theory file

8/13/2019 Theory file

1/43

Gonzaga Debate Institute 20131

**Status Theory**


2/43


Conditionality Bad

Conditionality is bad for the following voters

1. Doesnt help educationthe Neg can simply graze the surface of the literature and coverbreadth over depth rather than actually go in depth on a topic

2. FairnessThe neg can kick anything without actually planning on advocating it and the aff

cant which is unfair

3. Counter-Interpretation- The Neg should only be allowed to kick the Counterplan or Kritik

Dispositionally so the aff has some kind of control of the round

4. Reject the Team- The only way to discourage people from running these kind of arguments is

to punish them for running them


3/43


Conditionality Good

Conditionality- Good

1. Aff bias- neg gets first and last speech, infinite prep, and chooses the substance of the debate

2. Reciprocal- Aff reads multiple advantages and can kick out of some if theyre disproven, neg

should be able to do the same

3. Best policy option- in the real world, amendments can be made to a bill and parts can be

taken out, conditionality allows the neg to find the best option

4. Portable skills- the 2ac has to be able to pick out the strongest arguments and put the most

answers on those

5. Education- learn about a variety of different cps and ks, not just one every round

6. Multiple perms check- they get to make multiple perms on all the arguments and test the

competition of all the ks and counterplans from all sides, if they all compete then we should be

able to run them all

7. Reject the argument, not the team- then we have to defend the status quo, which shouldnt

be a problem for the aff since theyve had infinite prep on it


4/43


Dispositionality - Good1. Education

a. Best policy optionreal policy makers are never forced to pass or

confined to just one solution

b. Forces strategic 2AC answers and critical thinking2. Ground --

a. Neg flexOur only burden is to disprove the plan. multiple levels is vital

to negative strategy and 2NR also to check aff bias

3. Non-unique -- negative arguments are dispo.

4. Air neg on theory aff goes first, last, and has unlimited prep.

5. Not a voter -- Reject the argument not the team.


5/43


Dispositionality BadDispositionality is a voter

1. Strat Skew-Forces the Aff to alter their 2ac to answer arguments that will be dropped. 2ac is

vital throughout the debate to regain control of the round after Neg block.Neg gets to kick outwhenever they want, but we cant check back by making perms. Key to Fairness

2. Time SkewMore important arguments get less time in answering off-cases the Neg will

drop. Messes with time allocation.

3. EducationThe Neg doesnt have to understand their arguments because they drop them,

preventing the Aff from learning too.

4. Depth over BreadthIn depth argumentation is better than quick overview on many

advocacies. Allows opportunity to learn.

5. UnfairAff sticks with the 1AC, dont let the Neg kick out

6. Moving TargetThe Neg can change the definition of dispo to suit their needs, no

predictable definition.


6/43


DA Intrinsicness 2AC

2AC:

DA not intrinsic a logical policymaker could pass the plan and ________.


7/43


DA Intrinsicness 1AR

In a world of policymaking the federal government could pass the plan

and pass legislation for _____. Theres no reason the issues are

interconnected. Thats best because the politics DA is bad:

1. Education having every debate centered around politics takesaway time from more important issues like the actual

implementation of the plan.

2. Should means theoretical the plan is the focus of the debate, notwhat happens during the process of passing the legislation.

3. Counter-interpretation DAs are legitimate if their links arepredicated off of a direct effect of the plan, not the process of

passing it.


8/43


DA Intrinsicness 2NC

The DA is intrinsic we provided a specific causal chain.

The politics disad is good for debate

1. Neg ground we need generic DAs to check for unpredictable affsand large topics.

2. Real world passing any legislation through Congress has a directeffect on other Congressmen.

3. Education learning about the various constituencies and theeffect 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 adirect causal chain form the plan.


9/43


**Particular CPs**


10/43


Functional Competition GoodCounterplans should be functionally competitive

1. Stops the neg from stealing the entirety of the aff- for the neg to be functionallycompetitive, they cannot steal the 1ac, making sure that the 1ac stays un-mooted2. Most real-world- bills arent amended to change punctuation, they are amended tochange 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 mootedii. 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 THEDEBATE AWAY FROM THE RESOLUTION AND EDUCATION ON THE YEARS TOPIC.


