Theory Toolbox

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

1 Theory File

Theory Toolkit Index Dispositionality Bad........................................................................................................................1 Dispositionality Good......................................................................................................................1 Dispositionality Good......................................................................................................................1 Consult Good...................................................................................................................................1 Consult Bad.....................................................................................................................................1 Consult CPs Bad – A2: Most Real World........................................................................................1 Consult CPs Bad - A2: not infinitely regressive..............................................................................1 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Don’t Steal Entirety....................................................................................1 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Must Defend Immediacy............................................................................1 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Aff Side Bias..............................................................................................1 Consult CPs Bad - A2: Lit Checks..................................................................................................1 Consult CPs Bad – A2: Best Policy Option.....................................................................................1 ASPEC Bad.....................................................................................................................................1 ASPEC Good...................................................................................................................................1 ASPEC Good...................................................................................................................................1 ASPEC Good...................................................................................................................................1 Conditionality Bad...........................................................................................................................1 Conditionality Good – Offense........................................................................................................1 Conditionality Good – Defense.......................................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Bad..............................................................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Good...........................................................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Good – AT Kills DA Ground......................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Good – AT Makes Plan Not T....................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Good – AT Moving Target..........................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Good – AT Infinite Regression...................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Good – AT No Risk / Irresponsible............................................................................1 K Alts Need a Text.......................................................................................................................1 Floating PICs Bad............................................................................................................................1 Reject Alts Bad................................................................................................................................1 Textual Competition Good...............................................................................................................1 Textual Competition Bad.................................................................................................................1 PICs Bad..........................................................................................................................................1 PICs Good........................................................................................................................................1 International Actor Fiat Bad............................................................................................................1 International Actor Fiat Good..........................................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Perms Good................................................................................................................1 Intrinsicness Perms Bad...................................................................................................................1 Country Exclusion Bad....................................................................................................................1 Country Exclusion Good.................................................................................................................1

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

2 Theory File

Dispositionality Bad 4) Euphemizes conditionality—We have to perm the CP or they can read add-ons that are non-competitive. This answers their “aff choice” 2NC. Conditionality is bad – Makes the neg a moving target, justifies multiple contradictory CPs, and skews 2ac time. 5) Strategy skew—The only way we can prevent a time skew is by straight-turning the net benefit, which forces us to eliminate our best defense and causes the 2AC to reveal our strategy, allowing the block to exploit us. Letting neg dictate aff strategy kills fairness and education. 6) Ground—dispo discourages us from making perms, which are key to aff strategy; they serve as a shield against non-competitive and artificially competitive CPs. 7) Multiple worlds bad—allowing them to establish a temporary world of argumentation muddles the debate. Debate is about policy option advocacy, which requires consistent arguments to evaluate. The potential for contradictory arguments is a reason to reject the argument and the team. 8) Not real world—policymakers always have to deal with the consequences of any option they propose to the government or public. Nobody says “here’s an amendment but I’ll withdraw it if you make an argument I don’t like against it.” 9) Reciprocity—We only get to advocate one policy and can’t kick out of it; they should be held to the same standard. The CP justifies severance and intrinsic perms. 10) Voters for the reasons above and competitive equity.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

3 Theory File

Dispositionality Good 11) Time and strategy skews are inevitable—Some teams will always be faster, and theory and topicality arguments will always produce a time and strategy tradeoff. The CP is preferable to these debates because it increases education and equalizes time tradeoffs. 12) Turn—We put the strategic ball in their court. They can stick us with the CP simply by straight-turning it, which means they control where the debate goes. This turns all of their reasons why dispo is bad. 13) 2NR defines advocacy—we’ll always pinpoint our position and they get another speech. This is our worldview on all theory questions and solves all abuse claims. 14) Non-unique—All negative arguments are dispositional. The affirmative isn’t complaining about us potentially kicking out of topicality or a disad that’s not straight-turned. 15) Best balance—we increases education by allowing real debate to occur on the counterplan, whereas conditionality discourages the affirmative to do so and skews their strategy, and unconditionality hinders the search for the best policy option and unfairly restricts the neg. 16) Increases critical thinking by encouraging strategic 2ACs with good time allocation and encourages affs to think more about the interaction of our arguments. 17) Promotes crystallization—getting rid of dead arguments allows the round to narrow down to more developed ones, maximizing depth-based education. 18) Offense checks abuse—even if we kick the CP, we can’t retract any evidence read. That evidence can still form the basis for a turn, and offense on the net benefit answers our strategy in both worlds. 19) Key to negative flexibility—Our only burden is to disprove the plan. Being able to test it at multiple levels is essential to neg strategy and ground, which outweighs their voters because neg flex is key to balancing an aff bias. 20) Err neg on theory—Aff gets infinite prep time, the structural advantage of first and last speeches, gets to choose how to interpret the resolution, and now presumption. Err neg to check this inherent affirmative bias in the round. 21) Rejection is the wrong remedy. There’s no in-round abuse and voting on potential abuse is like voting on a potential disad. At worst you should drop the counterplan, not the team.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

