SDI 2009-2010 Theory File Index for Debates

SDI 2009-2010 1 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File
Theory Index
Theory Index....................................................................................................................................1 Dispo Bad.........................................................................................................................................2 Dispo Good......................................................................................................................................3 Condo Bad.......................................................................................................................................4 Condo Good.....................................................................................................................................5 PICs Bad..........................................................................................................................................6 PICs Good........................................................................................................................................7 Floating PICs Bad............................................................................................................................8 Floating PICs Good..........................................................................................................................9 50 State Fiat Bad............................................................................................................................10 50 State Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................11 Multi Actor Fiat Bad......................................................................................................................12 Multi Actor Fiat Good...................................................................................................................13 Agent CPs Bad..............................................................................................................................14 Agent CPs Good...........................................................................................................................15 Consult CPs Bad...........................................................................................................................16 Consult CPs Good........................................................................................................................17 2NC CPs Bad................................................................................................................................18 2NC CPs Good.............................................................................................................................19 Utopian Fiat Bad............................................................................................................................20 Utopian Fiat Good..........................................................................................................................21 Vagueness Bad...............................................................................................................................22 Vagueness Good............................................................................................................................23 No Solvency Advocate Bad...........................................................................................................24 No Solvency Advocate Good.........................................................................................................25 No Alt Text Bad.............................................................................................................................26 No Alt Text Good..........................................................................................................................27 Textual Competition Good............................................................................................................28 Functional Competition Good........................................................................................................29 Lopez CP Bad................................................................................................................................30 Lopez CP Good..............................................................................................................................31 Multiple Perms Bad.......................................................................................................................32 Multiple Perms Good.....................................................................................................................33 Severance Perms Bad.....................................................................................................................34 Severance Perms Good..................................................................................................................35 Intrinsic Perms Bad........................................................................................................................36 Intrinsic Perms Good.....................................................................................................................37 Intrinsic DA Perms Bad.................................................................................................................38 Intrinsic DA Perms Good...............................................................................................................39 Perf Con Bad..................................................................................................................................40 Perf Con Good...............................................................................................................................41 Advocating Perms Bad..................................................................................................................42 Advocating Perms Good................................................................................................................43
Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is tearing human minds to pieces. George Orwell
Dispo Bad
1. Kills Education a. Conditionality in disguise the neg knows it puts us at a strategic disadvantage to straight turn the cp/k so they can just kick them later. b. Not real world policy makers have to deal with the consequences of proposing an action. They cant just pretend they didnt read it if someone questions them about it. 2. Ground a. Strategy and time skew the neg can just read a bunch of dipso counterplans and moot 2AC answers by kicking almost all of them in the block because the aff cant fairly turn all the different counterplans. b. Race to the bottom Forcing the aff win offense on the counterplan by straight turning vs. the negs net benefits leads to a race to the bottom. c. Perms key to aff ground checks back non-competitive and artificially competitive counterplans 3. Straight turns dont check its suicide not to perm in most instances, it puts the neg into a strategic advantage. 4. Reciprocity the aff is forced to stick with one advocacy, so should the neg. 5. Err aff on theory debate has changed, statistically neg wins more rounds. When was the last time you wanted to be aff in an outround? 6. Voter for fairness, ground and education
Dispo Good
1. Education a. Best policy option real policy makers are never confined to just one solution to a problem or forced to pass it no matter the consequences. b. Forces strategic 2AC answers promotes critical, in-round thinking from the affirmative. 2. Ground -a. Neg flex Our only burden is to disprove the plan. Arguing from multiple levels is vital to negative strategy which outweighs because its key to checking aff bias and we have a right to make strategic 2NR decisions. 3. Non-unique -- All other negative arguments are dispo. 4. Time skew is inevitable for the aff with 13 minutes in the block. 5. Aff choice -- the aff literally decides whether or not the neg can kick the cp. 6. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speeches and unlimited prep. 7. Not a voter -- Reject the argument not the team.
Condo Bad
1. Education - Depth over Breadth Theres an incentive for the neg to read 11 conditonal counterplans and net benefits for us to undercover one and then kick out of everything else in the block. 2. Not reciprocal the aff cant just kick its advantages whenever it wants. Conditionality kills fairness because the neg can just kick out of the cp/k even if we kick it. 3. Time skew- Any arguments read against the cp or k can instantly go away if the neg doesnt want to go for it. 4. Strat skew- weve already done our 2ac, there is in round abuse. We cant change what weve already gone for. 5. Potential and in round abuse are voting issues for fairness and education.
Condo Good
1. Best for education- forcing the aff to make critical decisions maximize the education in debate. 2. Best for fairness- aff gets first and last speech, and 8 minutes in the 1ac. Multiple conditional advocacies are the only way to check. 3. Multiple worlds good forces the aff to think critically on how to answer certain arguments and is key to negative flexibility. 4. Most real world laws that go through Congress can be instantly rejected if they are not good enough. 5. Making the neg a moving target is key to having non-repetitive debates. 6. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 7. Not a voter - reject the argument not the team.
PICs Bad
1. Bad for education a. Unfair: makes the aff debate themselves.
b. Resolutional shift: concentrates the debate on insignificant aspects of the counterplan c. Encourages vague plan writing to avoid PICs.
2. Ground explodes neg ground because there is an infinite amount of things that they can pic out of. 3. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 4. Voter for fairness, ground, and education.
PICs Good
1. Ground a. Aff should be prepared to defend the entire plan text, PICs prove the plan is a bad idea in at least one instance. b. pics c. 2. Most cps are pics the ability to test the agent is destroyed if we cant run Key to checking extra topical plan planks
Education a. Forces better plan writing the aff will write their plan more strategically
b. Depth over Breadth focuses the debate on specifics of the policy which is better for topical education. 3. Lit checks abuse there is only a few things we can functionally pic out which answers their infinite regression argument. 4. 5. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech and infinite prep. Not a voter, reject the argument not the team.
Floating PICs Bad