11/43


Functional Competition Bad

Counterplans cannot be functionally competitive:

1. Does not destroy policymaking: nothing we do in this round actually matters at all toactual policymaking.2. Does not kill topic focus:if we spend 15-45 seconds each speech on theory and the restof 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 yesthere 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 outof this activity, they would not write as little in the plan text as possible so that they

dont 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 functionallydifferent than the plan


12/43


Textual Competition Good

Textual competition best:

1. Most real world- Legal policy needs to have distinctive language in

order to ensure compliance, and amendments to bills arent

functional, theyre 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. Theres no bright line to functional competition. Textual competition

is the only way to hold a team accountable to their advocacy. Thats key

to fairness.

4. Text is the basis for function- We cant accurately debate function if

we dont have a static text from which we can derive that function.


13/43


Textual Competition Bad

Textual competition bad:

1. Not real world- Congressmen and Senators care about the function of

a given piece of legislation- not the text. Text isnt 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 arent valid. You justify ban the plan permutations- that

allows you to just spike out of your entire aff

3. CX checks functional competition- were not abusive.

4. Text is meant to ensure function- Textual competition isnt meant to

be the end goal of competition, its meant to ensure functional

competition

5. Kills education- functional competition ensures actual argumentation,

while text comp devolves debate into a giant word game.


14/43


PICS Good

Voter - PICS are good and a voting issue for fairness and education.

Education - PICs allow the whole aff to be under speculation and thats how we learn. They

write every part of the aff, they should be able to defend it. We should be able to do that to be

most real world and make debate an effective portable skill.

Fairness - PICs extend fairness, as the aff has infinite prep. The aff has an equivalent to PICs with

perms. They can use perms to take our CP from us. It is impossible for a CP to not be a PIC, as it

has to include at least a bit of the plan.

If anything, reject the arg, not the team.


15/43


PICS Bad

PICs are bad and a voting issue

EducationWhen debating our own aff we arent forced to think, takes away educational valuethat debate holds that we cant get elsewhere; hurts Aff and Neg teams alike.

FairnessThe Aff is forced to debate against their plan; the Aff will be impossible to win, for

ability the neg will have to CP out of everything; resulting in the Aff having no solvency for its

own.

PredictabilityNeg can virtually PIC out of any part of the plan, making it impossible for the aff

to predict and prepare for their arguments.

Reject the team


16/43


Conditions CPGood

Conditions CPs help education, they give a deeper understanding of the issue and help find best

policy

Conditions CPs are not impossible to prep, the aff knows the issues of their aff and they can

always do say no

Perm is not only option, aff can challenge competitiveness

This is not a cheap shot - It is harder for us to prep this than them

Unfair for neg: it will totally kill our strategy and ruin the debate

Conditions CPs help the aff, they can always add the condition into their plan post round and

debate better because of it

No impact: Even if unfair, there is no reason that it will unbalance debate


17/43


Conditions CPsBad

Steals the AFFthe neg should not be allowed to take all aff ground

Fairness- It allows the neg to take all of our ground by just attaching a condition and keeps usfrom perming. You can win on nothing but an unrelated NB.

EducationIt ruins the debate by creating a world where you arent debating the best policy

Abusive- We cant argue everychange the Neg can think of.

Predictability- It changes the debate; untopical item doesnt help with understanding.

Counter Interp:Legit if it they have a comparative solvency advocate


18/43


Consult CPs Bad

Consult counterplans are bad and a voter:

1. UnpredictableThe negative can consult any tiny country of the 180 countries in theworld. Theres no way to predict who the neg is going to consult. That undermines

unlimited aff prep

2. Artificially inflates the NBtakes all 1AC offense and adds any miniscule net benefit

that doesnt have a significant impact

3. Kills educationmoots 1AC and aff research, consult CP can link to any aff every year.

4. Unfairsteals entire 1AC. Any offense we read means were debating against our

own aff

5. Recipriocitythe affirmative can only use the USFG, neg should too

6. C/ICP is legitimate if and only if theres a piece of comparative evidence of the act

of the consultation. And, NB justifies the SQ


19/43


Consult CPs GoodEducationa. Better discussion to consultation mechanisms and diplomatic knowledge

b. Tests desirability in which the plan is passed

Real world- Countries engage in consultation process on international plans

ResearchForcesresearch beyond the topic countries

Predictability- Lit base checks

Neg GroundForces immediate enactment and governmental action, which is the lynchpin of

