THEORY CRIB SHEET

CONDITIONALITY
BAD
1. Skews 2AC strategy
theres no way of allowing
the 2AC to make
consistent offensive
arguments against
multiple worlds
2. Not reciprocal Aff
must defend the plan
through the entire round
allowing the Negative to
discard its policy options
is unfair for the
affirmative and causes
argumentative
irresponsiility
!. "ustifies contradictions
Conditionality allows to
force us to make
arguments that us on other
issues e.g. running an
economy d#a and
capitalism ad
$. %ills deataility
ecause theres no way of
determining what the
other team will go for in
the ne&t speech
'. No uni(ue right to a
conditional C) running
the net enefit alone or a
dispositional C) allows
the negative plenty of
fle&iility without killing
aff ground
*. +oting issue
competitive e(uity
CONDITIONALITY
GOOD
1. ,imeskew inevitale
-ou skew your own time.
otherwise youd always
vote for the slowest team
2. /mproves Affirmative
,ime allocation it makes
them make smarter
arguments more efficiently
!. %ey to negative
fle&iility 0eing ale to
test the )lan at multiple
levels is essential to Neg
strategy and ground.
which outweighs any Aff
ground loss
$. 0est )olicy 1ption /t
improves policy focus ecause
it helps test and develop the
most effective policy
'. /ts reciprocal
conditionality is key to
checking multiple conditional
perms ,he Affs unlimited
numer of conditional perms
skews neg strategy and time
allocation
*. 2ike a 3isad /ts no
different than kicking any
other Neg argument. no ause
or timeskew
4. )otential ause isnt a voter
they have to prove our
specific conditional C) is
ausive
5. 6rr Neg the Aff has
overwhelming structural
advantages like speaking first
and last. so protect Negative
ground
DISPOSITIONALITY BAD
1. Skews 2AC strategy no
way of allowing the 2AC to
make consistent offensive
arguments against multiple
worlds
2. Not reciprocal they get 2
policy options the C) and the
status (uo7 we only get the
plan
!. %ills deataility ecause
theres no way to anticipate
what theyll go for in the ne&t
speech
$. Aff choice doesnt check
ecause theyll always win in a
world where they can dictate
what arguments we can make.
'. +oting issue competitive
e(uity
DISPOSITIONALITY
GOOD
1. ,imeskew inevitale -ou
skew your own time. otherwise
youd always vote for the
slowest team
2. /mproves Affirmative ,ime
allocation it makes them
make smarter arguments more
efficiently
!. %ey to negative fle&iility
0eing ale to test the )lan at
multiple levels is essential to
Neg strategy and ground. which
outweighs any Aff ground loss
$. 0est )olicy 1ption /t
improves policy focus ecause
it helps test and develop the
most effective policy
'. /ts reciprocal is key to
checking )erm Ause 0ecause
the Aff has an unlimited
numer of perm worlds. plus
plan7 8e need the C) and S9
as options
*. 2ike a 3isad /ts no
different than kicking any other
Neg argument. no ause or
timeskew
4. Aff choice checks Ause
the Aff can choose to force our
option and straight turn the C)
5. All C)s are dispositional
the advent of perms as tests of
competition always leaves the
Status 9uo as an option..C)
ground is critical to Negative
strategy. competitive e(uity.
and the educational value of
deate
:. )otential ause isnt a voter
they have to prove our specific
dispositional C) is ausive
1;. 6rr Neg the Aff has
overwhelming structural
advantages like speaking first
and last. so protect Negative
ground
PICS BAD
1. Steals 2AC offense since
the C) does parts#all of the
plan. Aff cant leverage 1AC as
offense against the C)
2. /nfinitely regressive <
unpredictale they could do
the plan minus one dollar and
claim a spending net enefit
!. 2eads to vague plan writing
Affs will write vague plans to
limit negative C) options
$. 3econte&tuali=es the Aff y
e&cluding or including parts of
the plan at will. they astardi=e
the 1AC solvency evidence and
make the C) impossile to
research
'. +oting /ssue Competitive
e(uity
PICS GOOD
1. Allow the search for the est
policy option ecause they force
the affirmative to defend the
entirety of the plan
2. No uni(ue Ause > all C)s are
plan inclusive ecause including
parts of the plan is the only way
for the C) to compete
!. )/CS are key to neg fle&iility
and strategy )/Cs prevent the
Negative from having to defend
an unacceptale status (uo
$. Net enefits and literature
check ause and infinite
regression the Affirmative can
read turns to our netenefits
INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD
1. 3oesnt test the agent disad
proves ?.S. action is ad
Counterplan is e&traneous
2. ?nfair research urden > we
have to research every country to
find potential counteragents
!. 2anguage arriers prevent
ade(uate discussion the most
indepth education literature on
the C) isnt in 6nglish. At est.