4 Theory File

Scholars Lab

Consult Good Offense: 22) Best Policy Option – If we win that multilateral action is good then consultation is the best policy option 23) Education – Forces 2AC strategic thinking and increases knowledge of both domestic and international issues via the net benefits. 24) Counter-Interpretation – Only allow consultation with countries that the U.S. has a formal consultation framework with – solves all their offense because there are only 5 possible actors 25) Checks Aff Side Bias – They speak first and last, have infinite prep time and have a higher win percentage 26) Key to Test Resolution – Substantial: Capable of being treated as fact – WordNet 03. Resolved: To Make a Firm Decision About – American Heritage Dictionary 00. Only counterplans can effectively test each word of the resolution – disads can’t win alone 27) Key to Check 2AC Add-Ons – Only consultation CP’s allow the negative to not get beat by 2AC sandbagging Defense: 28) Reject the argument not the team 29) Not Wholly Plan Inclusive – We don’t advocate unilateral action. They can get offense to working with other institutions 30) Predictable – Consultation CP’s have been run since Jason Russell was debating - they should have blocks by now 31) Lit Checks- Our say yes evidence proves there is a direct correlation between the country being consulted and the action of the plan - - this checks the “Consult Djibouti” CP 32) No Artificial Competition – We sever out of unilateral action and have a disad predicated off of it

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

5 Theory File

Scholars Lab

Consult Bad 33) they steal 1AC – killing debatability because we can’t leverage our 8 minutes against anything 34) time frame counterplans are illegit – they create uniqueness through consulting – we have to defend if the plan SHOULD pass, not WHEN – future fiat is illegit because it’s not reciprocal 35) Regressive – we could never prepare for all possibilities – crushing predictability which is the gateway to fairness and education. 190 some countries, thousands of international organizations, and billions of humans could all be consulted about the plan. This is particularly dangerous for the aff given that the threshold for the neg’s disad doesn’t need to be large if the plan does the case, forcing affs to generate offensive args against the net benefit when they ought to expect to outweigh these disads. 4. Reciprocity – For the purposes of disads, the plan has no contingency, but the aff gets the right to alter only the nature of the implementation of the plan only to match neg counterplans. a. Solves their moving target argument b. Forces the aff to defend the plan c. Maintains a balance of aff and neg ground d. Generates aff predictability which is predicated on the plan.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

6 Theory File

Consult CPs Bad – A2: Most Real World 1. The counterplan isn’t real world – politicians don’t reject a policy because of the need to  consult someone else  2. Their real world standard is a bad –  a. it’s not reciprocal – aff fiat is bound by the resolution forcing USFG action – CP destroys  competition b. anti­educational – real world consultation is never binding 

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

7 Theory File

Consult CPs Bad - A2: not infinitely regressive 1. Even if whoever they consult is predictable – they create the capacity for anyone or any combination of agents to consult – that potential abuse is voter for competitive equity 2. Competing interps is critical – The standard that they apply is necessary to judge the allowable range of power of the neg. Only interpretations are not arbitrary, preventing the “only our case is topical” view of T.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

8 Theory File

Consult CPs Bad - A2: Don’t Steal Entirety 1. This is a LIE –Consultation risk they say yes means they steal every aspect of the aff – the y pass the plan exactly as we defend  2. They create their offense – we can’t even read uniqueness arguments – which means that  the counterplan allows them to create unique offense while taking ALL of our offense – whi ch proves it is unpredictable and unfair.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

