hudl 2014 – theory · web view2014-08-26 · it’s fair and reciprocal – they get a proposal...

HUDL 2014 Theory1/14

HUDL 2014 – THEORY

HUDL 2014 – THEORY...............................................................................................................................1

NEGATIVE THEORY...................................................................................................................................2

LIMITED CONDITIONALITY GOOD.........................................................................................................3

CONDITIONALITY GOOD.......................................................................................................................4

DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD.....................................................................................................................5

PICS GOOD...........................................................................................................................................6

EXCLUSION PICS GOOD........................................................................................................................7

AFFIRMATIVE THEORY..............................................................................................................................9

AGENT CP BAD...................................................................................................................................10

CONDITIONALITY BAD........................................................................................................................11

CONSULT CP BAD...............................................................................................................................12

PICS BAD.............................................................................................................................................13

PROCESS CP BAD................................................................................................................................14


NEGATIVE THEORY


LIMITED CONDITIONALITY GOOD

First, the offense:

1. Our interpretation is that the neg gets one conditional advocacy and the right to always defend the status quo. It’s fair and reciprocal – they get a proposal for change, we get a proposal for change. They get perm do both, we get status quo do neither.

2. Best policy option and most real world – conditionality is necessary to test the desirability of the plan versus other options. When faced with two bad options, rational decision-makers reject both, i.e. the status quo.

3. Critical thinking and education – conditionality forces strategic 2ac choices to adapt the strategy knowing the counterplan could be kicked. The goal of debate is to respond to an intellectual challenge – answer the counterplan and quit whining.

Now the defense:

1. Potential abuse is not a voter – we didn’t do it and it’s impossible to quantify. Since the ballot doesn’t set a precedent, in-round abuse is the fairest way to judge theory.

2. Reject the argument, not the team – the punishment paradigm rewards theory over substance, decreasing education. Plus, they can’t prove a reason why we jacked their ability to beat the rest of our positions.

3. Err neg on theory-

a. Structural side bias – the aff has first and last speech, picks the framework for the debate, and has infinite prep.

b. Topic specific side bias – tons of subsets of each area of national service and lack of negative literature for service guts neg ground.


CONDITIONALITY GOOD

First, the offense:

1. Best policy option and most real world – conditionality is necessary to test the desirability of the plan versus other options. When faced with two bad options, rational decision-makers reject both, i.e. the status quo.

2. Critical thinking and education – conditionality forces strategic 2ac choices to adapt the strategy knowing the counterplan could be kicked. The goal of debate is to respond to an intellectual challenge – answer the counterplan and quit whining.

Now the defense:



3. 2NR choice checks- we can only go for 1 in the 2NR and the 2AR follows it.

4. and I’ll give you a heads up, we’re kicking the CP so we don’t link to their multiple conditional worlds anymore. They proved why its wrong so reject the argument not the team.



b. Topic specific side bias – infinite things that could be detained and lack of kritik links off of a decrease in authority guts neg ground.


DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD

First, the offense:

1. The ability to straight turn solves their offense – it puts the ball back in their court and rewards research specific to our counterplan.

2. Best policy option and most real world – dispositionality is necessary to test the desirability of the plan versus other options. When faced with two bad options, rational decision-makers reject both, i.e. the status quo.

3. Critical thinking and education – dispositionality forces strategic 2ac choices to adapt the strategy knowing the counterplan could be kicked. The goal of debate is to respond to an intellectual challenge – answer the counterplan and quit whining.

Now the defense:





b. Topic specific side bias – infinite things that could be detained and lack of kritik links off of a in authority guts neg ground.


PICS GOOD

Counter-interpretation- The negative should get one conditional PIC- this is both fair and educational because it gives the neg flexibility and still maintains a predictable advocacy.

First, is our offense:

1. Key to fairness – PICs are part of a critical neg strategy necessary against increasingly vague plans.

2. Key to in-depth education and focus – uniquely justified on this topic due to different congressional and judicial jurisdiction

3. Forces the affirmative to defend all aspects of the plan – this increases better plan writing and critical thinking which are good for education and debate

4. Best policy option – debate is about a search for the best policy option this solves all of their fairness and education arguments, if the counterplan is better then the plan then all of their arguments are arbitrary and don’t apply

Second, is our defense:

1. Their interpretation makes all counterplans PICS – it is impossible to have action that does not do some part of the plan – this kills fairness destroying a core negative strategy

2. “Authority” checks – this topic uniquely justifies PICS because different actors can decrease authority in different ways with different advantage ground stemming from each one

3. Potential Abuse isn’t a voter- we didn’t do it and its impossible to quantify. Since the ballot doesn’t set a precedent, in-round abuse is the fairest, most objective way to judge theory.

