Conditionality: Good

Condo Good: Test In / Test Out—2NC

Our interpretation is we get one counterplan and one kritik, that’s best

FIRST, critical education – we give policy and K education at the same time
SECOND, strategy – forces 2AC strategic thinking and decision making
THIRD, research – maximizes research by forcing both sides to be ready on
multiple issues
FOURTH, neg flex – key to making use of the block and checking against 2AC
add-ons or impact turns
FIFTH, straight turning the net benefit checks
SIXTH, add-ons check
SEVENTH, time and strat skew inevitable -- some teams will be faster and better
EIGHTH, aff side bias – first and last speeches and infinite prep mean we need
flex in the block
NINTH, reject the arg not the team
 Condo Good: A2 “Dispo Checks” 2NC

They say dispo checks

FIRST, it doesn’t – it’s functionally conditional, no stable definition of dispo, and

we would just add planks to force them to perm

SECOND, forcing us to defend a straight turned policy means they can win
without proving the plan is a good idea, killing rational decision making which
turns their education arguments
 Condo Good: A2 “Pre-Round Conditionality” 2NC

They say pre round conditionality,

FIRST, forcing us to defense a straight turned policy means they can win without
proving the plan is a good idea, killing rational decision making which turns their
education arguments

And it doesn’t solve our standards

FIRST, critical education – we can’t debate both a K and counterplan in round

SECOND, strategy – we are saying the 2AC should be hard, hard debate is good
THIRD, neg flex – we don’t have options in the block to hedge against 2AC
strategy
 Condo Good: Test In / Test Out—2NR

We will win a few key pieces of offense that outweigh their offense:

FIRST, education – we have 3 internal links

Subpoint A is breadth of education – only we allow both critical and policy

arguments in the same round, forcing them to defend the aff from multiple
standpoints

Subpoint B is critical thinking – we impact turn their abuse claims - every time
that they say that conditionality makes it harder to be Aff we say that that is good
because it forces them to think strategically which makes debates better. Forcing
them to cover more worlds means they focus on the better arguments on each
flow which improves education and quality of arguments, turning their depth of
education arguments

Subpoint C is research – only conditionality forces both sides to do research and

defend the research in round, allowing us to learn through clash about more
issues. This breadth outweighs their depth arguments – some degree of depth is
inevitable, only we allow both

SECOND, fairness -- conditionality is key to negative flex in the block – the Aff
has the first and last speeches and infinite prep – we can’t predict every 2AC add-
on or disad to the CP they might read, meaning we have to be able to change and
adjust our strategy or we lose the effectiveness of the block which is our only
check against these structural aff biases

And our best defense checks their impacts

FIRST, add-ons and straight turning net benefits check – any offense they read
should apply to the status quo, meaning there’s no real skew because they can
still access this offense if we kick the counterplan – [it’s not our fault they chose
to read impact turns they couldn’t access when we kicked the CP/K]

SECOND, their impacts are inevitable – some teams are faster and better meaning
there will always be skews – if we didn’t have conditionality we’d just read a
bunch of procedurals which internally link turns their education arguments.

THIRD, stable 2NR checks – we’re going for one position in the 2NR meaning the
2AR can access any offense vs this specific strat

FOURTH, even if we lose the conditionality debate, the impact isn’t to vote
against us, just
[stick us with the counterplan – solves their offense by letting them access any
offense they have against the counterplan]

[reject the counterplan – remedies the strategy skew by preventing us from

accessing one of our most important arguments in the debate]
 Condo Good: “Argument Irresponsibility” 2NR

They say arg responsibility

FIRST, No impact, who knows what this even means

SECOND, we’ll always say the aff is bad, that’s responsible enough
THIRD, the aff isn’t argumentatively responsible – they don’t go for every
argument they make, proves this is arbitrary
 Condo Good: A2 “Multiple Worlds” 2NR

They say multiple worlds

FIRST, three worlds isn’t that many – they have no internal link to their impacts
SECOND, multiple checks – add-ons, straight turning, side bias – those are above
THIRD, we’ve already impact turned this – conditionality and harder debate are
good – that’s above