9 Theory File

Consult CPs Bad - A2: Must Defend Immediacy 1. Either: 36) No part of the text says immediate – proves the CP isn’t competitive and the perm so lves OR 37) We defend the immediacy of the plan – we don’t spike out of ANY disads or counter plans – FIAT is the least means necessary ­ they don’t negate the plan, means that yo u vote aff because both sides say the plan SHOULD pass 2. This is arbitrary– it isn’t a reason why passing the plan now is bad – it is a reason why w aiting to do something else is good – proves that the CP is contrived with no strategic cost a gainst the negative – killing reciprocity 3. this legitimizes DELAY counterplans – which are uniquely abusive because they make de bate about absurdity – we can never predict, research, or defend against them. 4. there’s no offense – they have zero reason why the aff defending immediacy in a world of  an artificial counterplan is good for debate

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

10 Theory File

Consult CPs Bad - A2: Aff Side Bias 38) Consultation Counterplans go too far – they eliminate the entirety of the 1ac and AL L predictable 2ac offense PLUS they give the negative INFINITE PREP against the  aff by creating artificial offense 39) The side bias doesn’t exist – they block to check any structural aff bias

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

11 Theory File

Consult CPs Bad - A2: Lit Checks 1. There is no literature – yes they may have evidence about X_____ in Africa, but it’s not in  context of the plan and the CP  2. LITERATURE is a bad standard –  40) literature is limitless – hemorrhoids in Djibouti, Nietzsche, super­intelligent dinosau rs proves it’s arbitrary and provides no fair check 41) not educational – it’s a matter of what is best for topic­specific debate NOT what is a vailable 

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

12 Theory File

Consult CPs Bad – A2: Best Policy Option A “Best policy” arguments allows us to use private fiat or make run abusive strategies  if it resulted in a good policy.  B Even if we search for the best policy – the search must be reciprocal. Our specific ab use claim should be preferred over their general warrant. C n”.

Justifies severance and intrinsic perms because those would be the “best policy optio

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

13 Theory File

Scholars Lab

ASPEC Bad First offense 1) Arbitrary. Their interp is always that we have to specify one more thing than is in plan. This kills aff predictibility, so to meet we would need an 8 minute plan text and the neg would always win on plan doing nothing. 2) Counter Interp: agent is normal means. This solves their offense by allowing debates about what normal means is, and is most predictable because it’s in the literature. 3) Neg ground. With thousands of USfg agencies, we could specify them into bad or unpredictable ground. 4) Counter interp: we can specify status quo plan implementation in cross x. This gives the neg link ground to agent DAs. 5) Checks neg bias Topic. a) No aff advantage areas. b) Generics. Ks, politics, and domestic agent cps link to everything. c) Structural. The neg block puts the 1ar at a time disadvantage, preventing good arguments for the 1ar or good extensions for the 2ar. 6) Justifies agent Counterplans. This is a voter a) Utopian. No utopian decision maker means that counterplan isn’t a test of opportunity cost. b) Limits. Real world decision framework is the only non-arbitrary way to limit CP’s. c) Ground. No lit assumes a choice between two different agents. d) Topic education. We already know about courts, we’re here to research Africa. And, the defense 1) Potential abuse isn't a voter. There is potential that the neg runs a new counterplan in the 2nr. 2) DAs solve their offense. We still learn about implementation. 3) Not 90% of solvency. Elmore is talking about solvency mechanism and implementation, not just the agent. 4) No impact to ground loss. They only lose bad ground. 5) Still resolved. a) Resolved means we just have to be definite in affirming the resolution, not about the agent. Their interp means that we are indefinite because we wrote Sub-Saharan Africa instead of listing all the countries. b) Resolved is before the colon. That means that the USfg is resolved about passage. This is best because theirs allows an infinite number of k frameworks.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

14 Theory File

Scholars Lab

ASPEC Good A. Violation – The aff should specify its agent within the USfg. Government power is divided into 3 branches Rotunda, professor of law at the University of Illinois, 2001 [Richard, 18 Const. Commentary 319, “THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE, AND MORRISON”, l/n, (m7,06)] No one denies the importance of the Constitution's federalist principles. Its state/federal division of authority protects liberty - both by restricting the burdens that government can impose from a distance and by facilitating citizen participation in government that is closer to home. n8 Chief Justice Rehnquist, for the majority, agreed. The "Framers crafted the federal system of government so that the people's rights would be secured by the division of power." n9 The Framers of our Constitution anticipated that a self-interested "federal majority" would consistently seek to impose more federal control over the people and the states. n10 Hence, they created a federal structure designed to protect freedom by dispersing and limiting federal power. They instituted federalism [*321] chiefly to protect individuals, that is, the people, not the "states qua states." n11 The