all neg disads- their interpretation allows aff severance

Aff Ground- Aff leverages ground on immediacy and certainty

Cant use back-filesEvidence of the CP must be specific to plan and squo

Fairness- Checks aff on sand-bagging

Aff side bias- The aff has first and last speech and unlimited prep time

Counter Interpretation- Consult CP should have a mechanism which it uses; net benefits

check abuse arguments

Defaulting to theoretical reasonability best for debate- only have to win that the CP just

doesnt destroy it

Reject the Argument not the Team


20/43


International Fiat Bad

International counterplans are illegitimate ---

1. Time and Strat skew --- steals the 1ac and moots 8 minutes of aff speech time

2. Object fiat badthey can fiat away almost all our impact scenarios if they can fiat any country

they want to do whatever they want.

3. Predictabilitytheres hundreds of countries and thousands of international agenciesits

impossible to research for all of them

4. No groundforces us to debate ourselves, which jacks AFF ground and destroys our offense.

They get the NEG block so you need to hold them to a high standard.

5. C/Ithey get any actor counterplan within the USFGsolves their offense and limits the

research burden and allows us to make link arguments easierJustifies permutationdo both


21/43


International Fiat Good

International fiat is good:

1. Tests the affirmativethey need to be able to defend the entirety of the plan

2. Best for critical thinkingforcing them to debate on specific parts of the plan makes them

prepare more detailed and educational answers

3. International educationallows for education about international actors rather than simply

the USFG

4. Its not utopian/object fiat - other countries often invest in things like the plan, it tests the

plans desirability

5. It is reciprocalthe USFG is made up of thousands of different actors, theres no reason why

we cant fiat that many as well.

6. Err Neg on theorythe aff gets infinite prep, first and last speech, and get to set the ground

with the 1AC

7. Checks new affsgenerics are key to a debate against the infinite number of plans that are

possible

8 Not a voting issuereject the argument not the team.


22/43


Agent CPs Bad

1. Predictability: there are so many agents to choose from, it is impossible to research,where as choosing the USFG allows the neg to just choose from out of that.

2. Infinite regression - fairness:we are only allowed to choose from one agent, where as they areable to choose from thousands, it is unfair.

3. Kills topic specific education: not talking about the actual plan, but only talkingabout who does it, provides no education on the topic, this is an unfair use of plausibledebate time that could be used to learn from.

4. Steals the aff: it is absolutely impossible to gather offense when all you do is make aplan.

Artifical Net Benefits are Bad:1. Extremely unpredictable: there is no reason why us, as debaters should have to be

prepared to debate about the external action of the plan, such as who does it, but weshould only be ready to defend reasons why the plan is good or bad.

2. Bad debate focus: we should not focus on an external reason to act, THIS IS BADEDUCATION, but we should focus on the artificial net benefits means we are no longerfocused on the topic

3. Strategy skew and time skew:if we straight turn, or impact turn, then they can justkick the counterplan. DONE.

4. Not an opportunity cost: No where yet have they stated a reason why the plan isactually bad, they have just talked about why another action would be good, means theyhave not met their neg burden and create a bad model for decision making, which is notreal world.


23/43


Agent CPs Good

1. Education:a. Most real-world:

i.

The federal government is not the only actor who can solve theresolution

Predictability-

a. Agent counterplans have been used in debate for an incredibly long amount oftime

b. Solvency advocates show that there is enough lit on the topic to bepredictable

2. Education-a. The CP is still about the resolution, the aff must defend their actor to show

that their plan is the best Policy option

b. Breadth-i. There is a wealth of arguments for each topic. Debate is meant to be

about breadth, displayed best through how the resolution is written

each year.

Reject the argument, not the team


24/43


Delay CPs BadDelay Counterplans are Bad

1. Unpredictable: Its impossible to accurately have answers on the Aff for something tohappen sometime in the future

2. Education: It kills education we dont know that anything will happen for sure we justguess and the debate becomes a guessing game

3. Fairness: It forces the aff to debate against itself and detracts from the actual debate ofwhether the plan is good or bad, not just when it should be implemented

4. Reject the Argument and the Team: The only way to discourage people from runningthese kind of arguments is to punish them for running them


25/43


Delay CPs GoodDelay Counterplans- Good

1. Best policy option- the purpose of debate is to find the best policy option, if there is a benefit

to doing the plan at a later time, we should be able to do that

2. Most real world- in the real world if there was a benefit to doing to plan later, congress

people would do that. This is the best internal link to education because we should learn about

how things operate in the real world

3. All CPs have a delay mechanism- consult, agent, and process counterplans can all have delay

elements to them. Taking these away would kill neg ground.