1. No solvency advocate kills resolutional education, make them read specific solvency and a plan text. 2. Education their advocacy can shift in round which means we can never debate the specifics of the texts. 3. Ground b. Moving Target no text means the neg can constantly change their advocacy throughout the debate which is bad for aff ground because it can render 2AC meaningless by the 2NR. c. Unpredictable -- The PIC steals affirmative ground and allows them to solve our affirmative in a 15 second blip. This is totally unpredictable and forces the aff to perm every part of the 2nc to cover their bases. 3. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 4. Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.
Floating PICs Good

1. Education a. Forces better case writing makes the plan be specific from the 1AC. b. Best policy option makes the aff defend the entire plan and is key to finding the best policy option which is best for education. 2. Ground a. Predictable if you say something offensive, you should be prepared to defend it. 3. Representations matter key to rejecting racist slurs or arguments like genocide good. 4. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 5. No voter -- Reject the argument not the team.
50 State Fiat Bad

1. Education -- Not real world- the 50 states have never cooperated on a single issue in uniformity since the founding of the U.S. 2. No lit. - There is no literature for or against all the states cooperating. 3. Justifies multiactor fiat 50 actors against one actor can never win. If we target one of the actors the neg can say the other 49 will check which is key to reciprocity. 4. Err aff on theory - Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 5. Voter for education and fairness.
50 State Fiat Good

1. Having the state government work is key to check the federal key warrants for in the United States part of the resolution. 2. Real world arguments should not be weighed. Debate is not real world; if it were then the earth probably would have been blown up by nuclear war by now. 3. Reciprocity - 50 states acting in uniformity act functionally as one actor. 4. We increase aff ground when they can read a DA on any one of the 50 states. 5. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep time. 6. Not a voting issue reject the argument and not the team.
Multi Actor Fiat Bad

1. Ground a. Not reciprocal we are stuck with just the USFG, they should be limited to one other actor too. 2. Education a. Infinitely regressive there are an infinite number of actors which the neg can use in combination. b. Unpredictable because there are so many different actors we cant predict the various combinations to research answers to which kills education and destroys clash 3. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 4. Voter for fairness, education, and ground.
Multi Actor Fiat Good

1. Ground a. Turn: each new actor is more ground for the aff to turn or read disads to.
b. Key to negative ground everything except for the plan is fair game after the 1AC and key to neg flex. 2. Education a. Most real world We learn about the interaction between the different relevant various policymakers. There is never just a single actor. b. Best policy option if the best policy option is with multiple actors than that is better for education. 3. Multi-actor fiat is default the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman, the president, and the courts alone. 4. No reasonable regress as long as we dont fiat two random obscure actors we should be entitled to more than one. 5. 6. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus infinite prep No voter - reject the argument and not the team
Agent CPs Bad