Framers sought to protect liberty by creating a central government of enumerated powers. They divided power between the state and federal governments, and they further divided power within the federal government by splitting it among the three branches of government, and they further divided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared) by splitting it between two Houses of Congress. n12 B. Voters 42) Solvency Deficit: 90% of solvency is dependent on implementation Elmore, Professor of public affairs at U Washington, 1980 [Political science quarterly, pg. 605, (m7,06)] Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, “What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?” Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation. 43) Ground: We can’t run our specific DAs to USAID or congress, or have competitive a gent CPs. 44) Real world. Policy doesn’t happen without an actor. 45) Education. Key to learn about government action and implementation.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

15 Theory File

Scholars Lab

ASPEC Good Next, the defense: 46) Can’t clarify. a. They’re a moving target. This skews predictability and ground because they could clarify to get out of any 1nc arg. b. Not resolved American Heritage 2k [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html, © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, accessed 6-30-07] Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about 47) Cross-x doesn’t check c. Pre round prep. They don’t have to answer questions before the round. This kills c lash because we can’t prepare. d. Not binding. The judge doesn’t flow it. e. Aff burden to specify in plan. We should get cross-x to get links and talk about evi dence, not clarify plans. f. Regressive. Affs could read the res as plan and we would have to spend 3 min of c ross-x to find out what they do. 48) Aff bias g. Structural. First and last speech, infinite prep, and 60% win skew h. Broad Topic. 48 countries and no precise definition of public health assistance me ans we can’t get specific lit on their case. i. Moral high ground. Aff gets to help people in Africa.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

16 Theory File

Scholars Lab

ASPEC Good Agent spec is best for debate – First is education: 49) questions of the agent are critical to understanding implementation – that’s the only way to learn about policy 50) generates in-depth education – debates become more focused and we learn more about specific issues Second is competition: 51) They justify aff conditionality - kills debatability because they can get out of any links 52) specification is key to agent CP ground – agent CPs are awesome 1. encourages plan focus debate by testing the merits of the actor 2. key to neg ground: lit indicates the plan is not a question of the advantages but rather implementation 3. neg flex is good – aff structural bias justifies the CP All affs take non-topical action – Funding and enforcement are necessary for implementation, but not sufficient to meet topic requirement. Their interp overlimits the aff. There are not an unlimited number of potential agents – Solvency evidence and mechanisms check. Only a limited number of people advocate actors for public health assistance. Proves the need for CP limits – If too many agents are unfair to the neg, then they are reciprocally unfair for the aff. Reject agent CPs.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

17 Theory File

Conditionality Bad Conditionality is bad; it’s a voter for the following reasons: Offense: 53) Time/Strategy Skew—They could read 10 conditional counterplans in the 1NC and kick out of all but the one with the least offense in the block 54) Moving target—We don’t know what the issues in the debate will be until the 2NR so any offense we put on the counterplan is time wasted; this hurts fairness and education and makes it impossible to win. 55) Counter-interpretation—they should read their K/CP dispositionally; it allows the aff a change to straight-turn in the 2AC and checks any abuse. It solves all their offense. 56) Not reciprocal—Justifies the aff kicking case and reading a new one in the 2AC. 57) Justifies severance and intrinsicness—if the neg can change their advocacy whenever they want, the aff should be able to do the same 58) Promotes argumentative irresponsibility—the neg isn’t responsible for their advocacy- they could run multiple contradictory arguments without any recourse Defense: 59) Perms don’t check abuse—they’re a test of competition, advocated perms justify intrinsicness 60) Neg flex is bad—They have thousands of Ks, DAs, T violations, and whatever CPs they read dispositionally. 61) Its not real world—policy makers can’t propose competing pieces of legislation and a senator never unrolls a list of 30 bills they might advocate that day 62) Negation theory doesn’t check—they could force us to double turn ourselves answering all of their positions 63) No aff side bias—they have the 13 minute block to the 5 minute 1AR and they have issue choice 64) A conditional counterplan is different than any other conditional issue—it changes whether we’re defending our plan against the world of a counterplan or the world of the status quo 65) There is legitimate abuse—the 2AC has already happened; they’ve already skewed our time and strategy 66) Not key to find the best policy option/doesn’t increase critical thinking—it doesn’t increase critical thinking or find the best policy option because whenever the neg is put in a tough position they’ll just kick the counterplan

