in multiple worlds which decks the aff ability to provide clash

<<Decision making skills turns standards>>

*Line by Line Standards

<<Procedural Fairness turns voters>>

*Line by Line Voters

 Conditions CP
[2AC]
Condition Counterplans are illegitimate-

Interpretation: Condition Counterplans are only fair if they contain a functionally comparative Solvency
Advocate and if they are reasonable.

The Neg can use any number of absurd Condition Counter Plan texts. This is unfair for the Aff because it
kills their offense.

Condition Counter Plans are infinitely regressive. The Aff has no way to prepare for the countless
numbers of arguments the Neg has the capability to present.

Condition Counter Plans don’t focus on the outcome of the debate; only the conditions of it, so it’s non
educational.

Because Condition Counter Plans are infinitely regressive, the Aff wastes time trying to answer the
numerous amounts of arguments the Neg is able to produce.
 Consult CPs
[2AC]
Consultation CPs are bad and a voting issue

A) Predictability –Consultation adds nearly infinite possible independent actors, each making their own
choices. They can pick any state, organization or individual that we then need to find a contrived
solvency deficit to.

B) Steal the affirmative. Consultation can drop independence and cause a complete failure of the plan
and counterplan, because a conflicting national actor can essentially veto the plan and disable its
actions. The aspect is unfair as the aspect itself can render both the counterplan and plan irrelevant due
to the possibility of failure added by the consultation trait.

C) Aff ground and fairness – The judge should vote for the affirmative because the negatives consult
counterplan renders both the aff and neg almost impossible to effectively advocate due to the loss of
certainty and the possible time-skew of argument fulfillment.

[1AR]

OFFENSE

1. STEALS AFF GROUND- they steal the aff, makes it impossible to get offense because we’d have to
debate ourselves.

2. PREDICTABILITY- almost 200 countries to consult, impossible to predict and explodes the research
burden of the aff.

3. EDUCATION-

a. RUINS TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION- debate should be about transportation policies not consulting. We
only have one year to debate about transportation infrastructure.

b. CHECKS BACK FILES- teams read the same consult CPs every year. Leads to stale education.

4. BAD FOR AFF GROUND- the negative can garner offense off of weird net benefits.

DEFENSE

1.NOT KEY TO CRITICAL THINKING - if the neg is smart, the aff has to be smart too and rebuttals are
never pre-scripted.

2. NOT REAL WORLD- policy makers don’t ask other actors every time they update transportation
policies. Transportation bill proves.
3. NOT KEY TO RESEARCH- other counterplans make the aff research too, Consult CPs not key.
International PICS check.

4. NOT RECIPROCAL- We only get one actor, means we can’t gain advantages off of cooperating with
other actors. Skews debate to the neg.
 Covert Fiat
[2AC]
It kills our ground – we can’t get links to disads or solvency arguments if no one knows about the plan,
so we can never win.

It’s not real world – large public policies are never passed in secret. We can’t expect to research
something that is never done in the real world, so there’s no ground.

It’s impossible – investigative media reporting will uncover the plan, so it can never be truly covert. That
means that they either (a) have no net benefit because the plan gets leaked out, or (b) they fiat that
doesn’t happen, which is abusive because it’s magic-wand fiat and destroys our ground. Either way vote
them down.

They link harder to the net benefit than we do – when something hidden is uncovered, it gets more
attention than if it were out in the open all along – attention given presidential scandals and cover-ups
proves this. That means they have more total perception than we do, so they link harder.

There’s a solvency double-bind – either (a) no one knows about the plan, so it can’t be enforced and
they have no solvency or (b) the plan leaks out and they have no net benefit. Again, either way they
lose.

We can’t research covert action – if it really is covert, no one knows about it so there’s nothing written
on why it’s good or bad. That makes it by definition impossible to research, so we can’t get any offense.
 Delay CP
[2AC]
First is our Offense-

Kills Fairness-

Ground- steals all aff ground because we can’t read add-ons or make solvency defects to the CP there is
no lit comparing the squo and the future

Future Fiat Bad – It is impossible to predict whether or not it will be possible to do the plan in the future.
Destroys Uniqueness.

Inflates the Net-Benefit- reading a delay CP avoids the link to disads simply by doing it at a later time

The CP is Non-Competitive- The plan and CP create the same end result with no functional
competitiveness and have no textual competitiveness either, stealing our entire AFF, and only adding a
delay

Encourages Cheap Shot Args- The NEG will increasingly run shorter off-case CPs that they only created to
accompany a DA and inflate the net-benefit- which leads to – time skew

Strat Skew- The time it takes to read a Delay CP in the 1NC and the time it takes to answer it with all
newanalytics is hugely disproportionate

Encourages Future Abuse- Every time someone runs a cheating CP it gets a little closer to the AFF’s plan;
don’t let this round set the precedent that it is ok to run a non-competitive CP and get away with it-kills
education

Second is Defense-

Perms Don’t Check- Why should the AFF have to win the plan twice? The CP is non-competitive a perm
should always win
NEG Side Bias- They have the whole block to advance their CP, they don’t also need to run a cheating
CP-Err AFF

Delay CPs are a voter for Fairness, Education,;

 Dispositionality Framework
[2AC]
DISPOSITIONALITY IS A VOTER…..

1. TIME SKEW- they justify reading 15 CPs the aff is forced to answer in the 2AC. 2AC is the key speech,
the 1AR and 2AR build up on it.

2. EDUCATION – offense is key to learning the consequences of counterplans and exploring what policy
is best. Perms access unique research about how policies interact.

3. CONDITONALITY IN DISGUISE- perms and theory are the common arguments, so it doesn’t solve our
offense.

4. JUSTIFIES PLAN PLUS CPS- No perms mean the aff adding in random net benefits. Aff should be able to
test the competition of the CP.

5. COMPETITION- perms key to check artificially competitive counterplans that are bad for debate.

DEFENSE-

1. NOT RECIPROCAL- the aff can’t kick the 1AC, don’t let the neg.

2. ERR AFF-the neg gets 13 minutes to exploit 2AC mistakes, aff only gets 5 minutes to answer,
Dispositional CPs tilt bias even MORE in the negs favor.

3. NOT REAL WORLD- policy makers get to weigh opportunity costs of different infrastructure plans.

4. NEG FLEX INEVITIBLE- the neg can always go for other off case positions and case.
 50S Fiat
[2AC]
Offense

50 State Fiat is a voting issue – voting against a generic CP forces more innovative neg strats increasing
education

Not real world – 50 states do not act in unison

Infinitely regressive – justifies multiple-actor counterplans, which is bad because –

Makes unbearable research burden for the aff

Makes debate unpredictable – they can choose any actor for their CP

Steals aff ground – they get to do all of the affirmative

Object Fiat – fiat coordinated throughout federal government, takes out our solvency deficits

No logical decision-maker – no person that can choose between federal government and 50 states

No solvency advocate – no lit on states acting on a federal project

Defense

Depth over breadth- in-depth education on one actor is better than education spread thin on 50

Counter-interpretation: The counterplan must be done through the USfg

Not fiat-ing cooperation but having the states do it solves their offense

No Education- who enacts the plan is irrelevant

 Functional Competition
[2AC]

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 aren’t 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 alternative-
a. 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 YEAR’S TOPIC.
 Future Fiat
[2AC]
Interpretation the counterplans of the negative must be passed immediately

1. Procedural fairness - it creates non reciprocal fiat that moots the reading of the 1AC
2. Stagnates the debate process – future fiat generates no functional competitiveness and justifies
intrinsic permutations
3. Strat skew – we have to read offense against the plan

Voter for education and fairness

 Intl Fiat
[2AC]

International CPs are illegitimate—

1. Shifts focus of debate from whether or not the plan should happen to arbitrary decisions on who
should do the plan—this destroys education.

2. No real world applications—policymakers can’t just assume other countries will enact the plan in real
life.

3. The CP artificially inflates the net benefit—international DAs mean we can still talk about
international actors.

4. Moots the 1AC—disregards 8 minutes of affirmative speech time—the aff’s only offense is their case
and the neg steals this.

5. Unpredictable—there’s an infinite number of international actors—it’s impossible to research all of

them.

6. Kills aff ground—debating against the CP is debating against the aff—it forces the aff to debate
against itself.

7. Interpretation: The neg can only have the USFG as an actor to provide reciprocity.
 Intrinsic Test of the DA
[2AC]
In a world of policymaking the federal government could pass the plan and pass legislation for _____.
There’s no reason the issues are interconnected. That’s 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 – DA’s are legitimate if their links are predicated off of a direct effect of
the plan, not the process of passing it.
 Multi Actor Fiat
[2AC]

1. Not reciprocal- We only have the USFG, they get huge advantage ground we can never access.

2. If we want to get advantage off of two actors- we have to have evidence on modeling

3. Unpredictable- There are hundreds of agencies in the US as well as hundreds more in each of
192 countries, that’s an infinite number of combinations we’d have to research

4. Artificially competitive- Since there’s more than one actor there’s no standard of opportunity
cost, meaning the CP isn’t a reason to reject the affirmative

5. Voter for fairness and competitive equity

 Multi Plank CPs
[2AC]
Multiplank counterplans are bad and a voting issue for fairness and education:

Offense

1. Explodes Neg Ground – Get the ability to read any number of planks

2. Predictability – we can’t predict all the mechanisms they could use to solve the aff

3. Depth over breadth – they explode the amount of subjects in the debate – depth gives us better
research skills – we have to find a lot evidence and various warrants

4. Time skew- neg can just read the planks and the aff has to come up with answers to each plank in the
2AC

Defense

1. Multiple CP’s check – they can run all of their CP’s, they just have to be separate

2. Err Aff on theory conditionality and win percentage prove bias

 Neg Fiat
[2AC]
Offense-

Real World- policymakers review every option to find the best policy.

Education- If we don’t run advocacies, we will never learn about which policy options are best and truly
be able to test the aff.

Reciprocity- AFF gets to fiat the plan, the NEG should get to FIAT a counterplan. This is the only way to
increase fairness because then the neg will never outweigh.

Kills NEG Ground: If we don’t get NEG fiat, counterplans become DAs, the policy just becomes a
opportunity cost

Defense-

Permutations Check- allows AFF to check for NEG competition.

