THEORY CRIB SHEET CONDITIONALITY BAD 1.

Skews 2AC strategy – there’s no way of allowing the 2AC to make consistent offensive arguments against multiple worlds 2. Not reciprocal – Aff must defend the plan through the entire round – allowing the Negative to discard its policy options is unfair for the affirmative and causes argumentative irresponsibility 3. Justifies contradictions – Conditionality allows to force us to make arguments that us on other issues e.g. running an economy d/a and capitalism bad 4. Kills debatability because there’s no way of determining what the other team will go for in the next speech 5. No unique right to a conditional CP – running the net benefit alone or a dispositional CP allows the negative plenty of flexibility without killing aff ground 6. Voting issue competitive equity CONDITIONALITY GOOD 1. Strategy skew inevitable and it teaches debaters to think strategically and improve efficiency in round. Harder debate keeps the activity educational and challenging 2. Key to negative flexibility – Being able to test the Plan at multiple levels is essential to Neg strategy and ground,

which outweighs any Aff ground loss 3. Best Policy Option – It improves policy focus because it helps test and develop the most effective policy 4. It’s reciprocal – conditionality is key to checking multiple conditional perms – The Aff’s unlimited number of conditional perms skews neg strategy and time allocation 5. Like a Disad – It’s no different than kicking any other Neg argument, no abuse or timeskew 6. Potential abuse isn’t a voter – they have to prove our specific conditional CP is abusive 7. Err Neg – the Aff has overwhelming structural advantages like speaking first and last, so protect Negative ground DISPOSITIONALITY BAD 1. Skews 2AC strategy – no way of allowing the 2AC to make consistent offensive arguments against multiple worlds 2. Not reciprocal – they get 2 policy options – the CP and the status quo; we only get the plan 3. Kills debatability because there’s no way to anticipate what they’ll go for in the next speech 4. Aff choice doesn’t check because they’ll always win in a world where they can dictate what arguments we can make. 5. Voting issue – competitive equity DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD 1. Timeskew inevitable – You skew your own time, otherwise you’d always vote for the slowest team

2. Improves Affirmative Time allocation – it makes them make smarter arguments more efficiently 3. Key to negative flexibility – Being able to test the Plan at multiple levels is essential to Neg strategy and ground, which outweighs any Aff ground loss 4. Best Policy Option – It improves policy focus because it helps test and develop the most effective policy 5. It’s reciprocal – is key to checking Perm Abuse Because the Aff has an unlimited number of perm worlds, plus plan; We need the CP and SQ as options 6. Like a Disad – It’s no different than kicking any other Neg argument, no abuse or timeskew 7. Aff choice checks Abuse – the Aff can choose to force our option and straight turn the CP 8. All CPs are dispositional – the advent of perms as tests of competition always leaves the Status Quo as an option..CP ground is critical to Negative strategy, competitive equity, and the educational value of debate 9. Potential abuse isn’t a voter – they have to prove our specific dispositional CP is abusive 10. Err Neg – the Aff has overwhelming structural advantages like speaking first and last, so protect Negative ground PICS BAD 1. Steals 2AC offense – since the CP does parts/all of the plan, Aff can’t leverage 1AC as offense against the CP 2. Infinitely regressive & unpredictable – they could do the plan minus one dollar and claim a spending net benefit

3. Leads to vague plan writing – Affs will write vague plans to limit negative CP options 4. Decontextualizes the Aff – by excluding or including parts of the plan at will, they bastardize the 1AC solvency evidence and make the CP impossible to research 5. Voting Issue – Competitive equity PICS GOOD 1. Allow the search for the best policy option because they force the affirmative to defend the entirety of the plan 2. No unique Abuse - all CPs are plan inclusive because including parts of the plan is the only way for the CP to compete 3. PICS are key to neg flexibility and strategy – PICs prevent the Negative from having to defend an unacceptable status quo 4. Net benefits and literature check abuse and infinite regression – the Affirmative can read turns to our netbenefits FLOATING PIK’S ARE A VOTING ISSUE 1. Fairness-steals the entirety of the 1AC. There’s no predictable offense against our own aff with different discourse. 2. Education-they discourage indepth critical debates if they can just isolate one representation and PIK out of it. 3. Also independently disproves the criticism. If our aff can be done through a different lensthen it’s a reason the perm is a good idea. 4. They don’t have a solvency advocate. Having comparative evidence ensure debates have clash.

