Wham Theory

SDI 2006 GHD

1 Theory

Theory Theory.............................................................................................................................................................................1 Neg Fiat Good.................................................................................................................................................................2 Neg Fiat Bad...................................................................................................................................................................3 Agent CP’s Good............................................................................................................................................................4 Agent CP’s Bad...............................................................................................................................................................5 PIC’s Good......................................................................................................................................................................6 PIC’s Bad........................................................................................................................................................................7 Dispositional CP’s Good.................................................................................................................................................8 Dispositional CP’s Bad...................................................................................................................................................9 Dispositional PIC’s Good..............................................................................................................................................10 Dispositional PIC’s Bad................................................................................................................................................11 Conditional Advocacies Good......................................................................................................................................12 Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.)......................................................................................................13 Conditional Advocacies Bad.........................................................................................................................................14 Consult CP’s Good........................................................................................................................................................15 Consult CP’s Bad..........................................................................................................................................................16 2NC Counterplans Good...............................................................................................................................................17 2NC CP’s Bad...............................................................................................................................................................18 Textual Competition Best..............................................................................................................................................19 Functional Competition Best........................................................................................................................................20 50 State Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................................21 50 State Fiat Bad...........................................................................................................................................................22 International Fiat Good.................................................................................................................................................23 International Fiat Bad....................................................................................................................................................24 Multiple Actor Fiat Good..............................................................................................................................................25 Multiple Actor Fiat Bad................................................................................................................................................26 Object Fiat Good...........................................................................................................................................................27 Object Fiat Bad.............................................................................................................................................................28 Utopian Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................................29 Utopian Fiat Bad...........................................................................................................................................................30 Performance Contradictions Good................................................................................................................................31 Performance Contradictions Bad..................................................................................................................................32 Severance Perms Good.................................................................................................................................................33 Severance Perms Bad....................................................................................................................................................34 Severance Perms Good (Representations)....................................................................................................................35 Severance Perms Bad (Representations).......................................................................................................................36 Intrinsic Perms Good....................................................................................................................................................37 Intrinsic Perms Bad.......................................................................................................................................................38 Vagueness Good............................................................................................................................................................39 Vagueness Bad..............................................................................................................................................................40 Test Case Fiat Good......................................................................................................................................................41 Test Case Fiat Bad.........................................................................................................................................................42 ASPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................43 AT: ASPEC....................................................................................................................................................................44 OSPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................45 AT: OSPEC...................................................................................................................................................................46 Floating PIK’s Good.....................................................................................................................................................47 Floating PIK’s Bad........................................................................................................................................................48 No Text to Alt Good......................................................................................................................................................49 No text to Alt Bad.........................................................................................................................................................50 Err Neg on Theory........................................................................................................................................................51 Err Aff on Theory..........................................................................................................................................................52

SDI 2006 GHD

2 Theory

Neg Fiat Good Long Shell 1. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole resolution, reciprocally, It’s now only the negatives job to disprove the plan. 1. Its Recipricol, the neg should get fiat too 2. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan. 3. More real world, trains us to find the best policy option 4. It’s predictable and widely accepted in debate. 5. Turn- Increases aff ground they can read disads to the CP 6. You cant make the negative defend the racist, sexist status quo if a case might just be true. 7. Aff gets to choose the topic of debate, has unlimited prep time, higher win percentage and first and last speech, the neg needs counterplans 8. Lit checks fiat abuse 9. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP Short Shell 1. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole resolution, reciprocally, It’s now only the negatives job to disprove the plan. 2. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan- if the aff passes then we can no longer do the CP. 3. Reciprocity- the aff gets it so should the negative. 4. You cant make the negative defend the racist, sexist status quo if a case might just be true. 5. Lit checks fiat abuse 6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

SDI 2006 GHD

3 Theory

Neg Fiat Bad 1. Kills aff ground- every problem has more than one solution 2. Time skew, we have show the harms in the squo and defend a plan of action, the negative gets 8 minutes just to build on our work 3. No resolution mandate- fiat comes from the should in the resolution for the affirmative 4. No restriction on fiat- the aff only gets the USFG, the negative gets everyone else in the world 5. Moots the 1AC, we argue whether or not the CP solves rather than should we pass the aff plan. 6. Voter for Fairness

SDI 2006 GHD

4 Theory

Agent CP’s Good The Offense… 1. Key to negative ground, half of all CP’s run are agent CP’s 2. Tests the affirmative plan- 90% of policy is implementation, we prove their policy is 90% bad Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605, 1980 The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter 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.

3. Gives the affirmative ground- They can run any DA’s they have to our agent 4. Makes the aff defend their plan, why would they specify ____________ if we can’t have a debate on it. The Defense… 1. Its predictable, they’re constantly run and we didn’t pick some obscure actor 2. Lit checks abuse- There aren’t many agencies that someone will advocate should do the plan 3. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole resolution, reciprocally, It’s now only the negatives job to disprove the plan. 4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

SDI 2006 GHD

5 Theory

Agent CP’s Bad 1. The CP is topical, they’re affirming the resolution and taking out topical ground 2. Bad for education- kills critical thinking, and we argue courts v. congress every year instead of the resolution. 3. Steals aff ground and forces us to debate against ourselves. 4. There are 140 agencies just under the USFG they can choose- unfair neg bias. 5. Justifies stupid arguments as time sucks- The FDA wouldn’t pass the plan get over it. 6. Voter for fairness and education

SDI 2006 GHD

6 Theory

PIC’s Good Offense: 1. Make the aff defend their whole plan, they’ve had infinite prep to find what would best advantage them 2. Depth better than breadth: Plan focus makes better debate on key issues of the topic 3. Key to check extra-topical plan planks 4. Forces better plan writing- they’ll learn to defend against PIC’s 5. Education- Our literature proves that this is a legitimate option to learn about and its most real world, this is how congressmen propose policy; a. Real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that gets taken beyond each round and b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules Defense: 1. Most counterplans are PICS anyway: They use the same agent in the USFG and are enforced the same way. 2. Details are not trivial details: Separation of powers, federalism, etc are the key to the country, not just random stuff 3. Net benefits check abuse: part of the plan has a disad to it—defend it, turn the net benefit 4. Aff chooses the ground for debate- They get the plan we get everything else. 5. Not a reason we should lose: reject the counterplan, give us back that status quo