4. Its predictable- the net benefit is just a DA to the implementation of plan. This is no different

than any other counterplan that solves for another DA to the plan like the actor or the process.

Counter interpretation: reject the argument not the team; we should still debate about issues ofsubstance as the debate goes on, not just theoretical objections.


26/43


2NC CPs GoodEducation

Promote educationmore exposure to arguments allow for more education every round

Doesnt stop important discussion the best policy option is the point of the discussion, and CPs

dont take much time to discuss

Fairness

They can still answerthe 1AR has full ability to answer any arguments our CP makes

Late developing arguments favor affthe 2AR gives them an advantage here

No time skewit takes much longer to make a CP than answer it, trade off favors aff even if in

1AR

Not overpoweredeven if the aff doesnt answer well we dont have the time to make it

competitive


27/43


2NC CPs Bad

Fairness: Why wouldnt they have proposed this in the 1NC.It forces a rebuttal speech toanswer something for the first time, even though they could have put it into the 1NC

Predictability:We could not have known the Neg would propose a CP; steals our prep

Counter Interp: It should be in the 1NC


28/43


**Perm Theory**


29/43


Severance Bad

Ground: the perm is a check of the competitiveness not an advocacy. So we can slightlychange the plan to check the competitiveness.

Education: in real world politics politicians make amendments to their plan to help gainsupport or fix problems. We will be the future policy makers so we should practice working like

them.

Fairness:The negative can read Ks and CPs that have nothing to do with the plan except asimilar funding or an advantage. The severance perm is key to checking any abusive negative

CP, PIC or Vague K

Reject the Perm not the team: Voting a team down based on a theory mistake is lesseducational than voting on argumentation if there is abuse drop it from the flow

Potential abuse isnt a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse; if we are debating thisthen there is no abuse because it isnt Abuse its potential abuse


30/43


Severence- Good

Education: in real world politics politicians make amendments to their plan to help gainsupport or fix problems

Fairness:The negative can read Ks and CPs that have nothing to do with the plan except asimilar funding or one word in the case. The Aff needs to be able to adjust the plan to be able to

perm random Ks and CP and perms are vital Aff offence on CPs and Ks tocheck

competitiveness

Ground: the perm is a check of the competitiveness not an advocacy. So we can slightlychange the plan to check the competitiveness

Reject the argument not the team: Voting a team down based on a theory mistake isless educational than voting on argumentation if there is abuse drop it from the flow

Potential abuse isnt a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse


31/43


Multiple Perms Bad

1. EducationInstead of debating the substance of the negative advocacy we get sucked into a

debate only about whether its competitive. Voter for education.

2. Time SkewAff can simply say perm do both and the neg has to spend a lot of time

responding to itmakes it hard for the Neg to respond to the argument actually made against

the substantive claims of the K or CP. Voter for fairness.

3. PredictabilityThe affirmative could make any minute permutation they wantimpossible

for the neg to predict every ridiculous perm the aff could read let alone respond to them. Voter

for fairness.


32/43


Multiple Perms Good

Fairness: the negative can run any amount of CPs and the Aff needs to be able to check itand perms are the only way to check them

Time: The negative block can run any amount of new conditional counterplans and the Affneeds to be able to answer 13 minutes of Neg arguments and perms are the quickest and best

solution

Ground: the perm is a test of competiveness not an advocacy. The Aff should always be ableto test competiveness

Education: in real world you can do any amount of plans and pass them through


Potential abuse isnt a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse, if we are debating thisthen there is no abuse because it isnt Abuse its potential abuse


33/43


Intrinsicness - Bad

. Moving targetThe neg has no idea how the case will change with the permutationdestroys

block strategy making it impossible to be neg. Voter for Fairness.

2. PredictabilityThey could run an unthinkable number of intrinsic permutationsneg cant

predict the thousands of minute perms making them impossible to respond to. Voter for

fairness.

3. Unfair Net BenefitsThey can add any net benefit to the permutation making it impossible

to respond to - We could read a process CP and they could respond with a perm with a net

benefit totally unrelated to the case that we werent prepared to respond to. Voter for fairness.


34/43


Intrinsicness GoodEducation: in real life lawmakers make changes to bills and add things to make it moresuccessful. We are the future policy makers so we should practice this skill.