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

18 Theory File

Conditionality Good – Offense 67) Breadth is better than depth a. the plan was the focus of the debate, and neg. should be able to attack the plan from multiple vantage points. b. advocacy training is central to the educational mission of debate c. It’s best to force each team to "scan"the available policy options, select one and debate it to the max 68) Best policy option-many ideas must be compared to the aff in order to find the best policy option, which is the point of the round 69) Reciprocity-if the aff gets a policy option, so should the neg. The fact that the aff can perm and advocate multiple perms means that the neg can run multiple conditional counterplans 70) Neg flex – The aff has intrinsic advantages in terms of framing the debate, giving both the first and last speeches, and win/loss percentages prove. The neg needs a variety of approaches to answer the aff. 71) Neg theory- Either of the squo or the plan prove the aff is a bad idea. The neg’s responsibility is to answer the aff by illustrating opportunity costs to the adoption of the plan. 72) Real world-in the real world, legislators are allowed to propose and drop new bills all the time 73) Harder debate is better for debate-forces us to work harder, learn more and make debate a more productive activity. It doesn’t matter if it is infinitely regressive or not. 74) Best policy option-we’re here to see which is the best policy option, and that is best found by having multiple policy options to weigh in the round. This should be our found in the round, is thus justifies why we can advocate and then drop args. 75) Dispo doesn’t solve – Limits neg flex, undermines the discussion of policy options, and makes the aff capable of dictating the CP which undermines examination of logical opportunity costs of the plan’s adoption, preventing the degree of difficulty of debates from increasing. In effect, it bails out the aff.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

19 Theory File

Conditionality Good – Defense 76) Time skew inevitable-if we hadn’t run another “policy option,” we would have just run another kick-able case arg, DA or K argument, or we could have just had more arguments on another flow 77) We aren’t a moving target because we will have to pick one and because the status quo is always an option a. All arguments are conditional. The aff will kick advantages and we can concede disads. All of their arguments prove the CP isn’t competitive by answering the net benefits. b. If the negative claims that either of two policies is superior to the plan and one of their policies is shown to be inferior, they can still logically win on the other 78) Strat Skew is inevitable, and harder debate is better debate c. The 1AC is stacked with advantages and the SQ is not a policy option, so we have to have another policy option d. Increased critical thinking on how to answer arguments is good e. fewer arguments are not necessarily better 79) Aff bias – first and last speech, frame the debate, infinite prep, and win/loss %. 80) Perms check – the aff can advocate multiple worlds too. Our CPs simply test logical opportunity costs of adopting the aff. 81) Debating the Squo isn’t an additional burden – The 1AC is stacked against the squo, and typically includes some CP answers too.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

20 Theory File

Intrinsicness Bad 82) Ground – Intrinsicness allows the aff to get out of any disad, case argument, or counterplan. Even offense germaine to the plan become becomes moot – the aff would win every debate and kill the activity. Importantly, these moves are unpredictable, and only predictable ground is useful. 83) Limits – Permitting intrinsic permutations to disads permits a world where there are 30 unpredictable advocacies in the 2AR that they can choose to go for. 84) Real World Education- Allowing the affirmative to dodge arguments directly related to the plan ensures there is no discussion about relevant topics that would be discussed when the plan is passed. 85) No checks – Just because the aff only uses intrinsicness on one of our arguments doesn’t mean that the theory doesn’t allow essentially washing away of all negative disad links, especially those on critical topics like politics and economics. The intrinsicness argument could always be do the plan and don’t raise rates or do the plan and have Hillary drop out of the race. 86) Voter- for fairness and ground

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

21 Theory File

Intrinsicness Good Intrinsicness is good. It tests the germaness of the link 1. Most real world – no policy maker would ever be forced to choose between giving aid and striking Iran 2. Better Disads A. Forces clash and specific research on the topic B. Checks regressive disads like spending

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

22 Theory File

Intrinsicness Good – AT Kills DA Ground 1. Intrinsicness forces more specific disads. Education is the terminal impact to all theory args. As long as we win that specific disads are better for education, ground loss doesn’t matter 2. Good teams will always be able to generate specific links 3. No reason the neg gets generic disad ground 4. It’s reciprocal to the fiat that the neg gets to CP out of advantages