SDI 2006 GHD

7 Theory

PIC’s Bad 1. Infinite regression: You can PIC out of my friend Ben, the aff has no reason that doesn’t solve case and they get a linear risk of a disad to coercian 2. Time Skew: Moots the 1AC speech time 3. Education: Gets to the point where Depth is ridiculous, focuses on a trivial detail. 4. Strategy skew: We get no offense off of 90% of our case. Forces us to Debate ourselves. 5. Voter for Fairness and education

SDI 2006 GHD

8 Theory

Dispositional CP’s Good Offense 1. Increases breadth of TOPIC SPECIFIC education- we learn about a lot quickly if we can talk about more. 2. Best policy option- If we can prove the CP is a better, competitive policy option- you vote for it 3. Most real world- If a Senator proposes a bill he’s later convinced is bad he can stop advocating it 4. Checks back aff advantage- We need some leverage against unforeseen parts of their case- they’ve got infinite prep. 5. Perms are worse- They operate in more worlds Defense 1. The ball’s in their court- all they have to do is not perm or say dispo bad and were stuck with it 2. This equates to saying DA’s bad, we routinely kick disads, kritiks and case turns 3. Reciprocol- aff can kick advantages that aren’t strategic 4. 2NR checks abuse- We have one advocacy in the 2NR, they have an equal time to disprove it in the last speech 5. Time and strat skews inevitable and unquantifiable- smarter, faster teams are out there 6. Err neg on theory- Aff gets infinite prep, first and last speech, and higher winning percentage. 7. Reject the CP not the team

SDI 2006 GHD

9 Theory

Dispositional CP’s Bad Offense 1. Just conditionality in disguise- the neg knows we cant strategically straight turn it. 2. Kills in depth education- We don’t analyze 2 competing policies. 3. Reciprocity- The aff will only have one advocacy, the neg gets an infinite number of combinations. Justifies affirmatie conditionality, severance and intrinsic perms 4. Infinitly regressive- Neg can run an infinite number of CP’s and defend the squo, they’ll just force us to perm 5. Moving target- We cant test their advocacy if we don’t know what position they take, kills predictability and fairness 6. Race to the bottom- If you want a debate where its just who reads the most impact turns v. net benefits than accept dispo, forcing straight turns is bad. 7. Voter for fairness Defense 1. Straight turns don’t check abuse- Its suicide not to perm the CP, we have not lit. base for offense 2. Perms don’t check abuse- It’s a test of competitiveness not an advocacy, this justifies severance and intrinsic perms

SDI 2006 GHD

10 Theory

Dispositional PIC’s Good Offense 1. Best policy option- If we can prove the CP is a better, competitive policy option- you vote for it 2. Checks back aff advantages- We need some leverage against unforeseen parts of their case- they’ve got infinite prep. 3. Make the aff defend their whole plan, they’ve had infinite prep to find what would best advantage them 4. Key to check extra-topical plan planks 5. Most real world- bill amendments in congress are dispositional PICS, congressmen say what they want out of the bill, but don’t have to stick to it c. Real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that gets taken beyond each round and d. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules Defense: 1. Not uniquely abusive, there’s no real reason why dispo pics are worse than regular dispositional CP’s or unconditional PIC’s- They have to prove both of these are bad before this is a legit argument 2. Not a voter- It’s an argument to reject the CP

SDI 2006 GHD

11 Theory

Dispositional PIC’s Bad 1. Dispo PIC’s are conditionality in disguise, they do part of our plan so we have to permconditionality bad it’s a time and strat skew 2. We can’t straight turn the CP because we don’t have the case offense against it- we’re not going to put the debate on one defensive answer 3. Voter for fairness

SDI 2006 GHD

12 Theory

Conditional Advocacies Good Offense 1. Key to negative flexibility – which is key to fairness because it offsets aff infinite prep, last speech and moral high ground like racism and genocide 2. Increases aff strategic thinking – the 2A has to decide where to best spend time 3. Finds the best policy option 4. Most real world – bills get rejected in congress all the time and the status quo is always an option for any policymaker, no reasonable policymaker should HAVE TO cause between 3 nuclear wars or 4 nuclear wars instead of doing nothing. a. Real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that gets taken beyond each round and b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules 5. Counter interpretation- we should be allowed one conditional counterplan, we avoid their regress abuse standards and capture our real world standards. Defense 1. Err neg on theory, aff biases 2. Reject the argument, not the team 3. The 2NR checks abuse, we’ll go for one reason to reject the aff, they’ll have the last speech to say why not. 4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP AT Strategy Skew 1. Time and strat skews are inevitable; smarter, faster, more efficient teams are out there 2. Multiple perms check back abuse 3. Forces better aff decision making, hard debates are good debates that increase education AT Aff conditionality/not reciprocal 1. They get multiple conditional perms – it is reciprocal 2. Aff conditionality not okay – our 1NC strat is based on a stable plan text AT Conditionality same reasons as infinite counterplans 1. Breadth is good because it allows application of education 2. Breadth can turn into depth because issues overlap and there are finite things that even apply to the topic 3. Hyperspecificity bad, causes limited research base which kills clash and strategic thinking – depth taken to its logical extreme destroys education AT Counter Interp; Dispo ( ) Dispo is identical to conditionality b/c we could force perms, so we meet their counter interpretation

SDI 2006 GHD

13 Theory

Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.) Offense 1. Key for negative flexibility – checks aff bias, last speech and moral high ground ensuring fairness 2. Key to the search for the best option – if we weren’t allowed to run arguments at different levels we would foreclose hundreds of educational possibilities 3. More real world – multiple bills to solve the same issue happen in congress, and passing none of them is always an option, a. real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that helps debaters beyond the context of debate and… b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed Defense 1. It’s a perfectly reciprocal world – the aff has equal amount of offense, our interpretation is we only get 1 counterplan and 1 critical objection 2. Framework arguments are not multiple advocacies – the 1AC has two portions to it: the assumption that legislation is the best way to solve and the specific plan that it proposes 3. Conceding neg framework and going for impact turns would allow the aff to choose which world to debate in which solves all their offense 4. Not a voter- reject the argument not the team

