CPs that compete with Certainty:

- CPs
o Consult
 Will happen if and only if the government says yes
o Conditions
 Will happen if and only if something happens
o Threaten
 Uses the plan as leverage against the taget actor or another country
- Condition counterplans are uncertain
o The solvency evidence says it will likely pass
- Neg Competition args
o Severance
o Topicality
o Resolved question
 Should – an action that the affirmative must take
o Debatibility
 If the aff doesn’t have to express obiligation then you can basically get out
of any disad
 Impossible to debate w/o certainty
 Certainty = neg ground
 Immediacy – if affs don’t have to be certain then they can always do it in
the future gets out of PTX
- Aff Strategy
o Normal means
o Test the desirability of the affirmative not how
o Should v. Shall
 Shall – commitments
 Should – desirability and condition futurity
o Perm do the CP
 Aff ground – these cps are infinatly regressive a large amount of
conditions that you can add on expanding the research burden
 Comparitive solvency literature
 Substatntially lower threshold that the neg has solvency advocates
 No author goes like “I hope we condition X
 It inflates bad net benefits
o Their CP leads to bad CPs because it justifies Consult, Conditions, etc.
o DAs solve their offense
 If they have a good cp that is a reason they should read a DA stating the
stuff as a DA instead of a CP
o Perm do the CP and implement the plan at the end of negotiations
o Do the plan and consult on an equally important issue
 If they cant prove that the plan actually matters for their CP then how cant
hey have a solvency advocate
o Do the plan and request the condition
 o Tie a condition and consult cps into conditionality by creating a strategic
incentive not to read addons because the cp solves the addon. Left defending the
squo

CP: Withdraw unless they recognize the Armenian Genocide.

- Net benefit of improve human right credbility
- Yes recognizing the armenina genocide o/w the case

Don’t specify on their response