Increases education-it forces the AFF to create better and more research

Topic has link uniqueness problem – transportation bill makes its hard to be negative

Aff side bias – they get first and last speech, infinite prep, and pick the topic

NEG Fiat and potential abuse are NOT voters

Plan Plus
Process/Normal Means CPs
 PIC
[2AC]
PICs are bad and a voting issue

Interpretation- Counter Plans can’t include any part of the plan

1. Offense

a. Aff strat- We have to debate against our own plan- this makes it impossible to make
strategic 2AC decisions-moots the 1AC and 8 minutes of our speech time.

b. Critical Thinking- We never will learn anything new if we debate the same plan over
and over

d. Infinite regression- They justify infinite number of net benefits and word PICs

2. Defense

a. Not all CPs are PICS – They could do more research and find specific mechanisms that
solve our advantages

b. Doesn’t lead to better plan writing- Only taking part of the original plan text- never know what part of
the plan they are going to pic out of -lead to vague plans

c. fairness- Too much neg flex is bad. They get the negative block to exploit the 2AC. There are an
infinite number of counterplans if PICs are allowed.

d. other CPs check back- transportation bill is no reason to steal affs-it hurt our inherency too
e. Caselist checks- the could have found what our aff was-they didn’t have to run a PIC
Private Actor Fiat
[2AC]
Voters

1)(education) - since the aff cannot be adequately prepared for the debate there will be no
educational benefits. This is depriving the affirmative of an integral debate skill

2)(Limits)Loss of Aff ground-Private Actor Fiat steals the entirety of the Affirmative and its offense this
leads to an unequal distribution of ground and leads to a one sided debate.

3)Fairness- Private actor fiat creates an unfair debate and that makes it impossible for the aff

4)Interpretation- negative must have resolutional actors, this allows for negative predictability

5)Not Competitive- Private Actors are not competitive with governmental ones, this means the CP Is
not competitive with the aff

6)Private actor Fiat is infinitely regressive- Agent specification leads to infinite regresivity, this creates
an unreasonable burden on the affirmative

7)Predictability- With private actors there are infinite options for the negative. There is no reasonable
way that the affirmative can be adequately prepared.

8)No reciprocity- The Affirmative doesn’t get to fiat private actors the negative shouldn’t either

9)Private actor fiat discusses the process of the plan as opposed to the outcome
Necessary Solvency Statement
 Textual Competition
[2AC]

Textual competition bad:

1. Not real world- Congressmen and Senators care about the function of a given piece of legislation- not
the text. Text isn’t 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 aren’t valid. You justify
ban the plan permutations- that allows you to just spike out of your entire aff

3. CX checks functional competition- we’re not abusive.

4. Text is meant to ensure function- Textual competition isn’t meant to be the end goal of competition,
it’s meant to ensure functional competition

5. Kills education- functional competition ensures actual argumentation, while text comp devolves
debate into a giant word game.
Topical CP
K
 Floating PIK Framework
[2AC]
If the plan or the plan’s function can be done after the alt, then this must be stated in the 1NC if the neg
wishes to garner it as alt solvency. Floating PIKs ran in the block should be considered abusive.

[1AR]
A: Interpretation: If the plan or the plan’s function can be done after the alt, then this must be stated in
the 1NC if the neg wishes to garner it as alt solvency. Floating PIKs ran in the block should be considered
abusive.

B: Standards:

Strategy Skew: The Floating PIK puts an unfair tactical squeeze on the 1AR. It takes 5 seconds to read,
but the 1AR has to spend minutes responding to it or lose the debate. The only reason the neg would
choose not to read the PIK in the 1NC is because they acknowledge this strat skew. Strategy skew is a
major impact to fairness, because it’s nearly impossible for the 1AR to effectively respond to all of the
block and a floating PIK

Educational Breadth: When the neg is allowed to subsume the aff with a floating PIK, they can run the
same K with the same impact every round and never have to worry about the specifics of the aff they
are up against, meaning the neg learns very little about the many intricacies of the topic itself. ]

Educational Depth: With the Neg able to subsume the case at any time, there’s no reason for the Aff to
deeply research their case. Instead, they must conduct broad research to defend against the
innumerable Ks that could steal their ground.

C: Voter

Education: Fairness, depth and breadth are key to educational debate. Breadth and depth of education
are crucial because without either of them, the education doesn’t exist. Fairness is important, because
without fair debate there will be no participation, and participation is key to education. This an in-round
impact, you have to vote on education first.
 No Text Alts
[2AC]

A. Interpretation:

K alts. must have an explicit text

B. Violation:
There is no text to the alternative

C. Standards

1. Advocacy:
Because the K alt. does not have an explicit text, I do not know what it is. This creates a moving target
because if I generate offense off what I think the K alt. is, my opponent could just say that was not the
alt. they were advocating and get out of all of my offense. This destroys fair debate because I cannot
generate offense, and thus win. This also harms education because we cannot learn how to solve the K.
2. Time skew
By not having a text to the alternative, this allows my opponent be a moving target and thus
get out of all my offense. This creates a time skew because by getting out of my offense, my
opponent renders all the time I spent making those responses useless. A time skew is
inherently unfair because it gives one side a clear advantage over the other.

3. Reciprocity:
I am forced to have a text to my plan and present a stable advocacy but the K doesn’t have to
have a written description between the status quo and the K. This destroys reciprocal burdens
because it forces one debater to achieve more while granting an easy out for the other. This
also encourages argument irresponsibility because the K is not responsible for defending the alt
but I am forced to defend my text for the entirety of the debate. This exacerbates the
imbalance of fairness.
 Non-Implementable Alts
[2AC]

A. Interpretation:
K alts. must be realistic policy options.

Violation:
The K alt. can’t be implemented in the real world

B. Standards:

1. Disadvantage ground:
I lose all ground to implementation indicts and disadvantages because they never give a
tangible implementation method. This ground is key to answering K’s, and fairness
because if I can’t garner offense off of the alternative, then I can never win.
2. Real World:
In real world decision making, advocacies actually have to be implemented. To deny this
would destroy fairness because I am forced to implement my plan but the K doesn’t have
to implement the alt. Real world decision making is key to education
The scope of negative fiat and the logic of decision making. L. Paul Strait George Mason
University and Brett Wallace Write: George Washington University.
The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the
key skill. It is the one thing every single one of us will do every day besides breathing.
Decision making transcends boundaries between categories of learning like “policy
education” and “kritik education,” it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will
eventually be policymakers and it transcends questions of what substantive content a
debate round should contain. The implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking
and argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making are comparatively
greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we
learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While
policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another,
those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to
make decisions.
3. Fiat abuse: Lack of a functional K alternative is unfair because it is a form of object fiat in
that instead of indirectly advocating a plan to attempt to solve the problem, the
negative is essentially wishing away the problems. This is unfair, because as

Strait and Wallace Four writes:

An examination of the question of fiating “the object” makes our position
even more clear. Except for those who believe in ‘negative flexibility’ as a
cult-like religion, everyone agrees that the negative should not be able to
fiat the object of the plan; otherwise their win percentage would skyrocket
at the expense of the affirmative. Imagine you are running an affirmative
which gives condoms and educational assistance in order to solve an
HIV/AIDS advantage. What substantive answer would you have to a
counterplan that had all people infected with HIV become celebate? Or
suppose your plan was designed to solve a genocide. The counterplan to
have the culpable government cease killing people probably solves your
affirmative better than you could ever hope to with the plan. These
counterplans are intuitively unfair, making it impossible for the affirmative
to generate offense. But what rule would we adopt to preclude their
discussion? Perhapse the negative should not be able to fiat a decision-
maker who is affected by the plan. Even if there was some non-arbitrary way
to decide what and who the plan affects, it is unclear if even that rule would
be sufficient. Consider affirmatives which argue that the World Health
Organization is making something worse, perhaps by offering defective
medicine or equipment and so the plan has the United States increase public
health assistance in order to offset the poor assistance in the status quo. The
counterplan to have the WHO (the object of the plan is still somewhere in
sub-Saharan Africa), so our previously identified rule is insufficient for
excluding this counterplan, yet it is also intuitively unfair. When alternative
agent fiat is allowed, there really is no non-arbitrary method of preventing
object fiat. Since every harm area is a consequence of no one’s solving it,
every alternative agent counterplan is at least a little bit object fiat. While
some counterplans are clearly “more unfair” than others, if we can agree
with the general principle that object fiat harms competitive equity, the
only true solution is to prevent all alternative agent fiat.
PIK Framework
Rejection Alts
Vague Alts
Perms
 Intrinsic
[2AC]

A: Interpretation:

The aff can make intrinsic permutations

B: We meet

C: Standards:

Kills education - It simulates real life scenarios. Saying intrinsic permutations are bad is killing the
education my partner and I are trying to gain in the debate. This does not kill negative ground. They can
still argue that the supplement will not solve or its harms outweigh its benefits.

Research – By allowing intrinsic permutations, my partner and I are forced to research more on the topic
given at hand. Thus increasing the amount of education we receive from debate.

Predictability – My advocacy is predictable because when they bring up a disadvantage, they should see
that I will have an attempt at solving for the disadvantage.

Real world decision-making. When a potential action is proven undesirable in the real world, we do not
reject it on face because we are bound to the exact text of our advocacy. Rather, we are able to add on
extra things we will do to compensate for that disadvantage. Real-world decision-making is key to
education because it is the only way we can learn analytical skills that will help us make decisions that
will actually be relevant in real life.

D: Voter

Fairness is the voter. If one side were to win because of an unfair advantage, then there would
be point in the debate in the first place. Thus fairness is an inherent part of debate. If the round is
inherently biased toward one debater, the judge cannot fulfill their role of deciding the winner because
any issue a debater is winning on the flow couldn’t be definitively attributed to their ability as a debater
but could rather be an effect of a structural advantage. This is a voter even if they concede the interp
because I had to invest speech time to preempt this abuse, which skewed my time and strategy
 Multiple
[2AC]

1. Tests of competition – they’re not advocacies, so we don’t 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.
5. Condi/Dispo checks- they can drop the CP, mooting the time we spent on the perms.

Reject the arguments not the team- perms are just a test of competition, not an advocacy, so we
shouldn’t be voted down.
 Needs a Text
[2AC]

A. Interpretation- The affirmative is allowed to advocate the world of the perm

B. I meet

C. Standards
6. Time Skew: If the perm isn’t an advocacy then it’s a time skew for the affirmative. By testing the
competition of the CP and proving that it’s non-competitive, the perm becomes defense on the
CP. This skews my time because I have to answer the CP, but if I can’t garner offense off of it.
This also justifies running multiple non-competitive CP’s so that my opponent can waste all of
my time. Since it’s beneficial for the affs to increase their advocacy, perming has an advantage,
which mitigates the time skew.
7. Real World Decision Making: In the real world, policy makers look to see if they can include
additional components to their original plans. Since there is no advantage for the aff to use the
perm as a test of competition, they are dis-incentivized from running it which is disingenuous to
the way policy makers act. Real world decision making is key to education. L. Paul Strait
George Mason University and Brett Wallace Write: George Washington University.
Why debate? Some do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many just
believe it is fun. These are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to
joining the debate team, but as debate theorists they aren’t the focus of our concern. Our
concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the
highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. The ability to
make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. It is
the one thing every single one of us will do every day besides breathing. Decision
making transcends boundaries between categories of learning like “policy education” and
“kritik education,” it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be
policymakers and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round
should contain. The implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and
argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making are comparatively greater
than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we learn, not the
content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While policy comparison
skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills are useless if
they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions.