1

we have to research every country to find potential counteragents 3. Doesn’t test the agent – disad proves U.FLOATING PIKS ARE GOOD 1. not the team TOPICAL CPs GOOD 1. Resolution divides ground – Aff gets topical ground and Neg gets Nontopical ground. Disad ground checks abuse – they argue disads to international action or advantages to unilateral U. breaking away from the cycle of nativism 5. Reciprocity is a lie – they have presumption and the block – that’s not reciprocal 5. We still have to defend against the permutation which would put a check on trivial reps K’s that it would solve for. T/ Eurocentric – we can recognize that other actors can solve just as well. Reciprocity doesn’t check 3. Key to Neg strategy and flexibility – Neg has to have other options than an undesirable status quo 2. – they wrote it in the Plan 2. Counterinterpretation: only topical CPs are legit A. Language barriers prevent adequate discussion– the most indepth education literature on the CP isn’t in English. which isn’t competitive with the Affirmative and destroys predictability 5. Aff fiat is limited because it is confined by the resolution – Neg would always claim unlimited fiat 4. Education – we learn about more actors. Neg gets implied “should not” of the resultion If we don’t get fiat. Not a voting issue – reject the arg. written from the viewpoint of the West 4. the more offense can be run – one or more of these actors could be bad and attacked on a solvency/disad level 2.G. No reciprocity – Aff fiat is confined by the resolution – Neg fiat isn’t NEG FIAT GOOD 1. action 9. Education-defending representations is critical to policy makingcross/apply every presidential campaign and debate. can function within in them. False judicial dichotomy – no actor faces deciding between whether one nation or another should do a policy. Forces Aff to defend U. Increases Aff ground – the greater the number of actors. Kills Aff research burden – the Neg ability to fiat explodes Aff research burden because there are infinite amounts of topical/nontopical CPs 6. Skews 2AC strat – Neg fiat exponentially increases the number of worlds the Aff has to answer – the 1AC is crafted to answer the Status quo 7. neither should they. Key to Neg strategy and flexibility – multiple actors enable the Neg to best test the Aff NEG FIAT BAD 1. INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD 1. action is bad – Counterplan is extraneous 2. Plan becomes the focus of debate – Aff gets infinite prep to 2 . This is the most important in communication activities where we have to be aware of how we interact with others. Aff biases don’t check – they have Neg block and kritiks to provide ground MULTIPLE ACTOR FIAT GOOD 1. increases topical education – Topical CPs allow us to focus on and discuss the resolution C. Best policy option – we should compare the abilities of other countries to do the plan 3. increases predictability – resolutional debate is more predictable than the infinite number of non topical CPs 2. Kills the resolution A) they’re not dejustifying the resolution because they’re topical – Vote Aff B) Not reciprocal – resolution is designed to give both Aff and Neg equal ground – they’re trampling our ground – that justifies non topical plans for reciprocity C) Justifies plan-plan debates which moot out the 1AC and dejustify Neg research 3.S. which means you should vote neg on presumption 4. Competition checks Abuse – we’re still going to have to win the net benefits to the CP – it’s the search for the best policy option 5.S. Kills Research Burden – we have to research against other Affs to debate Affirmative as well as both topical and nontopical counterplans 2. 3. Fiat derives from the word should – there is no implied “should not” – words are in and left out of the resolution for a reason 2. F. Literature checks abuse – as long as we find literature on international action. Competition checks abuse – international CPs are not mutually exclusive because the U.S. Competition checks abuse 3. destroying clash B. Key to check sexist and racist language. Sets up a false role for the judge. 4. 2. Education – learning about international actors increases education 7. Small ones are check by policy making good and Reps focus bad arguments. it should be legitimate – this prevents infinite regression because we are constrained to advocates and ensures fair aff ground because it’s debatable 4. increasing education 3. At best. There’s only a limited number of representation criticisms that have realworld impacts. the literature represents a biased view of the policy. Reciprocity 3. including international fiat 6. we’re only going to win the CP if we win a net benefit – they can always debate that net benefit B) Aids the search for the best policy option – topical CPs provide a better assessment of the best policy option and best agent of action TOPICAL CPs BAD 1.S. Voting Issue – competitive equity INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD 1. Unfair research burden . Plan becomes the focus of debate – Aff gets infinite prep to choose their plan – now they have to defend it and resolutional focus would be bad – it justifies counterwarrants and alternate justification. net benefits are debatable 8.