1. Ground Forces the aff to debate against itself a solvency deficit to the counterplan is a solvency deficit to the plan. 2. Neg bias there are tons of actors just within side the federal government, destroys our fed gov key and affirms the resolution. 3. Unpredictable there are literally thousands of actors the neg could choose and theres no way the aff could prepare for all of them which kills clash and education. 4. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 5. Voter for fairness, education and ground.
Agent CPs Good

1. Predictable aff should have prepared, theyre run every round and our actor is completely legit and not obscure. 2. Key to negative ground agent counterplan make up the core of the negatives strategic options and not getting them is grossly unfair towards the aff. 3. Increases aff ground they can turn or read offense against our agent to win the round. 4. Lit checks abuse there arnt many actors through which to do the plan , the aff had the same opportunity to research and write answers as we did 5. Not a voter reject the argument and not the team 6. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep
Consult CPs Bad

1. Consult kills education a. Its infinitely regressive we cant predict all the different combinations of actors and policy changes to the plan which shift the debate from the resolution to irrelevant net benefits and insignificant policy differences. b. Amendments bad no one can predict what will be changed without specific lit which kills education and clash as the aff cannot research for answers because they simply dont exist. 2. Kills Ground a. Time and strat skew they can steal all the offense from the 1NC by simply proposing that we listen to some random countrys opinion. b. Not textually competitive: The counterplan merely adds the words in consultation with, to the original plan text. Textual competition is the only non arbitrary default on counterplan debates. c. Not functionally competitive: The neg cant produce evidence that <<insert actor>> would have specific modifications to our plan. Instead, they rely on moving-target fiat to fill in solvency, links, and uniqueness which are all core tests of competitiveness. Thats an independent voter for fairness. d. Plan Plus: The counterplan is plan plus which justifies aff intrinsic and timeframe perms. This justifies an aff win because the negative can virtually concede case and just add an extra topical plank. 3. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 4. Voting issue for ground, education, and fairness
Consult CPs Good

1. Counter interpretation we can only do consult counterplans written about in the literature base. 2. Lit checks abuse Checks squirrely consult Trinidad counterplans not central to the topic. There are only a few reasonably grounded counterplans which they should have prepare for which checks back all their ground and education standards. 3. Key to real education a. Real world - Crucial to understanding the details of international policy issues, relations, and how the United States frames multilateral issues which is a better internal link into education because its the point of debate. b. Best policy option consulting with another agent is crucial to testing whether the aff is the truly the best course of action. 4. Neg Ground a. Predictable only allowing reasonable consultation steeped in the core neg ground which the aff can prepare for. b. Neg Flex consult counterplans are key to negative flexibility and checking back unpredictable affirmatives. 5. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 6. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
2NC CPs Bad

1. Interpretation the neg may only read new turn, extensions or modules in the 2NC to check back unpredictable 2AC add-ons. The interp solves their education standards while leaving ground open for both sides. 2. Education a. Depth over breadth its best to compare policy options in depth because we can learn about the specific implantation and nuances of the plans and how they work in regards to the resolution. 3. Ground a. Sandbags the 1AR the neg can just ignore the all the 2AC responses and read new counterplans which means the 1AR will inevitably get thinned out which gives the neg an easy win in the 2NR. 4. No more constructives the aff doesnt get a 3AC to answer completely new 2NC arguments. 5. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 6. Voter for ground, education and fairness
2NC CPs Good

1. Education a. Forces critical thinking makes the 1AR use specific, critical and in-round thinking which only makes debate more educational. b. Breadth vs. depth new counterplans allows a wider coverage of the various policy solutions to the alternative. 2. Ground a. Its reciprocal new in the 2 is key to checking back new 2AC add-ons b. Its still a constructive which means we can still introduce new arguments 3. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech and infinite prep 4. Reject the argument not the team
Utopian Fiat Bad