SDI 2006 GHD

14 Theory

Conditional Advocacies Bad Offense 1. Not reciprocal- we cant run multiple plans to find the best example of the resolution 2. Time and strat skew: They could read 14 CP texts and we’d have to at least cover them all so they don’t develop one in the block. 3. Moving Target bad- Hurts fairness as well as education, we don’t know what the issues in the debate are until the 2NR. 4. Most real world- Policy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation and I’ve never seen a senator unroll a list of 30 bills he/she might advocate that day 5. Makes for sloppy debate- Instead of creating effective strategies, negs can just guess and check 6. Voter for fairness and education Defense: 1. Who says neg flexibility is good, the already have a thousand kritiks and disads, random T violations, and whatever CP they run as long as its dispo. 2. Perm doesn’t check abuse: It’s just a test of competitiveness, advocated perms justify intrinsicness.

SDI 2006 GHD

15 Theory

Consult CP’s Good Offense 1. Real world Education- We increase the breadth of education- we shouldn’t be ignorant of international politics and interactions between nations a. Real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that gets taken beyond each round and b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules 2. Ground- Key to help the negative defend against cases that isolate true instances of things like racism, sexism and injustice. 3. Generics key to check back squirrelly affs. 4. Key test of resolved, the CP is offense against the resolution 5. Ground preserved in the literature- Consultation gives them ground for solvency deficits, DA’s, and impact turns to relations- they just have to research the consulted actor Defense 1. Counter Interpretation- Consult counterplans are uniquely justified by the literature of the topic- if we win that our solvency advocate mandates the necessity for consultation, the CP is legit. Solves back their infinite regression and education standards while capturing our ground and education standards. 2. Literature checks abuse- No authors advocate we consult Gary Coleman on National Service 3. Not delay- We won’t non unique or no link your disad based on timeframe- we defend the immediacy of plan passage. 4. Research inevitable- We could’ve just run a relations disad with the same actor. 5. Err neg on theory- Aff gets first and last speech, infinite prep, and higher win percentage 6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

SDI 2006 GHD

16 Theory

Consult CP’s Bad 1. Infinitely regressive- The aff cant predict an infinite number of consultable actors and plan modifications 2. Time and strat skew- They moot every second of the 1AC, we only get one constructive to generate offense 3. Multiple actor fiat illegit –The aff is stuck with only the USFG. This gives the negative one more advantage. 4. Future fiat is illegit- This proves the CP is delay and magnifies why consult CP’s are bad --the Neg can non-unique DA’s to the CP because its passed later after consultation 5. Conditional fiat creates a double bind—if we argue that they’ll say no, the negative can concede the CP and use our evidence as a relations DA. Forces us to debate against ourselves 6. Modifications bad- Unpredictable standard for competition and no one has literature for solvency- killing clash and educational debate. 7.

Education- Consult CP’s void the round of topic specific education to debate non germane net benefits from thousands of potential actors.

SDI 2006 GHD

17 Theory

2NC Counterplans Good 2NC counterplans are legitimate because it’s a constructive and key to offset unfair 2AC add-ons and to finding the best policy First is Defense 1. It’s a constructive 2. Time and strat skews inevitable, faster, smarter teams exist 3. Argument development answers aren’t responsive, otherwise the aff would always get the last word on impacts 4. It’s reciprocal strategy skew- They introduced new argument development in the 2AC 5. Not uniquely abusive, another DA or solvency takeouts would be as much of a burden 6. Not a voter- It’s an argument to reject the CP not the team Next is offense 1. Key to prevent sandbagging – 2NC counterplans check affs that save their best advantages for the 2AC and skew neg strategy 2. Key against vague plan texts- you can’t know what the aff includes until they’re second constructive 3. Key to finding the best policy option, seeing how the debate develops leads to the best proposal, which is the vital internal link to education 4. Education outweighs fairness because it’s intrinsically good and the point of debate, if we discover how to increase education, the rules can be restructured 5. Most real world. If Bill Frist says wait don’t vote on ANWR I know how we can solve global warming, Senate won’t say shut up Bill you’re too late. (Ted Kennedy and they might.)

SDI 2006 GHD

18 Theory

2NC CP’s Bad First is Offense 1. Kills aff strategy- We cant read new add ons or arguments to leverage against the CP in the 1AR 2. Time Skew- We have to answer a brand new off case argument along with everything else from the 1NC 3. Bad for education- They throw out 33 minutes of this debate we could spend developing comparisons between the policies- You cant develop analysis well in the 1AR 4. Moots our entire 2AC, they could just change their CP to get out of our DA’s and solve better. 5. Not reciprocal- It’d be like us changing our plan text in the 2AC. 6. Voter For fairness And the Defense 1. Sandbagging hurts the aff, we cant develop our advantage for the judge 2. Not key to finding the best policy- They could’ve read the CP in the 1NC and we’d have more time to analyze it. 3. Fairness outweighs education- if debate had no rules education would be about nonsense, and debates still a game, you know you want to win. 4. Not justified by 2AC add-ons, a new impact to their CP is justified, not a new advocacy. 5. Give the 1AR leeway

SDI 2006 GHD

19 Theory

Textual Competition Best 1. Predictable- Plan is the focus of the debate. Text is most predictable because it is the only stable, distinct advocacy, argument changes everything else 2. Fairness- Functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from intent creating an unpredictable moving target. 3. Forces better plan writing—better for negative ground on all issues and better debate to avoid procedural and vagueness debates.

SDI 2006 GHD

20 Theory

Functional Competition Best 1. Textual Doesn’t test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldn’t compete because the aff could just write not into their perm text to prove lack of competetiveness 2. More real world- Congressmen fight over how bills will function, not the words theyre written in 3. Predictable- The function of the CP is limited by normal means and the literature, if our ev. Says the CP competes, the aff should defend it 4. Textual encourages vague plan writing. Affs would write their plan texts vague enough to interpret that any CP isn’t textually competitive 5. Any CP can textually compete- you could literally rephrase the plan text and it would function the same in the real world.