Checks back multiple neg advocacies- The world of the perm checks back multiple conditional negative
advocacies because it makes them a risk issue for the negative. Internal link to education because the
negative will run better more warranted and more competitive advocacies if they know that they are a
risk issue
D.
 Severance
[2AC]

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

Education-Real world policymaking is key to education.

Fairness-Reciprocity and checking abuse are key to Fairness.

AT:Skew-There is still ground for the Neg to argue, as in the part that was severed. Also, on strat skew
the neg is still capable of kicking out of the CP and/or running a DA, T, K, or any combination of the
three.
Timeframe
Procedurals
ASPEC
Disclosure
Judge Prefs
Impact Exclusive Standards
OSPEC
 Perf Con
[2AC]

1. Kills education
a. Forces us to debate against ourselves with contradictions- makes debate sloppy and
thoughtless
b. Neg can invest very little time in one position just to solidify the link on their other

2. Strategy skew, the negative can kick one position and cross apply our arguments as affirmative
suicide

3. Makes us grant a link even if we don’t and we have to argue for their CP to argue the K.

4. False advocacies bad- This proves they don’t believe their arguments, makes for bad debate as
well as bad political activism

5. Concedes perm solvency on the K, if the CP is justified, then so is the plan

6. Their positions are conditional

<insert conditionality bad F/L>

7. 2NR doesn’t check abuse- We base our offense off of the 1NC, by the 2NR were already
screwed.

8. Voter for fairness

Plan Flaw

A2: Plans give aff better ground because they get to arbitrarily narrow the debate

a. Topicality Checks this argument because if the aff advocacy is arbitrary and unpredictable then the
negative can simply argue that the aff is non-topical, however, this is not a problem with plan focus as a
whole
b. LINK Turn: Plan focus gives negatives better ground because they can argue literally ANY advocacy
outside of the plan, even topical advocacies, which is ground negs would not have access to absent plan
focus

c. IMPACT Turn: Allowing the aff to have flexibility is a good thing because this will increase aff win
percentage to compensate for neg time bias and create a truly level playing field where affs win around
fifty percent of the time. My opponent will attempt to say that there is no reason flexibility uniquely
checks time bias however this is empirically denied because it has checked back neg time bias in policy
debate as win percentage is relatively equal.

A2: Plan focus kills breadth

1. My opponent makes breadth claims however they do not show why breadth of discussion is
uniquely important to fairness, they need to understand the difference between breadth of research
and breadth of discussion.

2. Non-unique: Res focus discourages breadth of research because debaters only need to cut the
generic cards that every one runs in order to write a stock aff, encouraging only surface level research.

3. Turn: It increases breadth of research because affs have an incentive to research several potential
plans on the topic before writing one. Thus, because I am controlling uniqueness, I am straight turning
breadth

4. IMPACT Turn: Breadth of discussion is uneducational because we only learn a small amount about
each issue we discuss. Depth of discussion is more educational because we can actually obtain useful
knowledge and new insight from in-depth discussions. This is similar to how it is more educational to
read one five hundred page book than the first page of five hundred books

5. LINK Turn: Plan focus encourages negs to run a wide variety of arguments in response to the aff as
they are granted topical counter plan ground and specific disadvantage ground which they would not
have under res focus, so they are able to make new types of arguments increasing breadth of discussion.

AT: Plan Focus unpredictable

1. Aff. flexibility
Currently, negs. empirically win more than affs. due to the fact that they have a time advantage and
under a resolution focus, it is easier to prove the resolution false, than true. Thus, we must prefer
operating under a “unpredictable” plan focus, because even if it advantages the aff., in the end, it
merely balances out the win ratio in the end.

2. Topicality checks
As long as I am within the bounds of the resolution the neg. should be able to prep it. If my plan is truly
unpredictable AND gives me significantly better ground than my opponent, then it would be untopical,
and he/she should have run topicality. Thus, plan focus isn’t actually unpredictable. Rather, untopical
positions are, and T checks for that.

3. (Only if you disclose) Disclosure checks

I disclosed my position to my opponent before the round meaning they could have prepped positions
specific to my advocacy. There is zero abuse here; if they knew it pre-round it can’t be unpredictable.

Solvency advocate checks

I can only run plans that are under the resolution and endorsed by a solvency advocate. Since, solvency
advocates are based in the literature, this means that all plans must have literature about them, and
thus can be predicted, and argued against. Because I have solvency advocate for my position, that only
proves that my plan isn’t actually unpredictable, and that there are arguments.

Political relevance checks

Political relevance checks for unpredictability

Either
A. There’s no current events publications on an issue meaning there aren’t big impacts because
significant issues are politically relevant and are reflected as such in the news or
B. It is politically relevant, and thus in current events publications meaning they could have easily
predicted it. Thus, it is not the aff. who is being unpredictable, but rather the neg. not doing enough
research.

K checks
K’s can link regardless of me running a plan or defending the whole resolution. Thus, no matter how
unpredictable I am, at the very least, the neg. can still run a K. This mitigates the impact of
unpredictability as the neg. can still do research to substantively answer the plan.

Deontology (and other philosophy checks) – Generic philosophical arguments, especially deontology,
which create categorical reasons to reject the resolution check predictability. So long as a philosophy
creates a reason to reject the resolution in its entirety, it doesn’t matter if the plan is unpredictable, as
the NC will still substantively answer it. The inability to research an unpredictable position is mitigated
by the ability to research categorically binding philosophies.

Generic Link Ground Checks

There are always generic arguments that will link to the resolution. Because plans will always fall under
the resolution, there will always be arguments that can link to them. This checks back the harms of
predictability as the neg. can still research positions which will answer the AC meaning that there is no
advantage to the aff. having better prep for their arguments.
AT: Denies philosophy/value ground

1. Turn
Plan focus encourages values and philosophy debate as competitors are forced to research
philosophically grounded positions. Since it’s impossible to research every plan, philosophy is crucial to
taking out multiple different advocacies. Res focus hurts values and philosophy ground as there is an
incentive to run multiple counter-warrants instead of engaging in the philosophy debate, as it is
impossible to answer 7 minutes of counter warrants in a 4 minute speech.

Turn
Plan focus actually makes philosophy more relevant because most of my aff is devoted to the plan
instead of framework giving them a better ability to win the framework debate. And, philosophical
frameworks are still very relevant with plan focus because impacts need always to be evaluated under
some value structure. They get the same if not better philosophy ground.

Turn
Philosophy and values are only important if they can apply to the real world. Otherwise, it wouldn’t
make sense to run philosophical arguments as the resolution asks us to evaluate a real world action.
Plan Focus therefore ensures better philosophy and values ground as plans reflect real world policy
making. Non-plan affs might have a link to the real world, but this is just a possibility, whereas plan focus
guarantees a link to the real world.
 SNIB
[2AC]

A: Counter Interpretation: Debaters may run a single Necessary but Insufficient Burden
B: Standards
1) Aff Flex – My opponent’s interpretation hurts aff flexibility because it restricts the number of
strategic options the aff can run. My interp preserves aff flex because it gives access to greater
argument diversity. There is an empirically verified negative win skew because of neg time
advantage and flexibility in picking a case to answer the AC. Aff flexibility is therefore key to
fairness as it provides for more options in the round so affirmative strategies can better
mitigate negative structural advantages.
2) Philosophical Ground – Many moral philosophies such as deontology rely on necessary but
insufficient burdens. In deontology, an action that violates rights would be immoral while an
action that didn’t wouldn’t be considered moral. Hence, limiting this philosophical ground
would be unfair because it is key aff/neg ground on certain resolutions. It also hurts education
because it excludes discussion about normatively relevant issues.

D: Fairness
Stock Issues
 Test Case
[2AC]

Offense

1. Education- We increase education on the process of certiorari and how the court functions

2. They overlimit- They don’t allow any cases under the resolution because none of them are
currently in front of the Supreme Court.

3. Double bind- If they had links to a certain test case they could run them and say this would be
the next available test case through normal means, otherwise there’s no abuse.

Defense

1. Just like any other fiat- A bill has to be in front of congress for them to vote and someone has to
draft the executive order for the president to sign.

2. This would be like saying an aff with a congress actor has to tell the bill that will be drafted as
well as vote counts, sponsors, and co sponsors

3. No fiat abuse- The resolution mandates a should/would question that allows us to avoid
procedure problems like test cases

4. Reciprocity- We don’t require your CP’s to give bills, test cases, or grounds for rulings

5. Not relevant in the real world- The court can pick and choose cases for what it wants to rule on,
they’ve ordered parties to re-litigate when they don’t feel they get ground for what they want
to rule.

David O’Brien, Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Storm Center: The

Supreme Court in American Politics, 2000, p. 227-228.

The current Court’s power to pick the cases it wants from a very large docket enables it to assume the
role of a super legislature. The overwhelming number of cases on the docket involve indigents’ claims
and issues of criminal procedure. Yet, as is indicated below, few are selected and decided on merits.
Cases raising other issues of constitutional law have a better chance of being selected; so do cases
involving statutory, administrative, and regulatory matters. These are all areas in which the government
has an interest in legitimating its policies. The Court thus functions like a roving commission, selecting
and deciding only issues of national importance for the governmental process.

WILLIAM J. Quirk, Professor of Legal Research at University of South Carolina Law School and R.
RANDALL Bridwell, Professor of Law at University of South Carolina Law School, JUDICIAL
DICTATORSHIP, 1995, p. 29- 30.
We would answer that the Court is the “least dangerous” branch as Alexander Hamilton said; it has no
executive or legislative authority; it doesn’t make rules; it just decides cases that come before it. The
trouble with our answer is that the Court is able to select the cases that come before it from a large
number of them. The Court, at its 1992-93 term, refused to hear 7,233 cases while it decided to hear
ninety- seven, or 1.3 percent. In 1950, on the other hand, the Court heard 10 percent of the cases
brought to it which indicates it was then acting as a court of appeal over the lower federal courts. The
Court’s power to pick from among such a large number of cases gives it the practical ability to rule on
issues it thinks important, to act, in effect, as a Court of National Policy.
 Utop Fiat
[2AC]

Least real world argument in debate: they fiat a serious of actions and actors that would never happen-

real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that helps debaters beyond the context of
debate and…

education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we find a way
that increases education the rules can be changed

Ground- we don’t get to argue alternative solvency.

Aff would never win- every round we’d hit a kritik of biopower, the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, and
Michael Jackson and the neg would just fiat it all away,

Their unrealistic use of fiat justifies literally fiating a utopian world- WE CANT COMPETE AGAINST
UTOPIA- we could stop a thousand nuclear wars and still not beat the perfect world.