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

23 Theory File

Intrinsicness Good – AT Makes Plan Not T 87) Intrinsicness is like a permutation to the disad. That means intrinsicness only tests the direct cost of the Disad. It’s not a net benefit to the plan. 88) Non Topical counter-plans mean the judge has jurisdiction over non-topical fiat as well 89) C/I – the resolution only exists as a starting point for the debate. This means the neg can have all competitive alternatives to the plan, but we still get intrinsicness

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

24 Theory File

Intrinsicness Good – AT Moving Target 1. They get more ground. They can garner offense on the intrinsic disad perm 2. Key to check Advantage and 2NC counter plans which functionally do the something 3. The plan is STATIC. They can still read their case args and disads, as long as they are good

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

25 Theory File

Intrinsicness Good – AT Infinite Regression 1. c/I – The aff only gets intrinsic perms in the 2AC 2. Regression is inevitable. Perms prove. New perms to new disads to perms would resolve in the 2ar. 3. Not possible. Infinite regression is too complicated to occur normally

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

26 Theory File

Intrinsicness Good – AT No Risk / Irresponsible 90) Counterinterp – we one intrinsicness perm per disad. The neg gets one case specific CP per advantage 91) Germane disad links solve 92) Debate over competition is inevitable. We fiat in disad takeouts that they would have to address at some point anyway

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

27 Theory File

K Alts Need a Text 93) Interpretation: The neg needs a written text to their advocacy. 94) Reasons to Prefer: a. Predictability: pinning the neg to a stable advocacy is key to predictable debate. No ground is usable without predictability. b. Moving Target: Neg needs an alt text so they can’t change their alt to avoid arguments. The impact is time and strategy skew, which alter the nature of the entire debate. Justifies new args. c. Reciprocity: The aff presents a plan text so the neg needs a written description of the difference between the SQ and their approach. 95) Voter for fairness and education

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

28 Theory File

Floating PICs Bad 1. The negative should only be able to pic actual words in plan text a. plan focus good – plan is the only stable ground b. predictability – its more reasonable for the affirmative to have to defend their plan not any random representation an author may make within the evidence 2. Moving target – it allows the negative to shift their initial alternative to subsume the affirmative which skews 2ac answers and is unpredictable 3. Justifies no alternative text which is uniquely bad a. destroys perm ground – no way to test the competition of the link b. justifies aff conditionality c. forces functional competition which is bad because its unpredictable. There are an infinite number of alternative mechanisms to solve the impacts 4. Literature doesn’t check abuse – there is not reciprocal literature on all issues and the topic forces us to defend certain things to be topical which establishes a side bias. This solves their aff conditionality arguments. 5. Debateability – floating pics essentially agree that the affirmative is a good idea, forcing the affirmative to debate against themselves 6. Including the plan within their advocacy justifies perm: do the affirmative because they agree that the plan is a good idea and that the plan can be done without linking to the criticism 7. Voting issue

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

29 Theory File

Reject Alts Bad Their rejection alternative is illegitimate and a voting issue for the following reasons: 96) Ground trade-off – They can find anything wrong with the affirmative as reasons to reject it and generate uniqueness but we don’t get to generate any offense which means they will always control the direction of offense. Ground should always be reciprocal. 97) Education loss – We don’t get to discuss possible venues to solve the problems they are indicting. If their criticism is so important, then we should be able to debate and learn strategies that are compatible with it - instead they make debate a normative activity where we do nothing which their authors would indict. 98) Double bind – Either a. Their evidence says nothing about rejection or rejection as a causal access to solvency which means they can’t solve and their impact is non-unique. OR b. They will shift their alternative to do something more than just rejection which makes their alternative a moving target which is abusive and shifts out of all our offense – affs can never win. 99) It’s utopian Fiat – They can claim solvency and uniqueness by arbitrarily fiating the ballot as their solvency mechanism. 100)Justifies Our Intrinsicness Perms c. Their alternative is simply a “non link” scenario. We can’t generate offense against it or test the link which means the only way to test the germaneness of their argument is through our intrinsicness perm. d. Even if intrinsicness is bad their alt requires its usage which means rejection alternatives are bad for debate and shouldn’t be allowed.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