SDI 2006 GHD

21 Theory

50 State Fiat Good Offense: 1. Less fiat abuse- The aff fiats a federal policy and state compliance, no program is isolated from the states. We just take out one stage of fiat 2. Increases education on interactions between state and federal governments and federalism 3. The resolution says the USFG should, this is a key test of whether or not the USFG should act. Defense: 1. Predictable: The topic mandates it, the states are heavily involved in national service 2. Fiat checks moving target- We defend the immediate plan passage through the states 3. Its reciprocal- We fiat policy on one level, so do they 4. Fair enough- Were using a domestic actor on a domestic topic- International fiat is much worse by comparison 5. Its real world- Governors meet at least twice a year to dicuss implementation of national policy at the National Governors Conference. Daniel J. Evans, 1974, Governor of Washington, EXECUTIVE ORDER 74-08, Advisory Council on State Government Productivity, http://www.governor.wa.gov/actions/orders/eoarchive/eo74-08.htm The National Governors' Conference first met in 1908. The Conference has played an increasingly vital role in vigorously representing the interests of the states in the federal system. At the last meeting of the Governors in Washington, D. C., on March 6-7, 1974 it was determined to revise the operations of the National Governors' Conference to strengthen even further the conference by reorganizing it to better meet the needs of the states and by allocating to it increased state resources in order to enhance its capacity to implement national policy objectives of the nation's governors. As an instrumentality of the State of Washington and of all the states, the work of the National Governors' Conference is also the work of Washington State government. The time for state government to acquire its rightful status as a full partner in the federal system will never be more opportune. I totally support the moves to strengthen the National Governors' Conference and I share the conviction of my fellow governors that the National Governors' Conference is the best vehicle to guarantee a role for the State of Washington and for all the states in the determination of national policy.

6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

SDI 2006 GHD

22 Theory

50 State Fiat Bad 1. Multiple actor fiat is illegit- The aff only gets one actor, the USFG, and the neg can get advantage off of the unanimous state decision- we don’t fiat that everyone is congress has to vote for the plan. 2. Justifies object fiat- If you can fiat 50 states you can fiat that the 50 most dangerous countries disarm 3. 50 State fiat is utopian fiat- Every state has never acted all at once like the CP before 4. No literature base kills education- No one advocates all 50 states making one action at the same time. 5. Moving target- No guarantee on simultaneous and consistent state action- meaning disads apply to some states but not others 6. Kills education on the resolution- if you tolerate process education every year, we learn nothing new 7. Voter for fairness and education

SDI 2006 GHD

23 Theory

International Fiat Good Offense; 1. Resolution basis- You have to defend that the USFG should act 2. Most real world- Congress doesn’t debate an action if Britain will do it for them 3. Come out from under that rock- The US isn’t the only country that does things, this is key to real world education. a. real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that helps debaters beyond the context of debate and… b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed 4. Their ignorance justifies imperialism and racism- The US isn’t the only actor in the world, its not our job to fix everything. Defense 1. Not outside judges jurisdiction- The theory of opportunity cost, the US can’t do it if another country already did or will 2. Not the same as object fiat- we don’t fiat the country causing your harms 3. Its reciprocal- the aff defends one actor, so do we 4. Lit checks abuse- No one writes that the Vatican should do your plan 5. Perm checks abuse- If the policy isn’t competitive, the perm takes away all abuse, otherwise its fair anyway. 6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

SDI 2006 GHD

24 Theory

International Fiat Bad 1. Impossible research burden- There are 192 countries that could pass the plan that we’d have to research 2. No resolution mandate- The judge is meant to be in the position of a US policymaker, he/she has no jurisdiction over what Swaziland does. 3. Not real world- No policy maker has ever had the choice of whether the US or Cambodia should pass a policy 4. Not reciprocal- the aff only has the USFG 5. Justifies object fiat- If they can fiat other countries, they can just fiat our war scenarios away 6. Voter for fairness and education

SDI 2006 GHD

25 Theory

Multiple Actor Fiat Good Offense: 1. Were handing them ground- every new actor is new disad links and reasons why we might not solve 2. Most real world- Even Napoleon worked together with others, we increase education about how actors interact. Defense: 1. Negative ground: Who cares if it’s a lot of ground, neg has a right to everything outside the resolution 2. Every policy has multiple actors- Agencies in the USFG as well as implementing agents at the state and local levels. 3. No infinite regress: Reject it when it happens- were not saying Zimbabwe and my friend Howie should do the plan 4. Counter interpretation- There’s no abuse if the substance of the CP would normally be processed through multiple actors. 5. Reject the argument not the team

SDI 2006 GHD

26 Theory

Multiple Actor Fiat Bad 1. Not reciprocal- We only have the USFG, they get huge advantage ground we can never access. 2. If we want to get advantage off of two actors- we have to have evidence on modeling 3. Unpredictable- There are hundreds of agencies in the US as well as hundreds more in each of 192 countries, that’s an infinite number of combinations we’d have to research 4. Artificially competitive- Since there’s more than one actor there’s no standard of opportunity cost, meaning the CP isn’t a reason to reject the affirmative 5. Voter for fairness and competitive equity

SDI 2006 GHD

27 Theory

Object Fiat Good Note: First say why you don’t use object fiat, cuz it pretty much sucks-you aren’t going to win this theory Object fiat isn’t so bad 1. Its still negative ground- we have all advocacy outside the resolution 2. No bright line- The aff can’t say what too much fiat is 3. Forces affirmative critical thinking- best for education learn to think under pressure a. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed 4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative

SDI 2006 GHD

28 Theory

Object Fiat Bad 1. Aff never wins: The neg can just fiat away the aff harms with guaranteed solvency then have a risk of a politics disad. 2. Not reciprocal- Aff can’t fiat away disads, we have one advocacy 3. It fiats solvency- We lose our best offense against the CP because they automatically solve 100% 4. No standard of opportunity cost: They say the USFG shouldn’t act to stop genocide because that war shouldn’t be happening in the first place. 5. Vote down the Neg for fairness, otherwise counter planning “no war” is a no risk option.

