Intro To Dispo

Intro to Dispo Dispositional/dispositionality means NEG gets to choose on what conditions they can kick the CP or K. For example, I run a 50 states cp dispo. All other theory aside, I can say that if Aff argues state-budgets disads, I can drop it. Another example: I run a deep ecology kritik dispo. All other theory/args aside, I can say that if Aff argues kritiks are a bad precedent, I can drop it. Dispo does not mean “AFF has to straight-turn the net benefit of the cp” or whatever it is. Don’t let the other team say that that’s what dispo is. It’s not. It’s also not “Aff has to argue dispo bad or we can drop it”. Dispo is the ability to set the condition upon which you drop the cp.

Dispo bad 1. Irresponsible negation. Dispo prevents coherent negation, justifies contradictions, and allows them to shift out of our offense.

2. Strategy and time skew. We have to debate the squo and the cp which means they can just go for the one we undercovered, making the aff rebuttals unfairly difficult and rendering part of our speeches moot.

3. Creates multiple worlds. a) Destroys aff offense: The negative can engage in multiple contradictory worlds and not have to make a decision of what to advocate until the 2nr. b) Isn’t reciprocal: we get one world, they shouldn’t get two. c) Hurts the quality of policy comparison of prevents in-depth debate and education because we have to debate 2 worlds. d) Infinitely regressive: all the args that support a conditional counterplan are also defenses of multiple counterplans, which are illegit. e) Inconsistent advocacies – kills clash and education by allowing them to duck out of a failed cp f) Not real world – policy makers have to deal with the consequences of proposing an action. They can’t just pretend they didn’t read it if someone questions them about it.

AT: Puts the aff in control. Forcing us to not argue something which forces them TO argue something destroys aff ground.

AT: all args are dispo Definitionally, yes – but: example: a DA is dispo unless it is disproven by link, brink/UQ, or impact. But Neg isn’t arguing a DA is good or competitive. Neg’s arguing it’s a bad result of aff plan. Neg doesn’t argue CP is a bad result of aff plan; it’s their advocacy. We don’t get to case-shift; don’t let them either.

AT: Perm checks abuse Perms create multiple worlds; if we permed the CP they would argue that perms are bad on dispo CPs. It would be stupid of us to give them extra ground, so don’t go for this arg.

AT: Promotes logical decision-making. This response is completely arbitrary – Neg has the option of the squo, yes, but they don’t have the option of the squo AND a separate advocacy. Their contradictory discourse doesn’t stand to logic.

AT: Increases strategic thinking. We can’t run a lot of args against squo and cp because they contradict.

AT: Real world. If neg gets to use real-world strat, we should be able to also – we should logically be allowed to shift advocacies in the 2AC and run a completely different plan in potentially the opposite direction.

AT: 2NR checks abuse. It’s too late to make new args in the rebuttals – if we put offense on the CP, they could drop it in the 2NR and then we couldn’t argue anything else against squo which is crazy abusive.

Dispo good 1. Puts the aff in control. They don’t have to argue ____________, which forces us to keep the counterplan the rest of the debate. 2. All arguments are dispo. We should be able to kick cps like we kick DAs or topicality. If aff shows us a legit error, we should be able to correct it by dropping the cp. 3. Perm checks abuse. AFF gets the unique ability to perm a non-competitive cp which checks abuse. 4. Promotes logical decision-making. Not having the option of the squo would be an extreme departure from decision-making. 5. Increases strategic thinking. Forces the aff to pick their best args against the squo and the counterplan, improving education. 6. Real world. Policy makers change their minds all the time if they see an option is not as good. If a Senator proposes a bill and later he’s convinced that the bill is bad he can stop advocating it. 7. 2NR checks abuse. We have one advocacy in the 2NR, they have an equal time to disprove it in the last speech AT: Multiple Worlds AFF gets the unique ability to perm, which also operates in multiple worlds. Don’t vote us down for something aff engages in as well. AT: Time Skew AFF has 5 minutes to check back a 13 minute Negative block; there’s already time skew; doesn’t make it a voting issue or a response to dispo.