30 Theory File

Textual Competition Good 1. Most Objective: A text is the only unmovable way to determine competition, giving a clear delineation. 2. Justifies delay counter-plans which are bad because they allow the negative to steal affirmative ground and change when the plan gets implemented. 3. Decreases judge intervention: comparing texts is removed from the flow and requires no weighing of arguments, ensuring fairer decisions and debate. 4. Prevents advocacy shifts: Holding a team to text prevents abusive shifts sustaining competitive equity and ground. 5. Only true way to test competition: Without seeing what plan allows and precludes through text, competition can’t be ascertained. 6. Disads solve their offense – It’s not that the aff doesn’t defend their aff against normal means disads, but that those disads don’t deserve the added advantage of wiping away the aff case. 7. Aff predictability – The neg isn’t the only team that deserves it. Aff predictability is limited by the wording of the plan text. Some CPs may have “advantages” theoretically but not meet the need to make those CPs topical. 8. Functional competitions justifies aff intrinsicness – If the neg gets unlimited tests of the aff the aff gets unlimited tests of the opportunity costs of the plan which justifies a perm to do x on another issue. Solves their net benefits while passing the plan, the best of both worlds. Voting Issue

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

31 Theory File

Textual Competition Bad 101)Kills Policy Making: debate as semantics turns the activity into who can write good plans, not what the best policy option for the real world is. 102) Increases intervention: the critic still has to pull texts and compare, which is removed from the flow and the actual arguments against the counterplan. 103)Contextual analysis inevitable: its quite possible to pass conflicting legislation at the same time. only a contextual lense of how they would interact on the books can show competition, makig our method best. 104)Encourages shifty debate: adding ‘reject plan’ to bottom of counterplan text makes any counterplan textually competitive. 105)Allows aff abuse: any ‘do both’ permutation would win a round because they don’t weigh whether the perm is net beneficial, destroying all negative counterplan ground which is uniquely key on such a broad topic. 106)Encourages and rewards bad plans: Vague plans undermine neg ground and offer the aff the advantage of clarifying later what the loose plan means. Both undermine balanced competition.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

32 Theory File

Scholars Lab

PICs Bad 1. Steals aff ground- arguing against a PIC forces us to argue against our own case, hurts o ur ability to offensively attack the CP, this ground is key to fairness 2. Breadth is better that Depth- focusing on a portion of the plan is not as educational as ev aluating it as a whole 3. Encourages vague plan writing- allowing PICs allows affirmatives to write plans that for ce generic strategies, that hurts education 4. PICs are regressive- allowing the neg to PIC out of one part of the plan justifies them doing the same in the block and the 2nr, this ruins debate as the debate is never about the topic but instead PICs that get out of aff offense, this ruins education 5. Clash- PICs limit aff arguments ruining clash within the debate decreasing education 6. Aff Predictability- the negative can PIC out of any country of sub-saharan Africa explodi ng the ground the aff has to defend, this ruins fairness 7. Reciprocity- There is no affirmative equal to PICs, they justify abusive perms like severa nce and intrinsic perms which makes debate unfair 8. Unpredictable Net Benefits- means we never have the pre-round preparation to garner of fense against the CP voter for ground loss, fairness and education 9. There is in-round abuse- The damage has been done- the 2AC strategy is dependent on t he 1NC, even if you don’t buy this Potential Abuse is a voter A. In round abuse is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention ruining fairness B. If we win our interpretation is best it proves why what the other team has done de serves to be rejected 10. Argumentative Responsibility- reject the team, time skew proves the unique abuse of PI Cs, it limits the aff in the round, the affirmative must defend all of the plan so should the ne gative voter for fairness 11. PICs are not real world- Bills are amended, not rejected based on a singular flaw 12. Disads check neg ground loss- if there is one portion of our plan they think is bad they c an run a DA on it

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008

33 Theory File

Scholars Lab

PICs Good 1) Checks Inherit Aff advantages – Aff picks the focus of the round, speaks first and last and gets infinite prep. 2) Most real world – Bills in congress must defend every word in them, the same should apply to the Aff plan 3) Best Policy Option – if we win that the counterplan is competitive and better than the plan then it shouldn't matter how the CP works. 4) Competition checks abuse –the net benefit must have links to the plan with real impacts 5) Neg Ground – PICs are the only way the negative can generate offense against a racism bad aff. Without them, the negative would have to defend fundamentally untrue arguments like racism good. 6) Net benefits checks abuse – net benefits are a unique reason not to do the plan, and the Aff always has offense on the net benefit. 7) No potential abuse – In round abuse arguments answer in round abuse, there is no reason to abuse the negative for something that didn’t happen 8) plan