1. Bad for education: a. Not real world -- By definition, we can never learn about practical policy solutions. While nice to think about, an imaginary world is ultimately useless. b. Education outweighs Learning about real world is a better internal link into education because its the only bona fide product of debate. 2. Annihilates Ground -- We can literally never win a debate when the other team can just imagine away all of lifes problems. 3. No literature aff/neg cant research answers to utopian positions because they simply DONT EXIST. 4. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 5. Voter for education, ground, and fairness
Utopian Fiat Good

1. We meet - Explain why youre not utopian 2. Better for education utopic solutions to lifes problems can help us visualize actual policy solutions because they can stimulate physical change in the way policy makers think. 3. Ground a. Key to kritik alternatives which is key to negative ground. b. Turn: If we are utopic, the alternative would likely be sweeping and affect all sectors of society meaning they can more easily garner some type of offense. 4. Lit checks solvency advocates prove the plan/alt is legit 5. Reasonability as long as we can prove that we are realistic you cant vote on this. 6. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 7. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Vagueness Bad
1. Vagueness kills ground a. Moving target: Vagueness can make the aff a moving target which kills predictability they can spike out of disads or change plan planks vital to the function of the counterplan. b. Time and strat skew all our arguments are predicated upon the plan text as per the 1AC. Later clarifying actual implementation is completely abusive. 2. It slays education a. Sketchiness -- If the plan is unclear, we cant learn about the specific results of the plan because the details of actual implementation are murky at best and which kills education about real world policies. b. Generics Unclear specification means stuck with running generic arguments to just guarantee a link. 3. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep. 4. Voter for fairness and education.
Vagueness Good
1. No link -- The plan is not vague ___________________ 2. Increases education a. Breadth over depth -- it forces a discussion about more of the resolution which is the best way to evaluate the topic because we have a wider grasp of poverty and applicable social services. 3. Increases neg ground A vague plan allows the neg to run more disads or kritiks because we link to more arguments and we wont spike out of their specific links. 4. C-x checks you had three minutes to clarify anything you didnt understand after the 1AC, its not our fault you think were vague. 5. Not a bill it is just a plan text with resolved intent, we dont have to specify ever minute detail. 6. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 7. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
No Solvency Advocate Bad

1. Destroys education a. Unpredictable texts without a solvency advocate, the neg can fiat anything which kills real world education because they can just create an artificial counterplan which is bad for debate because they fiat competitiveness. b. Not real world the cp would never be presented before congress if no one agreed it was a good idea. 2. Ground a. Moving target without a stable plan text the neg can always shift advocacies by the 2NR which kills aff strategy from the 2AC. b. Steals aff answers we cant indict their solvency evidence because there is none specific to their counterplan which is key to impact calc and determining whether the counterplan solves. 3. Not reciprocal aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the literature base of the resolution. Not forcing the neg to present a counterplan with a solvency advocate is unfair to the aff. 4. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 5. Voter for fairness, education, and ground.
No Solvency Advocate Good

1. Education a. Over limits -- discourages analytical debate and encourages aff critical thinking which is key to policy debates. b. Real world people propose different solutions to problems every day. 2. Ground a. Moving target good key to negative flexibility and strategy. b. Common sense - Aff can still make common sense methodological answers to the counterplan 3. Reasonability we shouldnt be forced to have evidence for every argument we make. 4. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 5. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
No Alt Text Bad

1. Ground a. Time and strategy skew- We dont know what the alternative actually is until the rebuttals, wasting our only constructive to create offense against the K. b. Moving Target well never know what the K does until the 2NR which is uniquely abusive because a stable text is key to 2AC answers and they can just spike out of all our specific alt turns. This is an independent voting issue. 2. Education We cant learn about the specific alternatives to plan action if there is no text to compare to. 3. Cant prove competitiveness- We dont know what we can perm if theres no text, and theyll just change their alt accordingly 4. Reciprocity if we should have to defend a stable text, so should they. 5. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 6. Voter for education, ground, and competitive equity.
No Alt Text Good

1. Ground a. Kills neg flex our entire kritik cannot be limited to single sentence, kills negative blocks strategic options. b. Breadth the less specific we are the more ground they get for turns and they can still perm. c. No moving target our alternative is still grounded in the alt card. 2. Education -a. Cross-x check abuse they could have gotten us to clarify a specific part of the kritik if they didnt understand it in our speech. We would have defended it. b. Critical thinking-- Condensing the critique into a one sentence alternative allows the affirmative to not critically think about what were critiquing 3. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 4. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Textual Competition Good