Voter for fairness, education, and the fact that its just a bad idea.
 Vagueness
[2AC]

<First explain why you aren’t vague>

Offense

1. Education- We increase the breadth of topic specific education, we learn about a lot quickly with
a bigger plan

2. Forces critical thinking- We make the negative listen to the entire 1AC to find the point of the
case rather then just waiting for the plan text.

Defense

1. The plan is a resolved text, not a bill in front of congress

2. No in round abuse- Don’t let them tell you what they couldn’t run, if they ran it with this theory
it would be suicide for us to “clarify” out of links

3. Topicality checks abuse- If we add an untopical action to our plan in the 2AC, they can run T in
the 2NC

4. If were topical, you vote aff and affirm the resolution, we can be vague and still affirm

5. Were still topical- we can never meet their interpretation of resolved because they’d just say
they have doubts about the plan
Paradigm
Game-Playing
Hypothesis Testing
Speaking Skills
Tabula Rasa
Tech>Truth
Cross-X
Binding
Not Binding
Can use Prep
Can’t use Prep
Framing
Competing Interpretations
 Ideology
[2AR]
Filter the theoretical debates as an interpretation of what debate should be. It’s preferable to
competing interpretations and reasonability by providing a clear bright line of where to vote.
Comparisons over marginally different topic interpretations is less discernable over comparisons over
massively different interpretations of the debate space. Providing better standards in an ideological
context turns offense over marginal interpretations.
Reasonability
Neg
CP
 2NC CPs
[Block]
The negative should get to read 2NC counterplans

A. Time Skew: Infinite prep: The counterplan is not a time skew because the aff needs to treat this
like any other argument, the aff doesn’t need new cards, the aff only needs to extend case, therefore it
doesn’t take time away from oncase arguments.

B. Ground: The neg answered why this is not a time skew therefore ground is not limited

C. Predictability: Counterplans are predictable in the debate and introducing them in the 2NC
doesn’t change the predictability of the argument itself.

D. Education: Bringing up new arguments allows the debater to learn more about a diverse range
of government politics

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

[2NR]
Offense

1. Tests the aff- gives us more chances to test the plan

2. Kills ground- ruins the point of a constructive- they are supposed to be for new arguments

3. Key to checking add-ons- the aff can sandbag their good advantages to the 2ac, and 2nc CPs are key to
checking against them

4. Err NEG on theory- AFF gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep

Defense

1. Difficult debates key to learning-They need to learn to allocate time correctly.

2. Not an easy win for the neg- the aff can easily answer 2nc CPs if they read their best answers
3. It still incentivizes research- it is still the same CP, just read at the same time

4. Reject the argument, not the team

 Agent Fiat
[2AC]
Offense

1. Education

a. Breadth over depth- Agent CPs are key to learning about different actors- debate is useful for
gaining a wider perspective- that’s why the topic changes every year

b. Key to test the aff- they have to defend their agent as well as the plan

c. Most real world- transportation is never done by the entire USFG- it is done by individual actors

2. Fairness - Key to neg ground- the transportation bill non-uniqueness many of our DAs, so Agent
CPs give us ground compensation.

3. Err neg on theory- aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep

Defense

1. Lit checks predictability- solvency advocates mean that there is sufficient lit on the topic - we
can’t read unpredictable CPs

2. It doesn’t kill aff ground- they can read answers against the agent of our CP or our net benefit

3. Doesn’t kill topic edu- we still debate about the actor and transportation, which is part of the
resolution. They have to defend USFG.

4. Breadth not inevitable- even if the topic changes every year, each topic still has its own args- we
need to learn about them all

5. Reject the arg, not the team

[2NR]
We have a solvency advocate and therefore meet their interpretation.

1. Education – allows discussion about which agent is best suited to do the plan. Agent CPs
increase knowledge about government and the complex parts. By naming a specific agent it increases
education about that agent.

2. Politics debate – they allow for discussion about whether traditional fiat is the best option and
also allow for the politics disad to be read as a net benefit.

3. Time specific – makes net benefits time specific which makes the aff defend the actor of their
plan in immediacy, thus leading to more neg ground.

[Education]
The affirmative team must be able to defend the actor of their plan since they use traditional fiat in
order to pass their plan. This is key to neg ground because if their actors cannot be questions it takes
away key disads, for example the politics DA.
[Predictability]
We don’t kill plan specific education – we decide who the best actor is to do the plan. This discussion
does not kill discussion of outcomes of the plan.

[Inf Regressive]
Not infinitely regressive – only a certain number of answers can solve for their plan therefore no over
specification can occur.
 Conditionality Framework
[Block]
Conditionality is good---

Counter-Interpretation ---the negative gets one conditional CP and one conditional K alt

Offense---

a) Negation Theory balances side bias--aff get inherent advantages like 1st and last speech and infinite
prep---condo is key to balance those advantages---key to reciprocity

b) Increases Aff critical thinking---the aff learns to pick their strongest arguments in the 2AC from each
possible angle - narrowing down to one argument at the end of the debate gives us more in-depth
education on those arguments

c) Increases Neg critical thinking - allowing the Negative the opportunity to choose between the status
quo and the advocacy as the debate progresses increases decision-making skills and forces the weighing
of strategic option as the arguments are developed - leads to more educated debaters and better
thinkers

Defense

a) All arguments are conditional - the Affirmative can kick advantages, Topicality does not have to be in
the 2NR - CPs are just one of the possible negative tests of the Affirmative advocacy

b) Time skew inevitable---some teams are just faster than others, and condo CPs aren’t any different
than not going for topicality in the block or 2NR

c) Reject the arg, not the team

 Conditions CP
[Block]
Conditions counterplans are legitimate—

Counter-interpretation- Conditions CPs allow for better discussions to occur

Standards

1. Key to neg ground – It holds the aff to governmental action and immediacy of plan. If the
conditions counterplans were absent, the debate would be one-sided.
2. Real world: The real world uses conditions. Internal link counterplans are good because they
allow for more real world thinking about these specific topics.
3. Helps the aff: it allows them to add the condition into their plan after the round and debate
better because of it.
4. Impact: there’s no impact, so even if it’s unfair there’s no reason the debate will be unbalanced.
 Consult CPs
[Block]
Consult CP’s are legitimate –

OFFENSE

1.) Real world – policymakers consult different agencies before enacting a policy to ensure that it’s
feasible and safe

2.) Broader Education –

a. teaches us about the agent that the CP consults

b. we learn about how the consultation process works

3.) Critical Thinking– forces aff to come up with analytics to new agents

4.) Research – expands beyond the USfg to actors such as other countries, international
organizations, and the private sector

DEFENSE

1.) Ground – there are not that many agents to consult on this domestic topic

2.) Predictability -

a. Its aff responsibility to research agents associated with their plan

b. consult CP’s are present every year, the aff should be prepared to answer them

3.) No Back files – neg has to change the CP to be specific to the aff
4.) Reciprocity – aff gets all departments within the USfg, neg should be able to consult with non-
USfg actors

5.) Err neg – transportation bill takes out link uniqueness, makes being neg hard, aff gets first and
last speech and decides the course of the round

6.) At worst reject the argument, not the team

 Covert Fiat
[Block]

It’s real world – policies are passed in secret all the time, military plans for example. They should be
prepared to debate about it.

It gives them more ground – they get new solvency arguments based on no one knowing about the plan,
which makes up for any other ground they might have lost.

It’s key to political process ground – covert fiat is one of the few ways to generate a good political net
benefit. Politics is good for debate because it encourages research and staying up-to-date on current
events.
 Delay CP
[Block]
Offense-

Offense

Critical Thinking: Evaluating all instances of the plan is key to best education about policy making
because it forces aff to think about why now is key to solve

Ground: No delay counterplans mean the neg loses disads that are net benefits to the delay CP, neg
loses the few topic-specific arguments that they have

Research: Forces the aff to research any potential reasons to delay the plan

Test of the word resolved – because they have to prove they are resolved to act now.

Defense

Doesn’t steal aff ground: timeframe of impacts checks, the aff gains ground and arguments against the
delay

Predictable: Delay CP’s are on every topic so the aff should be prepared

Topic-Specific Education: we still talk about your aff, the CP only changes the timeframe of it

and if not, allowing for innovation and out of the box thinking is good for education, unique, and the DA
we read with the Delay is topic specific

No Time or Strat Skew

Perm checks: aff still has the ability to perm if the timeframe doesn’t work

Reject the argument, not the team

 Dispositionality Framework
[Block]
First is our Offense-

Kills Fairness-

Ground- steals all aff ground because we can’t read add-ons or make solvency defects to the CP there is
no lit comparing the squo and the future

Future Fiat Bad – It is impossible to predict whether or not it will be possible to do the plan in the future.
Destroys Uniqueness.

Inflates the Net-Benefit- reading a delay CP avoids the link to disads simply by doing it at a later time

The CP is Non-Competitive- The plan and CP create the same end result with no functional
competitiveness and have no textual competitiveness either, stealing our entire AFF, and only adding a
delay

Encourages Cheap Shot Args- The NEG will increasingly run shorter off-case CPs that they only created to
accompany a DA and inflate the net-benefit- which leads to – time skew

Strat Skew- The time it takes to read a Delay CP in the 1NC and the time it takes to answer it with all
newanalytics is hugely disproportionate

Encourages Future Abuse- Every time someone runs a cheating CP it gets a little closer to the AFF’s plan;
don’t let this round set the precedent that it is ok to run a non-competitive CP and get away with it-kills
education

Second is Defense-

Perms Don’t Check- Why should the AFF have to win the plan twice? The CP is non-competitive a perm
should always win
NEG Side Bias- They have the whole block to advance their CP, they don’t also need to run a cheating
CP-Err AFF

Delay CPs are a voter for Fairness, Education,;

 50S Fiat
[Block]
Offense

1.) The States CP is key in search to the best policy option, which increases education because
those are the core questions of the infrastructure topic

2.) Core neg ground on domestic topics - only actor that could do the plan

3.) Fairness – its reciprocal because aff has the USfg so neg gets 50 states

Defense

1.) Predictable – one of the most real-world debates that occurs regarding who decides
transportation policy

2.) Lit checks – neg can still can get offense, read add-ons about federal government, or DA’s to the
CP

3.) Logical decision-maker links to the aff - no single person in federal government does the plan

4.) Err neg – transportation bill takes out link uniqueness, makes neg being hard, aff gets first and
last speech and decides the course of the round

5.) At worst reject the argument, not the team

 Functional Competition
[Block]
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 don’t 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
 Future Fiat
[Block]
Offense-

Offense

Critical Thinking: Evaluating all instances of the plan is key to best education about policy making
because it forces aff to think about why now is key to solve

Ground: No delay counterplans mean the neg loses disads that are net benefits to the delay CP, neg
loses the few topic-specific arguments that they have

Research: Forces the aff to research any potential reasons to delay the plan

Test of the word resolved – because they have to prove they are resolved to act now.