Not a voting issue – at worst you reject the CP and evaluate the net benefit against the

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

34 Theory File

International Actor Fiat Bad International counterplans are a voter 107)Not germane to the resolution a. Doesn’t disprove aff. The reasons that the US should increase assistance are based on the actions and inactions of others. b. Not real world. No policymaker would be able to choose between the US and their actor. This kills clash and education because there’s no comparative lit. 108)Justifies object fiat. Sudan stopping genocide would solve better, but neg would win every round. 109)Reciprocity. Aff is limited to the US. International fiat gives them 200 actors. 110)Regressive. Impossible for aff to prep if the neg can counterplan any agent. 111)Core Education. Their counterplan discusses the agent, which is the same every year, rather than the merits of our action. 112)Research burden. We can’t get lit on 200 countries. This kills clash because we can’t engage their solvency or net benefits. 113)Their interps arbitrary. Our interp is predictable because we limit to the resolution’s agent. Their interp would always just be ours plus their cp, so they don’t limit out anything. 114)Checks neg bias. c. Topic. No aff advantage areas. d. Generics. Ks, politics, and domestic agent cps link to everything. e. Structural. The neg block puts the 1ar at a time disadvantage, preventing good arguments for the 1ar or good extensions for the 2ar. And, the defense 115)Not a key limit. Domestic agents, different mechanisms, and topicality check unlimited affs. 116)Not key ground. Neg gets any DA or K that links and any domestic counterplan. 117)No international education. The net benefits solve if they’re germane to the aff. 118)Not ethnocentric. Other countries still act, we just can’t fiat them.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

35 Theory File

International Actor Fiat Good OUR INTERPRETATIONThe negative can read one competitive policy option which advocates the action of an internationally recognized government or coalition of governments on the condition that the counter plan does not use fiat to eliminate the harms of the affirmative. DEFENSE 1. Predictable- There may be many international actors, but literature limits the number of viable options for the neg. 2. Reasonable research burden- The aff doesn’t have to find evidence indicating every other country is bad, only that the US is the best. 3. Reciprocity- The aff can pick harms area, solvency mechanism, advantages and any of their permutations. The neg should be able to pick any international actor to do the plan. 4. Preserves aff ground- The aff can use the risk of a solvency deficit to weigh advantages against the CP just like they must win the risk of a no-link to weigh case against a “DAturns case” argument 5. Checks aff side bias- Infinite prep and first and last speech justify OFFENSE 1. Key to test to test the resolution- International actor fiat tests the words “United States federal government.” 2. Increases education- We learn about the USFG through comparative political analysis of US foreign policy as it compares to other nations’ policies. We learn about two nations, doubling education 3. Real world- International and national actors both present viable actors to transnational issues. This is magnified by the foreign nature of the topic. 4. Promotes critical thinking through solvency focus- Solvency education is more important than harms education because it allows us to evaluate single problems with multiple approaches to solutions, increasing problem solving skills.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

36 Theory File

Intrinsicness Perms Good First is our offense: 1. Key to checking abusive counterplans – Keeping the equity of the debate. 2. Force debate about the Aff – checks neg from running generic arguments. Forcing negative to research case specific strategies increasing education 3. Improves research burden on the negative – intrinsicness perms make the neg research all possible ways their impacts can be solved. This improves clash and creates more actor specific knowledge. 4. Increases critical thinking – forces teams to think quickly and effectively to answer strategic permutations. Now the defense1. 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.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 Scholars Lab

37 Theory File

Intrinsicness Perms Bad Intrinsicness is bad and a voting issue: 1. Decrease clash in rounds- allows the affirmative to get out of every disad or counterplan with the intrinsic permutation; it discourages participation within the activity. 2. The perm makes the aff a moving target- the permutation advocates the plan and other action that the 1AC does not endorse. Stable plans are key to predictable ground and strategy. 3. Infinitely regressive- The permutation could do the plan, the counterplan, and create world peace or feed the hungry in Africa, the negative would never be able to predict which of the thousands of different ways the affirmative could add something to the perm to get around the net benefits 4. Time and strategy skew- allowing intrinsicness perms takes all the time the negative spent developing the net benefit and the affirmative can just test their way out of it, this increases the aff side bias and is akin to doubling the 1AR's speech time 5. The perms allow for extra topical plans - which are bad for debate, because the aff can always claim to be topical by adding on extra planks to their plan text. 6. It's a voter for fairness and education.