1. Most predictable plan is the focus of the debate and is the most stable advocacy in the round. 2. Fairness functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from anything. 3. Forces better plan writing better for general education and ground as well as avoiding procedurals and vagueness arguments 4. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 5. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Functional Competition Good

1. Education a. More real world congressman fight over implementation, not how the bill is specifically worded b. Best policy option tests a wider variety of solutions to the resolution and different ways to solve versus small, incremental textual differences. 2. Ground a. Textual comp encourages bad plan writing they will just make the text vague enough to limit out textual competition which destroys negative ground. b. Any CP would be legit you can just rephrase the plan text and it would compete the same way. 3. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 4. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Lopez CP Bad
1. Justifies multi-actor fiat the cp uses multi actors which jacks predictability and allows the neg to selectively pick actors to out solve the aff. 2. No literature there is zero evidence on a Supreme Court ruling to devolve power to the states and then have complete uniformity. Lit is crucial for predictability and aff offense. 3. No test case they cant fiat a test case occurring otherwise its object fiat which is an independent voter because it means they can essentially fiat anything. 4. Artificial competition the counterplan is only artificially competitive by banning the plan, which destroys fairness and doesnt test opportunity costs of the plan. 5. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 6. Voter for fairness and ground.
Lopez CP Good
1. Multi-actor fiat is default the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman, the president, and the courts alone. No reason why one more actor is any worse. 2. Increases aff ground they can read a courts disad. 3. Increases education we can learn about how the judicial branch and the constitution interact with federal policy. 4. Err neg on theory - aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 5. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Multiple Perms Bad

1. Time skew they can just read 11 perms in 20 seconds and force us to answer all of them which is hugely unfair. 2. Strat skew if we want the cp to stay in the round we have to spend all our time answering the perms and we cant adequately cover the net benefits. 3. Multiple conditional advocacies bad its a no risk answer to every k or counterplan because they can just kick out of all the perms we answered and extend the ones that we barely covered. 4. Interpretation the aff is allowed one perm per counterplan/k that must include the entire aff and all or part of the k/cp to check competition and anything else is an illegitimate advocacy. 5. Double bind: must be either severance or intrinsic a. Anything other than our interp means the either the aff is no longer advocating the entity of the plan which is bad because it kills predictability OR b. Its intrinsic because they are arguing something completely new which makes them a moving target and untopical. 6. Err aff on theory- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 7. Voter for fairness, education, and ground
Multiple Perms Good

1. Just a test of competition the perm exists to see if the counterplan or kritik is competitive. If it still triggers the net benefit or the counterplan is mutually exclusive, then we lose argument. End of story. 2. Breadth over depth multiple perms allows us to check the competitiveness of the k/cp under a multitude of circumstances which is key to understanding various solutions and is key to aff ground. 3. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep. 4. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team. 5. Insert severance perms good / intrinsic perms theory.
Severance Perms Bad

1. Education We no longer learn about the specifics of the aff plan because they can just kick out of it with the perm. 2. Destroys fairness- they can just spike out of any net benefit by kicking out of strategic areas of case. 3. Ground Severance perms allow the aff to fiat a win by avoiding our offense. 4. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep. 5. Voter for ground, fairness and education.
Severance Perms Good

1. [Explain why your perm isnt severance] 2. Severance perms are a still a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy of the affirmative. 3. Key to aff ground all perms other than do both would be severance and thats unfair to the aff because theyre key to checking back unpredictable cps/ks. 4. Theyre reciprocal neg gets to run pics, severance perms are key to checking this. 5. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 6. Not a voter reject the argument and not the team
Intrinsic Perms Bad

1. Kills Education shifts the debate away from the plan and to extra topical portions 2. Makes the aff extra topical which kills all disad links. 3. Ground a. Makes the aff a moving target because the perm can always just add things to their perms. b. Not predictable they can just add anything to the plan they wont and it removes the debate away from the resolution c. Kills all disads they could just add an intrinisic perm to any disad to solve the impacts. d. Justifies infinitely conditional advantage counterplans for the neg. 4. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep. 5. Voter for fairness, ground, and education.
Intrinsic Perms Good