Defense

Doesn’t steal aff ground: timeframe of impacts checks, the aff gains ground and arguments against the
delay

Predictable: Delay CP’s are on every topic so the aff should be prepared

Topic-Specific Education: we still talk about your aff, the CP only changes the timeframe of it

and if not, allowing for innovation and out of the box thinking is good for education, unique, and the DA
we read with the Delay is topic specific

No Time or Strat Skew

Perm checks: aff still has the ability to perm if the timeframe doesn’t work

Reject the argument, not the team

 Intl Fiat
[Block]
International fiat is good

A) Best Policy - as policymakers, we have a responsibility to strive for the best policy option within the
round. If we can prove our CP better than the aff plan the actor does not matter.

B) Checks aff bias- the affirmative speaks first, last, and has infinite prep time. Any abuse they can claim
from our actor is justified in order to level the playing field.

C) Not topical- our actor isn’t in compliance with the phrase “USFG” in the resolution. This keeps all
topical ground for the aff, making for fair debate and ensuring equality.

D) Tests the plan- the aff should be forced to defend all of their plan, including the actor that they
choose to implement it.

E) Education- the knowledge gained in the round is broadened to an international level, meaning we
uniquely bolster the learning experience taking place within the round.

Worst case scenario – Reject the argument not the team.

 Intrinsic Test of the DA
[Block]
The DA is intrinsic – we provided a specific causal chain.

The politics disad is good for debate –

1. Neg ground – we need generic DA’s 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.
 Multi Actor Fiat
[Block]

Offense:

1. Were handing them ground- every new actor is new disad links and reasons why we might not
solve

2. Most real world- Even Napoleon worked together with others, we increase education about
how actors interact.

Defense:

1. Negative ground: Who cares if it’s a lot of ground, neg has a right to everything outside the
resolution

2. Every policy has multiple actors- Agencies in the USFG as well as implementing agents at the
state and local levels.

3. No infinite regress: Reject it when it happens- were not saying Zimbabwe and my friend Howie
should do the plan

4. Counter interpretation- There’s no abuse if the substance of the CP would normally be

processed through multiple actors.

5. Reject the argument not the team

 Multi Plank CPs
[Block]
Offense

1. Real World – in Congress they suggest bills that do multiple things. The neg shouldn’t be restricted to
one action

2. Key to Best Policy Option – Bills can have multiple planks and key to allow CP to solve for the aff

3. Critical Thinking – requires more in depth discussion of the argument leading to in depth discussion
on one argument

4. Generate Offense – Only way for neg to generate offense and checks aff

5. Key to Neg flex – the aff gets to chose the subject of the debate and gets to speak 1st and last. By
allowing the neg only one plank you restrict the limits

Defense

1. Lit checks abuse – real policy options have multiple planks and we have solvency advocates which
means that the counterplan should be predictable

2. No strat skew – the affirmative always get the aff and can read add-ons to counterplans

3. More education – this requires the aff to cover more then a simplified one plank CP which requires
more research on the topic

4. Reject the argument not the team

 Neg Fiat
[Block]
Negative fiat is key to workable debates

A) Neg ground – Debate already skewed towards aff, and fiat is a tool that helps to balance the debate
for the neg. The aff has a huge advantage in being able to choose the debate structure and the neg. fiat
counterbalances that.

B) Real-world: Policy-makers consider all possible policy options. If we have a better policy option than
the aff should be required to debate that their policy option is better than ours. Otherwise the aff is
neglecting the very framework of debate.

C) Reciprocal: The aff has the right to fiat, but the neg does not, which gives the aff a ground advantage,
skewing the debate towards the aff.

Our interpretation is that the neg gets the right of fiat assuming that it is the best option in the round.

Worst case scenario – Reject the argument not the team. The massive time loss on our part outweighs
their offense.

[2NR]
Offense-

Real World- policymakers review every option to find the best policy.

Education- If we don’t run advocacies, we will never learn about which policy options are best and truly
be able to test the aff.

Reciprocity- AFF gets to fiat the plan, the NEG should get to FIAT a counterplan. This is the only way to
increase fairness because then the neg will never outweigh.

Kills NEG Ground: If we don’t get NEG fiat, counterplans become DAs, the policy just becomes a
opportunity cost
Defense-

Permutations Check- allows AFF to check for NEG competition.

Increases education-it forces the AFF to create better and more research

Topic has link uniqueness problem – transportation bill makes its hard to be negative

Aff side bias – they get first and last speech, infinite prep, and pick the topic

NEG Fiat and potential abuse are NOT voters

Plan Plus
Process/Normal Means CPs
 PIC
[Block]
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

[2NR]
Offense:

1. Neg ground –Without PICs neg would be stuck with same CP every round.

2. Transportation bill created link uniqueness problems-PICs key for ground in general and DA ground.

3. Depth over breadth - increases debate about the specifics of the plan.

4. All CPs are PICs –There are no good CPs that don’t include part of the plan

5. Net benefits check – aff can straight turn it-solves any unfairness claims

6. Better plan writing- Forces the aff to think about the words they use in their plan text

Defense:

1. Neg strat- they get first and last speech. They should be prepared to defend all of the plan.

2. Increases critical thinking – forces 2AC to make strategic decisions and defend plan specifics.

3. Real world – the legislative process includes amendments and minor exclusion
4. Infinite regression false- its about what we do, not what we justify. We are limited by the words in the
plan text.

Net benefits check – they could have read the net benefit as disad, PICs only inflate the net benefit
 Private Actor Fiat
[Block]

Necessary SolvenCounter-Interpretation: The negative should be able to have private actors facilitate
the plan; private actors encompass a huge part of the oceans topic

Provides specific education about private actors- by researching these companies debaters are able to
get a wide variety of knowledge about the private actors in general; we access education better

Aff should be able to be tested with all actors to see which one is most efficient- this is real world, in the
real world most plans are done by private actors. Seeing debate through a more real world lens is more
productive

Only a few private actors with the capability to facilitate the plan therefore it’s reasonably predictable—
only few companies have the resources and qualifications to pass the plan, so that leaves few enough
that it’s researchable

Private companies are very important actors, and those that have the means might do the plan more
efficiently – they have more expertise and resources

Allows Aff to explore their topic more- private actor fiat allows the affirmative to see different, more
diverse, arguments made against their case, which actually helps them to make their case stronger

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 doesn’t have more ground than the aff—the aff gets to read usfg add ons
Solvency Statement
 Textual Competition
[Block]

Textual competition best:

1. Most real world- Legal policy needs to have distinctive language in order to ensure compliance, and
amendments to bills aren’t “functional”, they’re 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. There’s no bright line to functional competition. Textual competition is the only way to hold a team
accountable to their advocacy. That’s key to fairness.

4. Text is the basis for function- We can’t accurately debate function if we don’t have a static text from
which we can derive that function.
Topical CP
K
Floating PIK Framework
No Text Alts
Non-Implementable Alts
PIK Framework
Rejection Alts
Vague Alts
Perms
 Intrinsic
[Block]

Interpretation: The aff must not add to their advocacy when perming a neg position.

Standards:

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.

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.

Time skew - harms fairness because whichever debater has less relevant time will automatically be put
at a disadvantage.

Real World: The aff simply fiats that something will happen to solve back the harms outlined In the real
world. People don’t 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.
 Multiple
[Block]

1. Time skew – aff is able to read perms in a short time – we have to take much more time
answering them, that’s unfair because they make less time available to answer the rest of the
speech.
2. Multiple worlds- aff allows for more scenarios- this is bad because it’s unpredictable and they
could advocate any of the perms in the end of the round
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 – we don’t spend time 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.

 Needs a Text
[Block]

A – Interpretation Every permutation must have a text.

B- Violation There is no text to the perm.

C- Standards

1. Moving Target: Without an explicit text, the permutation becomes a moving target. My
opponent can respond to any argument I make about how s/he perms by morphing it to delink
responses. The interpretation solves by holding the permutation to an explicit implementation. Moving
targets are unfair as I can only win the round if I can answer my opponent’s case. Moving targets make
answering my opponent’s arguments virtually impossible. Moreover, they allow my opponent to have
an uncontestable piece of offense or defense that puts him/her at a structural advantage because they
can contest all of my offense and defense. Moving targets also harm education since they dodge all
clash in the round by evading my responses. Clash is key to education as we learn from debate by
comparing the advantages of different advocacies.

2. Real world application- In the real world policy makers are forced to use a text for their
advocacy. No one would pass a bill that wasn’t written out. This is an internal link to real world
education because using a text best models how a procedure would take place in the real world. Real
world education is the biggest link to education because the skills we learn in debate are only valuable in
so far as we can apply them in the real world.

3. Reciprocity – The neg is forced to an alt or cp text; consequently, the aff should also be forced
to a perm text. Reciprocity is key to fairness because the same thing should be required of both
debaters to win the round or it is skewed towards one side and therefore unfair.

4. Comparing Worlds: Without a stable perm text we can’t compare worlds, as the world with a
permutation is nebulous. My interpretation solves because it holds the perm to an explicit text so we
know exactly what the aff. world looks like. As a result, we know exactly how the neg. and aff. worlds
interact. The ability to compare worlds is key to fairness for if this comparison cannot be made, then
there is no objective reason to prefer the aff or neg worlds. This forces the judge to intervene which is
unfair as it rewards a debater for something they didn’t do. This is also key to education as debate
teaches us to compare the advantages of different options. Since my interpretation is the only one that
permits for comparison, it is the most educational.
 Severance
[Block]

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. Third- skews 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

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.

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.

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

Fairness- Fairness is voter. Aff skews neg in 3 different ways, is unpredictable, abusive and validates a
vote against them.

Education- Education is voter. Aff lowers level of education, vote against them.