SDI 2006 GHD

29 Theory

Utopian Fiat Good 1. Utopian thinking is good- Imagining Utopia makes progression possible. Streeten 1999 (Paul, Econ prof @ Boston, Development, v. 42, n. 2, p 118) First, Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analysis. Just as physicists assume an atmospheric vacuum for some purposes, so policy analysts can assume a political vacuum from which they can start afresh. The physicists’ assumption plainly would not be useful for the design of parachutes, but can serve other purposes well. Similarly, when thinking of tomorrow’s problems, Utopianism is not helpful. But for long-term strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the Utopian vision gives a sense of direction, which can get lost in approaches that are preoccupied with the feasible. In a world that is regarded as the second-best of all feasible worlds, everything becomes a necessary constraint. All vision is lost. Third, excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo. In negotiations, it strengthens the hand of those opposed to any reform. Unless the case for change can be represented in the same detail as the case for no change, it tends to be lost. Fourth, it is sometimes the case that the conjuncture of circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of forces, unexpectedly, turns out to be favourable to even radical innovation. Unless we are prepared with a carefully worked out, detailed plan, that yesterday could have appeared utterly Utopian, the reformers will lose out by default. Only a few years ago nobody would have expected the end of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany, the break-up of Yugoslavia, the marketization of China, the end of apartheid in South Africa. And the handshake on the White House lawn between Mr Peres and Mr Arafat. Fifth, the Utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure group, countervailing the self interested pressures of the obstructionist groups. Ideas thought to be Utopian have become realistic at moments in history when large numbers of people support them, and those in power have to yield to their demands. The demand for ending slavery is a historical example. It is for these five reasons that Utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their proposals and from thinking the unthinkable, unencumbered by the inhibitions and obstacles of political constraints. They should elaborate them in the same detail that the defenders of the status quo devote to its elaboration and celebration. Utopianism and idealism will then turn out to be the most realistic vision. It is well known that there are three types of economists: those who can count and those who can’t. But being able to count up to two, I want to distinguish between two types of people. Let us call them, for want of a better name, the Pedants and the Utopians. The names are due to Peter Berger, who uses them in a different context. The Pedants or technicians are those who know all the details about the way things are and work, and they have acquired an emotional vested interest in keeping them this way. I have come across them in the British civil service, in the bureaucracy of the World Bank, and elsewhere. They are admirable people but they are conservative, and no good companions for reform. On the other hand, there are the Utopians, the idealists, the visionaries who dare think the unthinkable. They are also admirable, many of them young people. But they lack the attention to detail that the Pedants have. When the day of the revolution comes, they will have entered it on the wrong date in their diaries and fail to turn up, or, if they do turn up, they will be on the wrong side of the barricades. What we need is a marriage between the Pedants and the Utopians, between the technicians who pay attention to the details and the idealists who have the vision of a better future. There will be tensions in combining the two, but they will be creative tensions. We need Pedantic Utopian Pedants who will work out in considerable detail the ideal world and ways of getting to it, and promote the good cause with informed fantasy. Otherwise, when the opportunity arises, we shall miss it for lack of preparedness and lose out to the opponents of reform, to those who want to preserve the status quo.

2. Education and activism outweigh fairness- its what helps debaters beyond the context of the debate. And if we find a way to maximize education and make the world better than the rules should be changed. 3. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative

SDI 2006 GHD

30 Theory

Utopian Fiat Bad 1. Least real world argument in debate: they fiat a serious of actions and actors that would never happena. real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that helps debaters beyond the context of debate and… b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed 2. Ground- we don’t get to argue alternative solvency. 3. Aff would never win- every round we’d hit a kritik of biopower, the state, capitalism, racism, sexism, and Michael Jackson and the neg would just fiat it all away, 4. Their unrealistic use of fiat justifies literally fiating a utopian world- WE CANT COMPETE AGAINST UTOPIA- we could stop a thousand nuclear wars and still not beat the perfect world. 5. Voter for fairness, education, and the fact that its just a bad idea.

SDI 2006 GHD

31 Theory

Performance Contradictions Good Offense: 1. Negation theory- Debate has changed the affirmative doesn’t defend the whole resolution so we only have to prove the plan is a bad idea. 2. Both arguments are reasons why the affirmative is bad, even if one proves the other is bad, nothing shows the affirmative is good 3. Increases educationa. They can argue both arguments independently and we learn twice as much b. Most real world- congressmen give multiple reasons why a plan could be bad c. We educate on all the reasons why the plan’s a bad idea 4. Key to our ground- We need to debate with contradictions to show the affirmative is a bad idea on multiple fronts. 5. Its an “even if” situation, we argue that the affirmative is bad because of the K, but even if they win that argument the CP proves they’re bad. Were not going to put all our eggs in one basket. 6. Increases critical thinking- Both teams have to think strategically about how to attack each position most effectively Defense: 1. The 2NR checks back any abuse and defines the negative strategy 2. If there’s really a perf con they could just concede one side and cross apply those arguments to the other, but there’s no double turn in the negatives postions. 3. No abuse- We don’t prevent the aff from making arguments on either flow that would make sense 4. They can straight turn and stick us with one postion. 5. Aff bias checks abuse- They’ve had infinite prep to block each position individually.