1. [Explain why your perm isnt intrinsic] 2. Education a. Key to finding best policy option most real world. Real policy makers wouldnt exclude a potential solution if it wasnt in the original bill. b. Key to testing the competitiveness of the disad/kritik 3. Ground each new step is more ground for the negative to read offense against us. 4. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments 5. Not a voter reject the argument not the team
Intrinsic DA Perms Bad

1. Destroys neg ground they can just destroy all our links with a 5 second perm which is complexly abusive because it takes out any chance of the neg ever winning a disad. 2. Hurts education if we cant ever debate the links, we can never learn about the potential side effects of the policy options. 3. Time skew/strat skew they can just perm any disad and force us to answer it with theory and just kick out of it later. 4. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep. 5. Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.
Intrinsic DA Perms Good

1. Interpretation: the neg only gets disadvantages that are intrinsic to the aff 2. Doesnt kill disads only non-competitive disads which are not opportunity costs to the plan can be permed 3. Plan is still unconditional the perm is just a test of competition as long as the aff does not sever 4. Not extra T if the best course of action includes the aff then it means we the aff still wins 5. Checks infinite advantage counterplans 6. Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 7. Not a voter reject the argument not the team
Perf Con Bad

1. Kills education forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory answers 2. Strategy skew neg can just kick one argument and cross apply our answers to the other flow. 3. Negation theory bad justifies affirmation theory so that we can just find a harm in the status quo and vote aff on presumption. 4. Voter for education and ground.
Perf Con Good

1. Interpretation: well only take one in the 2NR and wont cross apply contradictory answers. 2. Negation theory we just have to prove that the plan is a bad idea. 3. Multiple worlds good key to negative ground and negative flexibility and increases strategic thinking. 4. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments. 5. Not a voter reject the arg not the team.
Advocating Perms Bad

1. Unpredictable The affirmative should only advocate the plan and nothing else. Not doing this kills predictability which is key to clash. 2. Makes them untopical not advocating just the aff makes them extra topical and is an independent voting issue for ground an education. 3. Kills education 4. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speeches plus unlimited prep. 5. Voting issue for fairness, ground and education
Advocating Perms Good

1. Doesnt steal ground - The neg can still win that the aff is a bad idea by weighing the DAs against the perm. 2. Reciprocal the neg gets to advocate the counterplan, we should be able to advocate the perm. They can have the status quo and the counterplan, we can have the perm or the plan. 3. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments 4. Not a voting issue reject the argument and not the team.

SDI 2009-2010 Theory File Index for Debates

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDI 2009-2010 Theory File Index for Debates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDI 2009-2010 1 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 2 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 3 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 4 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 5 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 6 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 7 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 8 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Floating PICs Bad

SDI 2009-2010 9 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Floating PICs Good

SDI 2009-2010 10 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

50 State Fiat Bad

SDI 2009-2010 11 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

50 State Fiat Good

SDI 2009-2010 12 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Multi Actor Fiat Bad

SDI 2009-2010 13 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Multi Actor Fiat Good

SDI 2009-2010 14 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Agent CPs Bad

SDI 2009-2010 15 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Agent CPs Good

SDI 2009-2010 16 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Consult CPs Bad

SDI 2009-2010 17 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Consult CPs Good

SDI 2009-2010 18 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

2NC CPs Bad

SDI 2009-2010 19 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

2NC CPs Good

SDI 2009-2010 20 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Utopian Fiat Bad

SDI 2009-2010 21 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Utopian Fiat Good

SDI 2009-2010 22 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 23 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 24 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

No Solvency Advocate Bad

SDI 2009-2010 25 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

No Solvency Advocate Good

SDI 2009-2010 26 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

No Alt Text Bad

SDI 2009-2010 27 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

No Alt Text Good

SDI 2009-2010 28 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Textual Competition Good

SDI 2009-2010 29 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Functional Competition Good

SDI 2009-2010 30 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 31 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

SDI 2009-2010 32 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Multiple Perms Bad

SDI 2009-2010 33 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Multiple Perms Good

SDI 2009-2010 34 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Severance Perms Bad

SDI 2009-2010 35 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Severance Perms Good

SDI 2009-2010 36 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Intrinsic Perms Bad

SDI 2009-2010 37 Cambre-Samuels-Burk Lab Theory File

Intrinsic Perms Good