AT: Real World- In the real world, members of congress can't just introduce a new plan and then
immediately back out, which is what severance is.
Timeframe
Procedurals
 ASPEC
[1NC]
A. Interpretation – the affirmative must specify the process by which the branches of the federal
government establish the plan

B. Standards

Ground – the affirmative is an incomplete policy without an agent – specific case, DA, CP, and Critique
ground is predicated on the agent and agent issues color the entire debate

Real World – no policy can be established with an agent, since the Federal Government isn’t a single
entity – this is a 100% solvency takeout – vote negative on presumption

Plan Text Key – the nature of textual competition, lack of precise and binding cross-ex, and the fact that
the negative loses 1NC and pre round prep time are all reasons why the agent must be in the plan

C. Voting Issue for reasons of fairness and education

[2NC]
Debating the agent of the plan is critical to education and fairness

Lack of specification denies core negative ground such as agent counterplans, politics/spending
disadvantages, and the role of agent questions in solvency – agent ground is a core literature question

We have a right to this predictable and intrinsic ground given the word “federal” in the topic, their
interpretation allows the affirmative to claim benefits of federal action, without defending its full
meaning

Implementation means substance alone is insufficient – policies are always advocated within the context
of particular agents, meaning agent issues are intrinsically topic specific education – agents affect the
way links are generated, how the affirmative solves, and negative ground as a whole
Disclosure
Judge Prefs
Impact Exclusive Standards
OSPEC
 Perf Con
[Block]

Offense:

1. Negation theory- Debate has changed the affirmative doesn’t defend the whole resolution so
we only have to prove the plan is a bad idea.

2. Both arguments are reasons why the affirmative is bad, even if one proves the other is bad,
nothing shows the affirmative is good

3. Increases education-
a. They can argue both arguments independently and we learn twice as much
b. Most real world- congressmen give multiple reasons why a plan could be bad
c. We educate on all the reasons why the plan’s a bad idea

4. Key to our ground- We need to debate with contradictions to show the affirmative is a bad idea
on multiple fronts.

5. Its an “even if” situation, we argue that the affirmative is bad because of the K, but even if they
win that argument the CP proves they’re bad. Were not going to put all our eggs in one basket.

6. Increases critical thinking- Both teams have to think strategically about how to attack each
position most effectively

Defense:

1. The 2NR checks back any abuse and defines the negative strategy

2. If there’s really a perf con they could just concede one side and cross apply those arguments to
the other, but there’s no double turn in the negatives postions.

3. No abuse- We don’t prevent the aff from making arguments on either flow that would make
sense
4. They can straight turn and stick us with one postion.

5. Aff bias checks abuse- They’ve had infinite prep to block each position individually.
 Plan Flaw
[Block]

A. Interpretation
The affirmative may limit their advocacy to a topical plan with a solvency advocate.
B. Standards –
1. Real world decision-making
In the real world, policymakers and other rational agents can’t implement general statements
of value. Instead, they can only consider and implement specific plans of action that reflect
these general statements. Real world decision-making has the strongest link to education
because the ability to make decisions is the most important skill debaters gain from debate.

Paul Strait (George Mason University) and Brett Wallace explain(George Washington
University). “The Scope of Negative Fiat and the Logic of Decision Making.” WFU Debater’s
Research Guide. 2007.
The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key still. It
is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing.
Decision-making transcends all boundaries between categories of learning like “policy
education” and “kritik education,” it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will
eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a
debate round should contain. The implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and
argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making are comparatively greater than
any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we learn, not the content
of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While policy comparison skills are
going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills are useless if they are
not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions.

So, evaluate real world decision-making before any other claims to education.
2. Reciprocal burdens
Plan focus uniquely creates reciprocal burdens for the aff. and the neg. Comparing the relative
advantages and disadvantages of a plan under the resolution gives aff. and neg. arguments equal
weight. Under other interpretations, the aff. burden is significantly greater than the neg. burden and the
neg. can use unequal strategies like counter-warrants to negate the res. Reciprocal burdens are key for
fairness because they ensure that both debaters need to do the same amount of work to win. Reciprocal
burdens are also key for education because they increase debate over substantive issues when one
debater is more focused on trying to meet the burden than the other.
3. Aff flex.
Allowing the aff. flexibility to choose different strategies is important because it helps to
mitigate the neg’s automatic advantage, which is evidenced by time skew – the neg has more
time to respond to the aff case and the aff has less time to cover both sides of the round,
meaning that the aff is structurally at a disadvantage going into the round and therefore needs
flexibility to compensate. Aff framework choice is necessary. O’Donnell explains:

“And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate”. Timothy
M. O’Donnell. Director of Debate. University of Mary Washington.

There are several reasons why the affirmative should get to choose the framework for the
debate. First, AFC preserves the value of the first affirmative constructive speech. This speech
is the starting point for the debate. It is a function of necessity. The debate must begin
somewhere if it is to begin at all. Failure to grant AFC is a denial of the service rendered by
the affirmative team’s labor when they crafted this speech. Further, if the affirmative does
not get to pick the starting point, the opening speech act is essentially rendered meaningless
while the rest of the debate becomes a debate about what we should be debating about.

The aff deserves flexibility to establish the terms of debate because it would be more unfair to
cost the aff six minutes of their speech time just because they have the misfortune of speaking
first.

4. Depth of research – plan focus promotes depth of research by allowing affs to focus
on specific policies, therefore giving them more opportunity to research and flesh out the
implications of the plans they advocate. Advocating the entire resolution promotes shallow or
generic research on many possible affirmative actions. Depth of research is key to education
because a thorough knowledge of significant topics has educational value while superficial
knowledge of a broad range of topics acquired through a res focus is less useful in and out of
the round.

5. Argument quality - specification of the implementation process of a particular

affirmative plan gives the negative specific ground to attack. Granting access to specific DA and
turn ground increases the educational value of debate because direct clash arises by attacking
the specific links of an affirmative plan rather than running entirely unrelated generic
arguments. Argument quality is key to education as the arguments advanced in round
determine what we learn from each debate. Moreover, we learn more from direct clash
because it forces us to make strategic choices and weigh between different arguments.
 SNIB
[Block]

Interpretation – both debaters must run Necessary and sufficient burdens

Violation – the aff/neg runs a necessary but insufficient burden
Standards
a. Strategy skew- When my opponent ran a NIB, he/she put into a double
bind: either I use up precious time and answer the burden which I cannot win
offense from or I ignore and let my opponent to win off it. Either way I lose.
This is uneducational because we value debate for good and strategic
decision making. This double bind prevents me from exercising strategic
decision making because whatever of the two choices I make results in me
losing.

b. Clash- Because I have to read this shell I can’t clash on a substantive level.
Because there isn’t clash in the round it becomes impossible for the judge to
evaluate creating intervention. This kills fairness because intervention is
arbitrary. This is uneducational because clash is the main reason debate is
educationally attractive.

c. Reciprocal ground- NIBs skew ground because he/she only has to win a single
link to the standard while I have to win the both AC and 100% of the NC while
he/she can win either. This skew makes it impossible for me to win the round killing
fairness and killing education because he/she doesn’t have to substantively clash or
weigh.

Time Skew – Running necessary but insufficient burden skews my time because I have
to respond to any arguments that link to the burden and they can just kick them in the
next speech. This skew is uniquely abusive because it doesn’t matter whether they kick it
or not, because it has still skewed my time.
Stock Issues
 Test Case
[Block]

1. Predictability- We can’t predict agents outside the resolution that are necessary to bring the
case to lower courts and up to the Supreme Court

2. Ground- We can’t run specific links to test cases if they don’t specify what case they rule on

3. Limits- There are enough cases currently in front of the court- there are an infinite number that
could possibly work up to the supreme court

4. Topicality- Aff can claim extra topical advantages off of the agent of action in lower courts etc.

5. Voter for fairness and jurisdiction

 Utop Fiat
[Block]

1. Utopian thinking is good- Imagining Utopia makes progression possible.

Streeten 1999 (Paul, Econ prof @ Boston, Development, v. 42, n. 2, p 118)

First, Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analysis. Just as physicists assume an
atmospheric vacuum for some purposes, so policy analysts can assume a political vacuum from which
they can start afresh. The physicists’ assumption plainly would not be useful for the design of
parachutes, but can serve other purposes well. Similarly, when thinking of tomorrow’s problems,
Utopianism is not helpful. But for long-term strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the Utopian vision
gives a sense of direction, which can get lost in approaches that are preoccupied with the feasible. In a
world that is regarded as the second-best of all feasible worlds, everything becomes a necessary
constraint. All vision is lost. Third, excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo.
In negotiations, it strengthens the hand of those opposed to any reform. Unless the case for change can
be represented in the same detail as the case for no change, it tends to be lost. Fourth, it is sometimes
the case that the conjuncture of circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of
forces, unexpectedly, turns out to be favourable to even radical innovation. Unless we are prepared with
a carefully worked out, detailed plan, that yesterday could have appeared utterly Utopian, the reformers
will lose out by default. Only a few years ago nobody would have expected the end of communism in
Central and Eastern Europe, the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany, the
break-up of Yugoslavia, the marketization of China, the end of apartheid in South Africa. And the
handshake on the White House lawn between Mr Peres and Mr Arafat. Fifth, the Utopian reformers
themselves can constitute a pressure group, countervailing the self interested pressures of the
obstructionist groups. Ideas thought to be Utopian have become realistic at moments in history when
large numbers of people support them, and those in power have to yield to their demands. The demand
for ending slavery is a historical example. It is for these five reasons that Utopians should not be
discouraged from formulating their proposals and from thinking the unthinkable, unencumbered by the
inhibitions and obstacles of political constraints. They should elaborate them in the same detail that the
defenders of the status quo devote to its elaboration and celebration. Utopianism and idealism will then
turn out to be the most realistic vision. It is well known that there are three types of economists: those
who can count and those who can’t. But being able to count up to two, I want to distinguish between
two types of people. Let us call them, for want of a better name, the Pedants and the Utopians. The
names are due to Peter Berger, who uses them in a different context. The Pedants or technicians are
those who know all the details about the way things are and work, and they have acquired an emotional
vested interest in keeping them this way. I have come across them in the British civil service, in the
bureaucracy of the World Bank, and elsewhere. They are admirable people but they are conservative,
and no good companions for reform. On the other hand, there are the Utopians, the idealists, the
visionaries who dare think the unthinkable. They are also admirable, many of them young people. But
they lack the attention to detail that the Pedants have. When the day of the revolution comes, they will
have entered it on the wrong date in their diaries and fail to turn up, or, if they do turn up, they will be
on the wrong side of the barricades. What we need is a marriage between the Pedants and the
Utopians, between the technicians who pay attention to the details and the idealists who have the
vision of a better future. There will be tensions in combining the two, but they will be creative tensions.
We need Pedantic Utopian Pedants who will work out in considerable detail the ideal world and ways of
getting to it, and promote the good cause with informed fantasy. Otherwise, when the opportunity
arises, we shall miss it for lack of preparedness and lose out to the opponents of reform, to those who
want to preserve the status quo.

2. Education and activism outweigh fairness- its what helps debaters beyond the context of the
debate. And if we find a way to maximize education and make the world better than the rules
should be changed.

3. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative

 Vagueness
[Block]

1. Moving target bad- Vague plans allow the affirmative to weasel out of DA and CP links in the
2AC by “clarifying” their plan

2. Ground- We lose links to the affirmatives plan mechanism and links like spending that depend
on a stable plan text. Also, CP competitiveness is impossible to interpret because we don’t
know what the aff actually does.