SDI 2006 GHD

32 Theory

Performance Contradictions Bad 1. Kills education a. Forces us to debate against ourselves with contradictions- makes debate sloppy and thoughtless b. Neg can invest very little time in one position just to solidify the link on their other 2. Strategy skew, the negative can kick one position and cross apply our arguments as affirmative suicide 3. Makes us grant a link even if we don’t and we have to argue for their CP to argue the K. 4. False advocacies bad- This proves they don’t believe their arguments, makes for bad debate as well as bad political activism 5. Concedes perm solvency on the K, if the CP is justified, then so is the plan 6. Their positions are conditional 7. 2NR doesn’t check abuse- We base our offense off of the 1NC, by the 2NR were already screwed. 8. Voter for fairness

SDI 2006 GHD

33 Theory

Severance Perms Good Note: Don’t admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isn’t Offense 1. Best policy option- If the best policy is the aff minus one minute detail, you still affirm 2. Key to check neg block bias- we need to protect the 1AR 3. If its topical its our ground Defense 1. The perm’s legit as long as we don’t sever out of planks of the plan necessary for solvency. 2. More Real world, bills always have parts stricken from them. a. real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that helps debaters beyond the context of debate and… b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed 3. Reciprocal- If the neg gets to change the status quo, their entitlement, we get to change our plan. 4. Topicality checks abuse- we still have to be topical and that’s our ground. 5. Not a voter, it’s an argument why we shouldn’t get the perm

SDI 2006 GHD

34 Theory

Severance Perms Bad 1. If you have to take out part of the plan, the CP competes 2. Moving Target bad- They avoid clash and change the debate by severing out of DA links and the CP’s net benefits- huge time and strat skew, we base our 1NC strat off of the plan text. 3. This allows the affirmative to just advocate the CP in the 2AC, they have to win CP’s are bad to win the perm 4. Kills education- they can avoid any clash in policy comparison 5. The perm isn’t an advocacy, if you sever its no longer a test of competetiveness 6. If aff can advocate the perm, they no longer have to be topical. 7. Voter for Fairness

SDI 2006 GHD

35 Theory

Severance Perms Good (Representations) Offense 1. Best policy option- You vote for our advocacy aka the plan text, not our representations 2. Key to protect the 1AR from neg block bias 3. We still operate in topical ground, you’re still affirming if you vote on the perm Defense 1. The plan text is our advocacy, the reasons we advocate don’t have to stay fixed 2. We don’t justify racist discourse- reject it when it happens, speaker points and judge intervention check. 3. It’s reciprocal- The neg gets to kick DA’s, K’s and reasons to not advocate the plan, we get to kick justifications for the plan. 4. No ground loss- If their links are true they can prove our representations either still stand, or would be replicated in a fiated plan passage. 5. Not a voter- at best it’s a reason we don’t get the perm

SDI 2006 GHD

36 Theory

Severance Perms Bad (Representations) 1. 90% of K debates are representation based, they can sever out of any K links 2. Make them defend their entire 1AC, if they say 7 minutes of good things and then 3 minutes of racist slander you wouldn’t let them sever out of it 3. Just as bad as plan text severance- K’s are to representations as DA’s are to the plan 4. Encourages vague plan writing- If the negative is only stuck to their text they’ll write vague plans that they can weasel out of DA and CP links 5. Don’t treat it differently because its kritikal- Its just like severing a soft power advantage to get out of a soft power bad DA 6. The perm is no longer a test of competitiveness- it’s an advocacy. 7. They have to sever out of their plan- The text carries their representations 8. The 1AC is the justification for plan passage, they prove that congressmen too would use this poor justification and lead to the impacts. 9. Voter for fairness

SDI 2006 GHD

37 Theory

Intrinsic Perms Good Note: Don’t admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isn’t Offense: 1. Most real world- If the USFG sees that their defense budget hurts the economy, they should still pass the defense budget to preserve the country then subsidize the economythat’s an intrinsic perm. 2. Neg ground- They get ground off of every new part we add to the plan 3. Promotes plan focus- The perm encourages the neg to stop running their solve all CP and research plan specific strategies. 4. Key to find the best policy option, if its a topical clarification of the plan then you vote aff Defense 1. We still prove the plan is a good idea, all the plan is in the perm. The net benefit to the CP isn’t intrinsic to the aff. 2. Its reciprocal- They add to the status quo with the CP to solve a disad, we add to the plan with the perm. 3. Not a shift of advocacy- just a clarification and test of competitiveness. 4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the perm

SDI 2006 GHD

38 Theory

Intrinsic Perms Bad 1. Not a perm, it’s a shift of advocacy. The perm is an add on to the plan not a test of competitiveness. 2. The aff can do anything to add an extra advantage- like perm do plan and feed the starving kids in Africa 3. Kills clash- The affirmative doesn’t have to defend an action just find another way to solve for disads. 4. They can always perm out of our net benefit, the neg never wins a counterplan 5. Creates a moving target- the 2AC can moot the first two speeches and change the focus of the debate. 6. Neg ground- Few if any disads are intrinsic to the affirmative plan. 7. If they get intrinsicness arguments then so do we- there are a thousand things in the squo that could solve for the affirmative harms, they just handed us a thousand winning conditional counterplans with no text. 8. Vote on it for fairness or let us have intrinsicness arguments too.

SDI 2006 GHD

39 Theory

Vagueness Good Offense 1. Education- We increase the breadth of topic specific education, we learn about a lot quickly with a bigger plan 2. Forces critical thinking- We make the negative listen to the entire 1AC to find the point of the case rather then just waiting for the plan text. Defense 1. The plan is a resolved text, not a bill in front of congress 2. No in round abuse- Don’t let them tell you what they couldn’t run, if they ran it with this theory it would be suicide for us to “clarify” out of links 3. Topicality checks abuse- If we add an untopical action to our plan in the 2AC, they can run T in the 2NC 4. If were topical, you vote aff and affirm the resolution, we can be vague and still affirm 5. Were still topical- we can never meet their interpretation of resolved because they’d just say they have doubts about the plan

SDI 2006 GHD

40 Theory

Vagueness Bad 1. Moving target bad- Vague plans allow the affirmative to weasel out of DA and CP links in the 2AC by “clarifying” their plan 2. Ground- We lose links to the affirmatives plan mechanism and links like spending that depend on a stable plan text. Also, CP competitiveness is impossible to interpret because we don’t know what the aff actually does. 3. Limits- The aff can claim a topical action but clarify later in the debate they do more. 4. Strat skew- Its irreversible damage; we base our 1NC strat off their disclosed plan text. 5. Not Topical under Resolved means to remove or dispel (doubts) American Heritage Dictionary in 2000 fourth addition accessed via dictionary.com

6. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 GHD

41 Theory

Test Case Fiat Good Offense 1. Education- We increase education on the process of certiorari and how the court functions 2. They overlimit- They don’t allow any cases under the resolution because none of them are currently in front of the Supreme Court. 3. Double bind- If they had links to a certain test case they could run them and say this would be the next available test case through normal means, otherwise there’s no abuse. Defense 1. Just like any other fiat- A bill has to be in front of congress for them to vote and someone has to draft the executive order for the president to sign. 2. This would be like saying an aff with a congress actor has to tell the bill that will be drafted as well as vote counts, sponsors, and co sponsors 3. No fiat abuse- The resolution mandates a should/would question that allows us to avoid procedure problems like test cases 4. Reciprocity- We don’t require your CP’s to give bills, test cases, or grounds for rulings 5. Not relevant in the real world- The court can pick and choose cases for what it wants to rule on, they’ve ordered parties to re-litigate when they don’t feel they get ground for what they want to rule. David O’Brien, Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics, 2000, p. 227-228. The current Court’s power to pick the cases it wants from a very large docket enables it to assume the role of a super legislature. The overwhelming number of cases on the docket involve indigents’ claims and issues of criminal procedure. Yet, as is indicated below, few are selected and decided on merits. Cases raising other issues of constitutional law have a better chance of being selected; so do cases involving statutory, administrative, and regulatory matters. These are all areas in which the government has an interest in legitimating its policies. The Court thus functions like a roving commission, selecting and deciding only issues of national importance for the governmental process.

WILLIAM J. Quirk, Professor of Legal Research at University of South Carolina Law School and R. RANDALL Bridwell, Professor of Law at University of South Carolina Law School, JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP, 1995, p. 29- 30. We would answer that the Court is the “least dangerous” branch as Alexander Hamilton said; it has no executive or legislative authority; it doesn’t make rules; it just decides cases that come before it. The trouble with our answer is that the Court is able to select the cases that come before it from a large number of them. The Court, at its 1992-93 term, refused to hear 7,233 cases while it decided to hear ninety- seven, or 1.3 percent. In 1950, on the other hand, the Court heard 10 percent of the cases brought to it which indicates it was then acting as a court of appeal over the lower federal courts. The Court’s power to pick from among such a large number of cases gives it the practical ability to rule on issues it thinks important, to act, in effect, as a Court of National Policy.

SDI 2006 GHD

42 Theory

Test Case Fiat Bad 1. Predictability- We can’t predict agents outside the resolution that are necessary to bring the case to lower courts and up to the Supreme Court 2. Ground- We can’t run specific links to test cases if they don’t specify what case they rule on 3. Limits- There are enough cases currently in front of the court- there are an infinite number that could possibly work up to the supreme court 4. Topicality- Aff can claim extra topical advantages off of the agent of action in lower courts etc. 5. Voter for fairness and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 GHD

43 Theory

ASPEC A. Interpretation- The aff must specify the agent First, the government consists of three branches: the legislative, the executive, or the judicial, Dictionary of Politics ‘79 Second, Resolved - To reach a decision or make a determination, American Heritage Dictionary 2000 B. Violation- The aff didn’t specify C. Reasons to prefer 1. Predictable limits - There are dozens of executive agencies that can regulate the authority of their personnel to search without probable cause and there is a split between congress and the courts in terms of legally restricting the authority. The literature on each of the agents is unique from other agents making later specification render a specific negative strategy null. 2. Ground–Specification key to DA links like politics and courts as well as process counterplans 3. Education- 90% of policy is implementation Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605, 1980 The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter 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.

4. Aff conditionality- They can skew our strategy by dodging out of DA links and CP competition we present in the 1NC 5. Most real world- The USFG isn’t an actor- all three branches cannot pass a policy as one. 6. Irreversible time skew - Granting us whatever links we presented doesn’t remedy the time skew - there was no way we could have predicted that they would have granted us these links and reading the shell was the only way to deter abuse. Punish them for altering our time and strategy. D. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 GHD

44 Theory

AT: ASPEC Counter-interpretation: normal means solves issues stemming from agent specification a. Solves offense, the negative can read evidence that says the plan will be done in certain way and then link to it b. Normal means solves the Elmore evidence, under normal means policies don’t lack direction or implementation. c. Solves all education about agents arguments, we just argue that the neg has to engage us first- they can go ahead and present links they have Offense 1. Forcing specification gives the negative the right to agent and process counterplans. This creates bad, un-educational debate- there is never any discussion of the aff we just talk about their narrow net benefit and whether or not the perm solves. 2. Infinitely regressive- There is no reason why specifying funding or personnel is less relevant than ASPEC- The only bright line is what the resolution mandates. 3. Encourages over specifying- This kills limits and predictability because there are thousands of case combinations. And they lose ground because random agents are perceived in politics DA’s. Defense 1. No Resolution mandate- The resolution says the USFG, it doesn’t mandate that we have to specify a single branch. All issues could be solved if the resolution specified the agentthen it would be a relevant question 2. Fiat is a should/would question designed to let us debate what would happen post plan and avoid procedurals like aspec 3. There’s no reason the negative cannot win without us specifying, the topic gives them huge links to things like spending, militarism, and objectivism. 4. If there is amazing topic specific literature on a certain agent, there will be incentive for teams to spec. their agent. 5. No in round abuse- If you were to run a specific DA link to one agent, we would not no link your disad. 6. Cross-x checks- You could’ve asked us but you just wanted to run ASPEC 7. Disclosure checks abuse- They had our plan text before the round to root it out for DA links and CP’s 8. Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never a reason to reject the aff

SDI 2006 GHD

45 Theory

OSPEC A. Violation: The affirmative over-specifies how the plan will be implemented by giving the specific agent who will do the plan. B. Reasons to prefer 1. Predictable limits: There are over hundreds of different agents in the Federal Government. Allowing the aff to choose makes the topic 500 times larger, killing predictability. 2. Ground: When they overspecify it kills disad ground because we can’t get our generic politics links and they can squirrel out of other generic disads by claiming they implement plan differently than the disad assumes. 3. Non-Topical: The affirmative doesn’t fiat the entire United States Federal Government as a whole body, this violates the term Government: Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979 [5th edition, page 625] The whole class or body of officeholders or functionaries considered in the aggregate, upon whom devolves the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative business of the state. C. Vote on OSPEC for fairness, predictable ground and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 GHD