4. Reject the argument, not the team- the punishment paradigm rewards theory over substance, decreasing education. Plus, they can’t prove a reason why we jacked their ability to beat the rest of our positions.


a. Structural side bias - first and last speech, framework choice, and infinite prep

b. Topic specific side bias - infinite things that could be detained and lack of K links off of a decrease in authority guts neg ground.


EXCLUSION PICS GOOD

Our interpretation of debate is that the neg should get 1 conditional or dispositional exclusion PIC- this is both fair and educational because it gives the neg flexibility and still maintains a predictable advocacy

First is our offense:

1. Alternative is worse- if their interpretation is true- then the only acceptable counterplans are the ones that do the entirety of the aff plan forcing only plan plus counterplans which are infinitely worse

a. They get to leverage 0% of their case instead of the 10% the exclusionary PIC allows

b. They are functionally non-competitive- its a bankrupt neg strategy that can never be won

2. Increases in-depth topic specific education- instead of blanket policies the debate is now pinpointed on a certain issue within the topic that can be delved into and debated-

3. Forces the affirmative to defend all aspects of the plan- the aff now has to understand and defend every aspect of its plan instead of the blind faith its been depending on- this increases better plan writing and critical thinking which are good for education and debate

4. Best policy option- debate is about a search for the best policy option this solves all of their fairness and education arguments, if the counterplan is better then the plan then all of their arguments are arbitrary and don’t apply

Next is our defense:

1. Its our ground- the affirmative has the burden to defend the entirety of its plan and think strategically about its decisions- negative exclusions are therefore justified as a means to test the affirmative in its whole

2. Potential abuse isn’t a voter- we didn’t do it and its impossible to quantify. Since the ballot doesn’t set a precedent, in-round abuse is the fairest, most objective way to judge theory

3. Reject the argument, not the team- the punishment paradigm rewards theory over substance, decreasing education. Plus, they cant prove a reason why we jacked their ability to beat the rest of our positions



a. Structural side bias- firat and last speech, framework choice, and infinite prep

b. Topic specific side bias - infinite things that could be detained and lack of K links off of a decrease in authority has already gutted neg ground


AFFIRMATIVE THEORY


AGENT CP BAD

Agent CPs are bad and a voting issue:

1. Destroys topic education- We stop learning about the resolution, and are forced to debate miniscule points about agents.

2. Infinitely regressive.-There are hundreds of agents within agents. There’s no way to be prepared for all that.

3. No resolutional basis. There is no resolutional reason why you should be allowed agent CPs.- all of their arguments around the word authority are questions of topicality and are irrelevant in a world in which we still don’t debate civil liberties good or bad. They limit it down to civil liberties good.

4. Unfair ground loss.- We are literally forced to abandon all plan advantages, and solvency and debate only one small portion of plan.

5. Encourage bad 1ACs- More and more of 1AC time will be taken up by agent defense, destroying education, and giving us a horrible time skew right off the 1AC.

6. It’s a voter to ensure competitive equity and education.


CONDITIONALITY BAD

Conditionality is bad and it’s a voting issue:

A. Moving Target—the neg doesn’t have to defend a concrete policy option. This allows the neg to simply drop arguments, teaching fallacious reasoning and killing any hope of in depth debate on a single issue

B. Time Skew—

1. We have to make double the arguments against the status quo AND the counteprlan destroying any hope of adequate coverage

2. They could come up and kick the counterplan, wasting all the time I spend reading answers in the 2AC

C. Reciprocity—confining the negative to one world is necessary to prevent digression into obscene amounts of advocacies—justifies aff conditionality which is uniquely worse

D. Kills Game Values – leads to irresponsible argumentation. They will simply kick what we are winning. Kills fairness because the Aff has to stick to it’s plan even if the neg is winning all its offense so the neg should have to stick to theirs

E. Counter-interpretation—the negative should be forced to defend dispositionality

Dispositionality solves all their offense—this puts them in a unique double-bind, either:

1. The counterplan is predictable—there will be plenty of literature on the counterplan to the point where even an amazing text would still not require permutations and straight turns would check abuse

2. The counterplan is unpredictable—this is uniquely bad for debate because it forces permutations which are the only means by which the affirmative can get back up to ground zero and proves the abuse

F. Voting issue for fairness and education


CONSULT CP BAD

Consultation counterplans are illegitimate and a voting issue that warrants rejection of the team because it forces the affirmative to win all of their arguments just to get back to ground zero–

A. They are infinitely regressive – the negative can consult any number of countries, organizations, or private actors. The negative will always be one step ahead on impacts and the “say yes” debate because they have infinite prep time on their actor and we don’t

B. Plan plus - they do the entirety of the plan with the added step of consultation. Plan plus counterplans aren't competitive and justify running stuff like "do the plan and feed Africa," making it impossible for the aff to generate offense

C. PICs that do the entirety of the plan are illegitimate – we cannot garner any of the 1ac as offense which uniquely skews the debate because it is THE only offense the affirmative has in the round—justifies the permutation: perm: do the counterplan

D. 2AC add-ons prove the abuse- the 2AC could read any amount of add-ons and the counterplan would still solve them all back because it does the entirety of the plan

E. Destroys topic specific education – consultation counterplans divert the debate way from the topic to questions of implementation and relations with other nations.

F. Conditional/dispositional consultation counterplans uniquely bad – they can concede say no arguments and kick the counterplan to have a relations disad against our aff leaving us with nothing

G. Even if we lose all of our reasons why consult cp are uniquely bad- the negative can run their consult cp, but only unconditionally. This solves all of their offense

H. Delayed fiat – the outcome of consultation isn’t implemented until the future – we cannot get uniqueness for disads to future action which makes the only option permutations

I. Artificially competitive - the net benefit is an advantage to the counterplan, not a disad to the plan, this is unpredictable and justifies the permutation: perm: do the plan and consult __________ on another issue of equal important


PICS BAD PICS are bad and it’s a voting issue:

A. Kills debate by forcing us to debate ourselves – adopting all components of a plan except for what links to a disad means they can just kick the counterplan and cross-apply our arguments against us – unfair and steals aff ground.

B. Infinitely regressive – justifies arbitrary and minute counterplans like exclude a penny and a risk of a bad disad means PICs would be impossible to predict.

C. Steals aff ground – the plan is the focus of the debate; PICs moot the entirety of the 1AC by retaining any good parts, making it impossible for us to use the 1AC as leverage.

D. Encourages vague plan writing – unpredictable affs will always be extremely broad in order to capture the perm, forcing unlimiting.

E. Disads check – they can run the net benefit by itself, reducing artificial inflation of the risk of a link – rejecting PICs still allows for the same amount of education while preserving ground on both sides.

F. Intellectual plagiarism- they moot 8 minutes of our offense and steal our work decreasing strategic pre-round thinking.

G. It’s a voter – PICs destroy education by stealing aff ground and shifting focus away from the core of the debate.


PROCESS CP BAD

Process counterplans are illegitimate and a voting issue for competitive equity and fairness:

A. No solvency advocate - there is literally NO ONE who advocates _____________________ today, let alone one specifically to pass our plan. This means that not only is this strategy not predictable, but there is literally no specific literature to answer it

B. Process CPs that do the entirety of the plan are illegitimate – we cannot garner any of the 1ac as offense which uniquely skews the debate because it is THE only offense the affirmative has in the round—justifies the permutation: perm: do the counterplan

C. Destroys topic-specific education- we stop debating about the substance of the plan and now are forced to engage in a question of an arbitrary alternative process

D. Infinitely regressive- there are hundreds upon thousands of different processes the negative could choose to use as a counterplan that the affirmative could never be ready for

E. Agent counterplan solves all of their offense- they can run all of their disads to the plan and gain access to things like prez powers and other agent net benefits ensuring neg ground while allowing the affirmative to garner substantive offense from the literature against their agent choice- the net benefit is topic-specific education- discussion of the agent is uniquely relevant to the education on this topic unlike these unpredictable processes the negative presents- authority proves

F. It’s a voting issue to ensure competitive equity and education

hudl 2014 – theory · web view2014-08-26 · it’s fair and reciprocal – they get a proposal...

Documents