3. Limits- The aff can claim a topical action but clarify later in the debate they do more.

4. Strat skew- Its irreversible damage; we base our 1NC strat off their disclosed plan text.

5. Not Topical under Resolved means to remove or dispel (doubts) American Heritage Dictionary in 2000
fourth addition accessed via dictionary.com

6. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction

Paradigm
Game-Playing
Hypothesis Testing
Speaking Skills
Tabula Rasa
Tech>Truth
Cross-X
Binding
Not Binding
 Can use Prep
Can’t use Prep
Reject the Team
Card Clipping
 Citation without Permission
A. Interpretation: Debater’s must provide written permission from the author in order to
cite articles that indicate permission is necessary for quotation.
B. Violation: My opponent cites a card from one such article without written permission.
C. Standards:
a. Source validity - authors continually change and update their positions when
drafting articles, which means that the author may not ultimately agree with the
conclusions drawn from cited evidence. In working papers, conclusions are often
pre-drafted before all experimental analysis is complete, which means that we
have no idea whether the ideas proposed in the paper are the result of rigorous
experimentation or research. They can claim that this evidence has the same
ethos appeal as that from other authors, but we have no way of verifying that.
Source validity is key to fairness because we do not have limitless resources in-
round and cannot fact-check every statement, so we have to rely on the fact that
work by topic authors possesses a certain degree of academic quality and base
our arguments off that assumption. Source validity is also key to education
because we gain no benefits from debating sources that are not even
academically sound.

b. Access to research – they ignored the author’s message and used the evidence
anyway, but other debaters may have been more academically ethical and asked
permission. We have no way of knowing whether the author would have granted
those debaters permission, so by using the position without receiving the same
constraints, they give themselves access to research that no one else has. If
everyone asks permission before citing such articles, this grants everyone equal
access to those same articles. Equal access to research is key to fairness because
research determines our abilities to make arguments that could win us the
round, so if one person has access to more research then they unfairly have a
better opportunity to win.
c. Inconsistency: Often within drafts, Authors continually change and up date their
position. This means that the author may not agree with the conclusions drawn
from my opponent’s evidence. In working papers, authors have not thought out
the thesis or conclusion of the paper which means it would allow for multiple
conclusions to be drawn from an article. This is key to fairness because citing
inconstant and unfinished justifies strawmaning arguments and deleting text
from articles, this allows debaters to be manipulative and destroys the
competitive nature of debate.
 d. Academic Honesty- Citing Without permission violates academic honesty

An Author's Permission Must Always Be Given

KIEEME 09 ("STATEMENT OF ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH,”

Enacted in March 2000, mostly revised in December 2009

KIEEME, Rm 807. The Korea Science & Technology Center, 635-4, Yeoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-703, Korea,

Tel: +82-2-538-7958, Fax: +82-2-538-3623, Trans. Electr. Electron. Mater.

http://transeem.org/data/STATEMENT%20OF%20ETHICS%20AND%20RESPONSIBILITIES%20IN%20THE%20PUBLICATION%20OF%20
RESEARCH.pdf)

The authors’ central obligation is to present a concise, accurate account of the research
performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A paper should contain
sufficient detail and references to public sources of information to permit others to repeat the
work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others used in a research project must always be given. Authors should cite
publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in
conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported without explicit permission from the
investigator with whom the information originated. Informationobtained in the course of confidential
services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, cannot be used without
permission of the author of the work being used. Authorship should be limited to those who
have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of
the research study. All those who have made significant contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as
authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not identified as authors. The sources of
financial support for the project should be disclosed. Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior and
is never acceptable. It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than
one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and
unacceptable. If related manuscripts are being submitted concurrently, the author should inform the editor of the relationship
between the manuscripts. When an error is discovered in a published work, it is the obligation of all authors to promptly retract the
paper or correct the results. An erratum for publication should be submitted when a significant error is discovered in one of her or
his published reports.

It is unfair to violate the author’s control of their intellectual property. This is the equivalent
to stealing because you are disregarding the author’s right to their thoughts and taking them
as your own. Contradicting the will of the author violates one of the fundamental rules of
academia. Schools fail, expel, disassociate with students who have committed academic fraud,
this ought to be the same in the debate. This is the strongest link into fairness because lying
and cheating destroys the competitive equity of debate and the integrity of our competition.
If I choose to respect the authors request I am punished because I don’t have access to these
cards.

D. Voters
Discrimination/Uncomfortability
Discrimination Bad
 Discrimination Unintentional
<<Make sincere apology>>
Apology solves
Tavuchis 91. (Nicholas. Senior Scholar in the Department of Sociology @ University of Manitoba. Meet Culpa: A Sociology of 'Apolog}' and
Reconciliation pg. 8)

In these admittedly general terms, then, apology expresses itself as the exigency of a painful remembering, literally
of being mindful again, of what we were and bad as members and, at the same time, what we have
jeopardized or lost by virtue of our offensive speech or action. And it is only by personally
acknowledging ultimate responsibility, expressing genuine sorrow and regret, and pledging henceforth
(implicitly or explicitlv)to abide by the rules, that the offender simultaneously recalls and is re-called to that
which binds. As shared mementos, apologies require much more than admission or confession of the
unadorned facts of wrongdoing or deviance. Thev constitute—in their most responsible, authentic, and. hence,
vulnerable expression—a form of self-punishment that cuts deeply because we are obliged to retell, relive, and
seek forgiveness for sorrowful events that have rendered our claims to membership in a moral
community suspect or defeasible. So it is that the call for an apology always demands and promises more
than it seems to. As anyone who has ever apologized in these circumstances well knows, the act is
always arduous and painful, whether done voluntarily or at the urging of others. And yet. when this secular rite of expiation is
punctiliously performed, and the remorseful admission of wrongdoing is convened into a gift that is accepted and reciprocated by forgiveness,
our world is transformed in a way that can only be described as miraculous. All the more so because the gesture itself reiterates the
reality of the offense while superseding it.

Their offense is misguided. It is not a specific word or phrase that does violence it is
the context in which the word is deployed – their focus on language misses the
struggle against the larger systems of domination that actually commit violence
Butler, Professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley, 2004 (Judith, Judith Butler Reader, page 353)
we probably make a mistake when we think that it’s the word
So, when we’re thinking about how iterability does its rhetorical work,
that causes the injury, when actually there is always a question of what purpose the word will serve. We can re-link it to
injury, we can de-link it, we can try to interrogate how it is linked and de-linked, but the whole purpose of reiterating injurious language is to show that the
I worry that many people focus on injurious language, on
relationship of the word itself to the injury that it performs is finally arbitrary.
racist or homophobic speech, thinking that the language is the source of the injury when the source of the injury is
actually in racism or homophobia – which is much more profound and much more complicated. To single out
language seems to me to single out one mode of its conveyance (and an arbitrary one at that) and probably to miss
the larger struggle at stake.
If there’s a chance we didn’t mean it as interpreted, don’t hold us complicit to the
interpretation, meaning is intra-discursive.
Sayer 93 (Andrew, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, “POSTMODERNIST THOUGHT IN
GEOGRAPHY: A REALIST VIEW,” Antipode 25:4, pp. 320-344)
This weakening of traditional ideas of meaning and reference has prompted another version of our first Pomo-flip.
Having realized that words do not establish meanings singly and through reference/denotation (naive
objectivism) it is concluded that they neither convey authors’/ speakers’ intentions nor refer to
anything outside discourse at all; meanings are endlessly ”deferred” intra-discursively without
reference to any extra-discursive reality, and we are free to interpret texts as we wish. Taken to the
extreme, this embodies a standard contradiction of relativism, for if we are free to interpret what
postmodernists write as we like, then we can interpret them against their intentions, attributing to
them views diametrically opposed to those which they (appear to) profess, for of course they have denied
 themselves grounds for complaining about this! While we can endlessly reinterpret “texts,” it is a precondition of
communication and social life that a large proportion of signifiers and sense relations are relatively stable. The
very intelligibility of language and its use in material practice depends on it having fairly stable and successful
reference (Davidson, 1987); ironically this applies to postmodernists arguing for the instability of relations
between word and object as much as anyone else! The arguments commonly put forward to challenge the belief
that we can make stable reference to objects tend to take two forms. One concerns the arbitrary nature of the
relationship between any individual word and object: why should an object be called "tree" rather than "arbre" or
whatever? However, it does not follow that the relationship between lexemes is arbitrary, so that trees or arbres
can have not only leaves and roots but heart attacks. Once objects have been "arbitrarily" given names, the
conventions governing how terms are combined to make meaningful discourse which can inform
successful action are far from arbitrary (Giddens, 1979:ll-16; 198781ff ). Where discursively guided
actions are successful, this suggests some relationship between the structure of the discourse applying
to those actions and the structure of the material actions and objects which are its referents. This
relationship is, again, not usefully characterized as one of absolute truth. Failures of discourse to guide
practice suggest that the world is not the creature of the play of difference among signifiers - which is
precisely why we worry about the status of our beliefs as we do.
Post Round Discussions solve intrapersonal relations best, and cross x checks any
remaining risk of violence in round —rejecting the team does nothing
Roskoski & Peabody, Florida State, 91
(Matthew and Joe, 1991, A Linguistic and Philosophical Critique of Language "Arguments,”
http://debate.uvm.edu/Library/DebateTheoryLibrary/Roskoski&Peabody-LangCritiques, Date Accessed:
7/8, JS)

Rodney Smolla offered the following insightful assessment of the interaction between offensive
language and language "arguments": The battle against {offensive speech} will be fought most
effectively through persuasive and creative educational leadership rather than through punishment and
coercion... The sense of a community of scholars, an island of reason and tolerance, is the pervasive
ethos. But that ethos should be advanced with education, not coercion. It should be the dominant voice
of the university within the marketplace of ideas; but it should not preempt that marketplace. (Smolla
224-225).1 We emphatically concur. It is our position that a debater who feels strongly enough about a
given language "argument" ought to actualize that belief through interpersonal conversation rather than
through a plea for censorship and coercion. Each debater in a given round has three minutes of cross-
examination time during which he or she may engage the other team in a dialogue about the
ramifications of the language the opposition has just used. Additionally even given the efficacy of Rich
Edwards' efficient tabulation program, there will inevitably be long periods between rounds during
which further dialogue can take place. It is our position that interpersonal transactions will be more
effective methods of raising consciousness about the negative ramifications of language. These
interactions can achieve the goals intended by language "arguments" without the attendant
infringements upon the freedom of speech.