Moving target . Real world – policy makers care about the substantive benefits of bills and policies. Promotes Vague Plan writing – Affs could write Vague plan texts to spike out of counterplans – this destroys Neg ground because it also denies us disad links. Not topical – violates “resolved” which means “firm” because the Affirmative is not firm in their 1AC advocacy. Real World – Congress people typically make changes to a piece of legislation through the process of law making – the plan is not the text of the bill and thus subject to change. or none of the perms Affirmative Conditionality is uniquely worse since a stable Aff Advocacy is critical to Neg positions and testing whether the plan is a good idea 3. Not a voting issue – the Negative has the block. Skews Neg ground – by the time plan is passed. Doesn’t hurt negative ground – the Permutation is a test of competition. Unpredictable – there are an infinite amount of unpredictable changes that can be made to the plan 3. It’s a severance and intrinsic perm – it’s non operational for it’s original time frame and it adds temporal sequencing – makes them a moving target and kills Neg ground 2. Functional Competition Good A. and 2NR strategy – reject the perm. all. Independent voting issue for jurisdiction 3. Best policy option – functional competition allows the search for the best policy option by allowing a true comparison of net benefits 3 . infinitely regressive – there are an infinite amount of unpredictable changes that can be made to the Aff plan 5. Forces grammar CPs. it furthers it in another direction 8. Voting Issue – competitive equity SEVERANCE BAD 1. Best Policy Option – The Affirmative should be allowed to the test the CP/K alternative on any level possible in order to debate the best issues. solvency debates. Preserves Resolutional purpose – the purpose of the resolution is to initiate further discussion. not the team TIME FRAME PERMS BAD 1. destroying Neg ground 2. Real world analogies allow us to put debate in context and set boundaries. then CP or vise versa 4. especially in the world of a PIC or Agent CP – severance permutations only way to check back the infinite number of CPs 6. Solvency is probalistic – we don’t know when or if plan occurs 2. The Perm is a combination – its just the plan and the counterplan or some combination of the two which makes it no new world TEXTUAL COMPETITION BAD 1. they make solvency probabilistic – we don’t know when or if the actually is passed INTRINSIC PERMS BAD 1. kritiks. Reciprocity – Counterplan has multiple parts – multiple perms key to test these parts 2. Skews Negative ground – allows the Affirmative to spike out of Neg disads or CPs by adding things to the plan 2. Vote Neg on presumption – demonstrates Plan is not a good idea now – defer to the status quo 6. No literature for future action means its non debatable 7. Counterperms Check Abuse – the Neg’s ability to Counterperm ensures fairness 7. Makes the Aff conditional since they can go for any.allows the Aff to sever out of Neg disad links. Kills Neg CP ground – no counterplan is ever textually competitive – “Ban Plan” CPs aren’t textual competitive – Neg counterplan ground is key to neg flexibility and strategy and not having to defend an undesirable status quo 3. and encourages 2AC clarifications 2.choose their plan – now they have to defend it and resolutional focus would be bad – it justifies counterwarrants and alternate justification. which increases education 2. our disads would be unique 3. Rewards 1AC plan spikes – allows the Aff to spike out of neg positions in the 1AC and sever those spikes in the 2AC 4. Kills CP ground – It’d always be possible to do plan. the permutation doesn’t inhibit this goal. Justified by conditional/dispositional CP – we have multiple ways to test the competition of the CP – the permutation is merely another test of the net benefit 4. Not reciprocal or predictable – they get 3 worlds to choose from – we don’t know which they’ll choose MULTIPLE PERMS GOOD 1. Key to Affirmative ground – the affirmative only has a finite way of weighing the plan versus the Cp. not a new advocacy – they still have the ability to weigh the net benefit against the permutation and the plan 5. 3. Skews Neg ground – denies us the ability to have uniqueness for our disads and case turns because plan could be postponed until our disads are nonunique 5. Violates T resolved – proves plan’s not resolved on its intentions – voter fairness & jurisdiction 4. The Perm is a test – its not advocated A. not the exact text B. PICs. voting issue – competitive equity SEVERANCE PERMS GOOD 1. Voting issue – competitive equity MULTIPLE PERMS BAD 1. It’s like a no link argument – a test to see if the CP is germane whereas the Cp can be advocated B. Multiple Perms are Bad and a voting issue for competitive equity: 2. Violates T should – should implies now – voting issue fairness & jurisdiction 3. No straight turn to check – we can’t stick them with the permutation through a straight turn 4. destroying clash FUTURE FIAT BAD 1. which trivialize debate and decrease education over actual policy options 4.

POLITICS IS INTRINSIC 1. or plan minus anything. Doesn’t lead to infinite regression – literature and clash check 5. 2. destroy Neg ground B. Solves Vague Plans – when everything is listed explicitly in the plan. Congress isn’t a single actor. leading to bad debate and gutting ground B. Empirical intrinsicness checks-running arguments that a congressperson WOULD pass both is fine-but you can’t advocate that it SHOULD or COULD happen. 3. like plan minus one penny. This is educational-this interpretation guarantees debate skills are translatable to real world. allows Aff 2AC morphing – where 2ACs interpret plan operation to dodge links. Improves Plan focus – because it forces a concise debate over what the plan says it does. less biased evaluation of competition 2. improving ground and education 4. That destroys predictability because it allows an infinite number of tiny modification CPs which Affs could never predict 3.C. guts Neg link ground – by making plans so small and abstract the Neg can’t win a link to anything POLITICS IS NOT INTRINSIC 1. 3. Their interpretation kills negative ground-they can cross apply the same argument to trade-off and spending arguments. It allows fairer. We read links that prove the plan will have political consequences that affect agenda items. They allow any plan minus type of CP. Leads to better competition evaluation – it sets a better brightline for when a CP is competitive by limiting it to textual precision. Textual competition key to limiting out bad PICs – which improves Aff ground A. Logical policy maker could do the plan and decide to pass or reject any agenda item 2. and is grounded in preround plan disclosure _____________________ TEXTUAL COMPETITION GOOD 1. it can’t shift what it does – Vague Plans are Bad: A. 4 . It’s more predictable by allowing the focus on plan. This is Fair-Decisions are limited by the agent of the resolution-they just have to prove opportunity cost.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.