Ground:Key to Aff ground because other wise the Neg would be able to run any CP that hasnothing to do with the Aff and the Aff couldnt perm it (Example here).


Potential abuse isnt a voter:the negative needs to prove abuse, if we are debating thisthen there is no abuse because it isnt Abuse its potential abuse


35/43


Reject the Team

1. PrecedentNot voting on our theory argument means that theyll have a further incentive to

continue butchering the negs fairness and education, voting them down gives them a higherincentive to stop being abusive.

2. Whats done is done all of our voters are reasons you should reject the teamthe abuse

has already occurred. Theyve already hindered our education and made it impossible to be the

neg in this debate. The damage has been done.


36/43


**K Theory**


37/43


Aff Inclusive Kritiks - Bad

1. Education: Floating PIC gets rid of the neg burden to prove exclusivity and makes thedebate about who can imagine the best advocacy rather than about the topic

2. Fairness:It is the burden of the negative to prove mutual exclusivity and without theburden they can come up with any philosophical flaws in the assumptions of the plan and it is

impossible for the aff to prep answers to all of them

3. Ground:The neg can change their advocacy in the block which makes the previous affspeeches meaningless.

4. Reject the Team:It is the only way to set a precedent for future rounds.


38/43


Aff Inclusive Kritiks - Good1.Key to real world change- allows us to identify priorities and make rejections,

forcing people to change, the implementation of the affirmative should not have

to preclude the alternative, the alternative should be a mode of identification

that the affirmative is bad and we have to reject it.

2. Key Neg Ground - All arguments include parts of the affirmativethey got to pick all of the1AC and should have to defend all of it. The K aff is more popular than ever and the AIK is a

critical argument to test if the affirmative presentation is flawed.

Reject the argument, not the team.


39/43


Vague Alts Bad

Violation: Their alternative does not have a distinct advocacy. They can change their strategy

and undermines affirmative ground and fairness in this debate.

Ground: Vague alts let the neg change their strategy. The aff cant pin the neg down, making

affirmative offense impossible, and the neg being unpredictable. Neg has the strategic

advantage of reinventing their advocacy. This skews affirmative time by forcing them to pin the

negative down.

Education: Vague alts make the aff go on a wild goose chase instead of focusing the debate on

the topic.

Vague alts are a voter because the negative is committing a strategy and ground skew.


40/43


Vague Alts GoodNot a voter: Reject the argument not the team.

Ground: Cross X checks. That means we cant reinvent our advocacy.

Education: Turn: Vague alts solve a greater impact to education- we allow for a wider research

focus and force critical thinking

No bright line: No differentiation between vague and specific.


41/43


Neg Fiat BadThe negative shouldnt get fiat:

1. Best for testing the affirmativefundamentally questions whether the plan is good ornot, rather than shifting the debate to whether or not there is something better than it

2. Best for breadth of educationcounterplans allow the negative to steal the plansoffense, shifting the debate to miniscule net benefits versus the plan as a whole

3. Critical thinkingforces the teams to weigh large and different scenarios rather than arelatively unimportant net benefit

4. Steals aff offenseallows them to nullify our 1ACs offense by using it as their own5. Explodes aff research burdenneg has infinite disads, the aff shouldnt have to prep for

CPs and Ks either

6. Err aff on theoryneg gets the block and infinite genericsThis is a voting issue for fairness and educationset a precedent against bad practices. Even if

you dont buy this, you should limit the debate to plan vs. plan.


42/43


Neg Fiat GoodThe negative should get fiat:

1. Reciprocityif the aff gets fiat, the neg should too2. Key to negative groundthe aff gets 8 minutes of pure offense in the 1AC, we need

ways to soak some of that up through CPs

3. Best for testing the affirmativetests the specifics of the plan4. Specificitytests the 1AC in more specific ways, which is key to critical thinking5. Allows for more diversity in debatemakes debate more interesting than simply disad

vs advantage constantly

6. Consistently fairthe status quo often changes, conditional worlds allow for us to adaptso that times like an economic recession dont completely skew the debate

7. Err neg on theoryaff gets infinite prep and first and last speeches8. Counter-interpretation: neg gets ___ actors to fiat in ___ worldssets a limit on

negative fiat while still solving our offense

Not a voting issueat most, you should reject the fiat-ed off-case positions.


43/43


theory file

Documents