Rejecting the team falls short of progress because it assumes that identity is the end
of debate – this is the most destructive form of politics – we must engage in
arguments over terminology in a larger capacity.
Butler, Professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley, 2004 (Judith, Judith Butler Reader, page 337-338)
 The assertion of identity can never become the end of politics itself. This is a terrible
There are, however, obligations.
American conceit – the idea that if you accomplish your identity, you are there; that you’ve achieved recognition,
status, legitimation; and that that’s the end of your struggle, as if becoming visible, becoming sayable is the end of
politics. That’s not the case because what that perspective fails to do is to ask, “What are the conditions of sayability, of speakability, of visibility?” Does one
want a place within them? Does one want to be assimilated to them? Or does one want to ask some more profound questions about how political structures work to
delimit what visibility will be wand what sayability will be?” Those critical questions cannot be asked if the only thing you want is to achieve visibility and
sayability within the existing order. So, I have a real problem with identity becoming the aim of politics itself. To have a conference
in Beijing on “women’s human rights” is great. You must have such events, and there must be lots of people who go, but we must constantly question what it means
that we gather there under that rubric and what that rubric can mean – and not just in an abstract way. For example, when we’re talking about sexual autonomy, and
reproductive freedom, and anti-rape laws, and discrimination, and rights to divorce, etc., we need to ask, “How is gender being positioned? How is it being defined
in relationship to those carious practices? How is it being defined internationally?” I don’t think that when you say that there’s going to be an international
conference on women’s rights that everybody comes to that conference agreeing on what a “woman” is. Nor do you ask in advance that they achieve consensus.
And, of course, there was a crisis at the Beijing conference. In what’s called the “pre-con-proposal,” the pre-conference writings, the organizers wanted to use the
language of gender to talk about what a woman is, but the Vatican denounced the word gender. Many Catholic countries also voiced their opposition to any
platform that used the word gender because that would suggest that women are not defined by their biological roles as mothers, and it would also suggest that those
biological roles are not mandated by theology. And if you made a distinction between theology, biology, and cultural meaning, that was considered to be a very
dangerous form of Western relativism. So the very word gender became extremely controversial: “Are they saying that there are more then two genders?” Then the
my sense is that yes, you use the words. If
Vatican came out against Anne Fausto-Sterling, and there was a big argument about that. But
gender is the word that produces that argument, then use that word. If woman is the word that produces that
argument, great. Those are the conflicts that have to be put on the table, and such words are very useful. And the
more public the conflicts, the more diverse they are, the better it is.

Suppressing language because it is offensive preserves its injurious meaning –

discussing ways in which we may reclaim language results in progressive solvency.
Kurtz and Oscarson 03 (Anna and Christopher, Members of National Council of Teachers of English
Conference on College Composition and Communication, “BookTalk: Revising the Discourse of Hate,”
ProQuest)
However, Butler also argues that the daily, repeated use of words opens a space for another, more empowering kind
of performance. This alternative performance, Butler insists, can be "the occasion for something we might still call agency, the
repetition of an original subordination for another purpose, one whose future is partially open" (p. 38). To think of
words as having an "open" future is to recognize that their authority lies less in their historical than in their present
uses; it is to acknowledge that people can revise the meaning of words even as we repeat them; it is to embrace the
notion that the instability of words opens the possibility that we can use them to (re)construct a more humane
future for ourselves and others. Because words can be revised, Butler contends that it would be counterproductive
simply to stop using terms that we would deem injurious or oppressive. For when we choose not to use offensive
words under any circumstance, we preserve their existing meanings as well as their power to injure. If as teachers, for
instance, we were simply to forbid the use of speech that is hurtful to LGBT students we would be effectively denying the fact that such
language still exists. To ignore words in this way, Butler insists, won't make them go away. Butler thus suggests that we
actually use these words in thoughtful conversation in which we work through the injuries they cause (p. 1.02).
Indeed, Butler insists that if we are to reclaim the power that oppressive speech robs from us, we must use, confront,
and interrogate terms like "queer."

Critiques of speech produces a reactionary politics in which change is focused on

language directly trading off with efforts to reform the socioeconomic root causes of
injustice
Brown, Professor Political Science UC Berkeley, 2K1 (Wendy, Politics Out of History, pg. 35-37)
“Speech codes kill critique,” Henry Louis Gates remarked in a 1993 essay on hate speech.14 Although Gates was referring to what happens when hate
speech regulations, and the debates about them, usurp the discursive space in which one might have offered a
substantive political response to bigoted epithets, his point also applies to prohibitions against questioning from within selected political
practices or institutions. But turning political questions into moralistic ones—as speech codes of any sort do—not only
prohibits certain questions and mandates certain genuflections, it also expresses a profound hostility toward
political life insofar as it seeks to preempt argument with a legislated and enforced truth. And the realization of that
patently undemocratic desire can only and always convert emancipatory aspirations into reactionary ones. Indeed, it
insulates those aspirations from questioning at the very moment that Weberian forces of rationalization and bureaucratization are quite likely to be domesticating
them from another direction. Here we greet a persistent political paradox: the moralistic defense of critical practices, or of
 any besieged identity, weakens what it strives to fortify precisely by sequestering those practices from the kind of
critical inquiry out of which they were born. Thus Gates might have said, “Speech codes, born of social critique, kill
critique.” And, we might add, contemporary identity-based institutions, born of social critique, invariably become
conservative as they are forced to essentialize the identity and naturalize the boundaries of what they once grasped
as a contingent effect of historically specific social powers. But moralistic reproaches to certain kinds of speech or
argument kill critique not only by displacing it with arguments about abstract rights versus identity-bound injuries,
but also by configuring political injustice and political righteousness as a problem of remarks, attitude, and speech
rather than as a matter of historical, political-economic, and cultural formations of power. Rather than offering
analytically substantive accounts of the forces of injustice or injury, they condemn the manifestation of these
forces in particular remarks or events. There is, in the inclination to ban (formally or informally) certain utterances and to
mandate others, a politics of rhetoric and gesture that itself symptomizes despair over effecting change at more
significant levels. As vast quantities of left and liberal attention go to determining what socially marked individuals
say, how they are represented, and how many of each kind appear in certain institutions or are appointed to various
commissions, the sources that generate racism, poverty, violence against women, and other elements of social
injustice remain relatively unarticulated and unaddressed. We are lost as how to address those sources; but rather
than examine this loss or disorientation, rather than bear the humiliation of our impotence, we posture as if we
were still fighting the big and good fight in our clamor over words and names. Don’t mourn, moralize.
Here are the ways in which my partner and I advocate for <<insert identity harmed>>
Here are the ways in which our in round advocacies support <<insert identity
harmed>>
 Ellipses
A is Interpretation: Debaters must have the full text of all their evidence available.

B is Violation: His/Her evidence has ellipses.

C is Standards:

1) Research Burdens – My opponent can use ellipses to make their evidence say virtually anything. For
example, removing the word “not” would reverse the author’s argument. Since I can’t read the full text
of the card to determine if they are grossly misrepresenting the evidence, s/he is incentivized to change
it and therefore make it unresearchable. This gives me an impossible research burden as what I can
research is constrained by what topical authors write about. My interp solves because all evidence
would be constrained to the topical literature. Reciprocal Research Burdens is key to fairness as
unresearched arguments will be qualitatively worse than researched ones. My opponent’s arguments
will necessarily be better than my answers so s/he will have an easier time accessing the ballot.

2) Academic Honesty – Ellipses are academically dishonest because they can alter the author’s
advocacy. The evidence is therefore disingenuous to the intent of the author who wrote it. Academic
Honesty is key to education because in the real world there are massive repercussions for academic
dishonesty in schools and other educational forums. Real world learning is key to education as debate is
only valuable if it teaches us how to make decisions in the real world.
 Improper Card Cutting
A. Interpretation: The opponent must cut card evidence that is completely relevant to the author’s
views in the article sourcing the information

B. Violation: The opponent did not cut evidence from the articles in a way that referenced the views of
the article.

C. Standards:

1. Predictability: By mis-cutting cards, the opponent removes an element of predictability in

evidence that he presents because I may have ran into the same article while researching the topic for
my case. Because debaters often find themselves running into the same articles, there is quite often an
element of predictability that each debater has if they happen to hear cut evidence from an article they
skimmed while researching or possibly used on another case. Researching these articles and becoming
familiar with the topic literature allows debaters to better prepare arguments or find other credible
cards that combat this information. However, if the information has been mis-cut, the element of
predictability disappears. Furthermore, the opponent is forced to scramble for a last minute credible
warrant to refute evidence that is not credible. This misuse of evidence links to fairness because each
debater should be given an equal opportunity to win the round if they used the same resources to
warrant their claims, and by adjusting the opinions of the author, my opponent has a clear advantage
over me.

2. Misuse of Topic Literature: My opponent was able to not only phrase the words of the author
to his advantage, but he also used the credible name of the author to make his evidence appear more
credible. Theoretically, if we allow any debater to cut cards in such a way that they can skew the
author’s initial thoughts and beliefs in the article, then every debater could pick words and phrases that
advocated their own beliefs and simply reference it back to a credible source. The whole reason that the
original source was credible was because there was a credible author or expert on the subject of the
resolution that decided to explain his/her views. Mis-cutting cards simply makes the evidence as
credible as the person who cut the evidence. We can deduce that my opponent’s evidence is no more
credible and should have no weight in the round. In fact, placing a credible author’s name on evidence
that clearly outlines the beliefs of my opponent is extremely unfair because it gives credibility to
information that deserves none.
El
Reject the Arg
Standards
Bidirectional
Breadth
Bright Line
Clash
Common Precision
Context
Depth
Entire Resolution
Fair Limits
Framers Intent
Flex
Ground
Legal Precision
Limits
Precision
Predictability
Reciprocity
Scientific Precision
Strat Skew
Voters
Education
Policy Making Ed
Political Ed
Topic Ed
Philosophical Ed
Err
 Err Aff
1. The aff no longer has the advantage- negative win percentage is up, and most teams choose to
be neg off the coin flip

2. They have the block, 13 minutes that we have to answer in 5- theory is key to protect the 1AR

3. We have the burden of T, the neg is unrestrained

4. They Get Issue Choice – We have to answer every position, they can just pick their strongest
ones and kick the rest

5. They Have The Last Constructive – After the 2NC the round is effectively over

6. Aff disclosure- Its commonplace for us to disclose, they can do whatever they want

7. Our prep time is finite- we’ve got lives, but their ground for counterplans and disads is infinite
 Err Neg
1. Aff has first and last speeches.

2. Aff has historically higher winning percentage

3. They have infinite prep time to write answers to all of our arguments.

4. Total Argument Choice – If we drop one answer on a disad, we lose it.

5. Fiat eliminates half the real world arguments we can make on the political process.

Issue Choice – We’re forced to debate whatever case they chose.

Fairness
Competitive Equity
Equitable Access
Procedural Fairness
Potential Abuse
Voting Issue
Not Voting Issue
RVI
RVI Bad
RVI Good