46 Theory

AT: OSPEC Counter interpretation: USFG is one of the three branches. A. Solves their predictability and limits arguments. B. Reasonable compromise between affirmative solvency and negative link ground. Defense 1. ____________ is uniquely predictable, its one of the three major branches 2. No ground loss- They can still run generic links to the USFG, it encompasses the plan 3. Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never a reason to reject the aff Offense 1. Ground- We give them ground to specific agent links, politics, and procedural counterplans 2. Specific literature- The best policy literature is written in the context of the government branch in question, not the USFG as a whole. This is key to both affirmative advantage literature and negative link ground 3. Education- 90% of policy is implementation Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605, 1980 The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter 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.

4. They overlimit—no plan affects every single part of the USFG—there are over 900 agents and no case involves all of them. This allows for no topical affirmative plans or negative positions under their interpretation. 5. Aff conditionality- If we don’t specify, we can dodge out of your disad links and counterplan competitiveness by saying we don’t defend that agent.

SDI 2006 GHD

47 Theory

Floating PIK’s Good Offense 1. We functionally compete and functional competition is best and checks abuse a. Textual Doesn’t test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldn’t compete because the aff could just write not into their perm text to prove lack of competetiveness b. More real world- Congressmen fight over how bills will function, not the words theyre written in c. Predictable- The function of the CP is limited by normal means and the literature, if our ev. Says the CP competes, the aff should defend it d. Textual encourages vague plan writing. Affs would write their plan texts vague enough to interpret that any CP isn’t textually competitive e. Any CP can textually compete- you could literally rephrase the plan text and it would function the same in the real world. 2. Education- Depth is better than breadth- policymakers screw up when they miss loopholes that are exploited later. 3. Representations matter- If the affirmative said good things for 7 minutes but a minute of racial slurs you shouldn’t intellectually align yourself aff. It’s the difference between freeing the slaves because they should be equal and freeing them to send them back to Africa. 4. Forces better case writing- They’ll watch what they say next time 5. The 1AC tells the judge why the USFG should pass the plan, fiat assumes the plan has been passed and according to aff it’s a good thing because of the rest of the speech. 6. Double bind- Either they have offense because they had a reason for representing __________ in their 1AC, or you vote neg because we found the best policy option and the aff couldn’t defend their case Defense 1. No infinite regression- You don’t set a standard, reject it when it happens. 2. No moving target- We don’t change what representation we don’t support 3. No abuse- They had infinite prep to decide what went into their case 4. Not a voter- it’s an argument to reject the alternative

SDI 2006 GHD

48 Theory

Floating PIK’s Bad 1. The judge doesn’t vote aff to say the USFG should pass the aff for a certain reason- they just intellectually support the plan, fiat doesn’t mean the same representations carry over 2. Ground- Worse than PIC’s we literally have zero offense against the alternative. 3. Infinitely regressive- We go through a thousand representations in one speech. In one college round, the neg team found the word “Shilock” in a metaphor of the ununderlined portions of a solvency card and won on a floating PIK 4. Time skew- the negative can moot our entire 1AC to change the course of the debate towards debating one representation 5. Moving target- Since they’re piking out of a representation, we never know what they’re really advocating 6. Negation theory says they have to prove the plan is a bad idea, they don’t they’re not only advocating the resolution they advocate the plan 7. Fiat means that the polices are identical- they don’t textually compete 8. Education- There’s a point where depth of education gets to be ridiculous- they ruin topic specific education 9. Voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 GHD

49 Theory

No Text to Alt Good Offense 1. Shatters the critique- Our criticism can’t be embraced in one sentence, it would make the entire advocacy pointless to hold it to this unrealistic standard 2. Critical thinking- Condensing the critique into a one sentence alternative allows the affirmative to not critically think about what were critiquing. 3. Ground- The less specific we are, the more ground they get Defense 4. Cross-x checks abuse- If they didn’t understand the alternative we could have explained it to them 5. The tag is the text, just because we didn’t label it doesn’t mean its not there. 6. No moving target- We have a stable advocacy, we just don’t contextualize it- it’s still in the evidence 7. They still could have permed the K, its not our fault they didn’t choose to. 8. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative

SDI 2006 GHD

50 Theory

No text to Alt Bad 1. Reciprocity- You’d laugh at an aff that proposes a plan but didn’t write a text 2. Moving target bad- Text is the only stable advocacy, otherwise they can dodge out of turns and solvency attacks by changing their alternative in the next speech. 3. Time and strategy skew- We don’t know what the alternative actually is until the rebuttals, wasting our only constructive to create offense against the K. 4. Can’t prove competitiveness- We don’t know what we can perm if there’s no text, and they’ll just change their alt accordingly 5. Voter for fairness- Its irreversible damage.

SDI 2006 GHD

51 Theory

Err Neg on Theory 1. Aff has first and last speeches. 2. Aff has historically higher winning percentage 3. They have infinite prep time to write answers to all of our arguments. 4. Total Argument Choice – If we drop one answer on a disad, we lose it. 5. Fiat eliminates half the real world arguments we can make on the political process. 6. Issue Choice – We’re forced to debate whatever case they chose.

SDI 2006 GHD

52 Theory

Err Aff on Theory 1. The aff no longer has the advantage- negative win percentage is up, and most teams choose to be neg off the coin flip 2. They have the block, 13 minutes that we have to answer in 5- theory is key to protect the 1AR 3. We have the burden of T, the neg is unrestrained 4. They Get Issue Choice – We have to answer every position, they can just pick their strongest ones and kick the rest 5. They Have The Last Constructive – After the 2NC the round is effectively over 6. Aff disclosure- Its commonplace for us to disclose, they can do whatever they want 7. Our prep time is finite- we’ve got lives, but their ground for counterplans and disads is infinite