the literature represents a iased
view of the policy. written from
the viewpoint of the 8est
$. @alse Audicial dichotomy no
actor faces deciding etween
whether one nation or another
should do a policy. Sets up a
false role for the Audge. which
isnt competitive with the
Affirmative and destroys
predictaility
'. +oting /ssue competitive
e(uity
INTERNATIONAL FIAT
GOOD
1. @orces Aff to defend ?.S. @.B.
they wrote it in the )lan
1
2. 0est policy option we
should compare the
ailities of other countries
to do the plan
!. 2iterature checks ause
as long as we find
literature on international
action. it should e
legitimate this prevents
infinite regression ecause
we are constrained to
advocates and ensures fair
aff ground ecause its
deatale
$. ,# 6urocentric we can
recogni=e that other actors
can solve Aust as well.
reaking away from the
cycle of nativism
'. Cesolution divides
ground Aff gets topical
ground and Neg gets
Nontopical ground.
including international fiat
*. 6ducation learning
aout international actors
increases education
4. Competition checks
ause international C)s
are not mutually e&clusive
ecause the ?.S. can
function within in them7
net enefits are deatale
5. 3isad ground checks
ause they argue disads
to international action or
advantages to unilateral
?.S. action
:. Not a voting issue
reAect the arg. not the team
TOPICAL CPs GOOD
1. CounterinterpretationD
only topical C)s are legit
A. )lan ecomes the focus
of deate Aff gets
infinite prep to choose
their plan now they have
to defend it and
resolutional focus would
e ad it Austifies
counterwarrants and
alternate Austification.
destroying clash
0. increases topical education
,opical C)s allow us to
focus on and discuss the
resolution
C. increases predictaility
resolutional deate is more
predictale than the infinite
numer of non topical C)s
2. Competition checks ause
!. were only going to win the
C) if we win a net enefit
they can always deate that net
enefit
0E Aids the search for the est
policy option topical C)s
provide a etter assessment of
the est policy option and est
agent of action
TOPICAL CPs BAD
1. %ills Cesearch 0urden we
have to research against other
Affs to deate Affirmative as
well as oth topical and
nontopical counterplans
2. %ills the resolution
AE theyre not deAustifying the
resolution ecause theyre
topical +ote Aff
0E Not reciprocal resolution
is designed to give oth Aff
and Neg e(ual ground
theyre trampling our ground
that Austifies non topical plans
for reciprocity
CE "ustifies plan>plan deates
which moot out the 1AC and
deAustify Neg research
!. Aff iases dont check
they have Neg lock and
kritiks to provide ground
MULTIPLE ACTOR FIAT
GOOD
1. /ncreases Aff ground the
greater the numer of actors.
the more offense can e run
one or more of these actors
could e ad and attacked on a
solvency#disad level
2. 6ducation we learn aout
more actors. increasing
education
!. Competition checks Ause
were still going to have to win
the net enefits to the C) its
the search for the est policy
option
'. %ey to Neg strategy and
fle&iility multiple actors
enale the Neg to est test the
Aff
NEG FIAT BAD
1. @iat derives from the word
should there is no implied
Fshould notG words are in and
left out of the resolution for a
reason
2. Ceciprocity doesnt check
!. Aff fiat is limited ecause it
is confined y the resolution
Neg would always claim
unlimited fiat
$. Ceciprocity is a lie they
have presumption and the lock
thats not reciprocal
'. %ills Aff research urden
the Neg aility to fiat e&plodes
Aff research urden ecause
there are infinite amounts of
topical#nontopical C)s
*. Skews 2AC strat Neg fiat
e&ponentially increases the
numer of worlds the Aff has to
answer the 1AC is crafted to
answer the Status (uo
4. No reciprocity Aff fiat is
confined y the resolution
Neg fiat isnt
NEG FIAT GOOD
1. %ey to Neg strategy and
fle&iility Neg has to have
other options than an
undesirale status (uo
2. Ceciprocity
!. Neg gets implied Fshould
notG of the resultion
/f we dont get fiat. neither
should they. which means you
should vote neg on presumption
$. )lan ecomes the focus of
deate Aff gets infinite prep
to choose their plan now they
have to defend it and
resolutional focus would e ad
it Austifies counterwarrants and
alternate Austification. destroying
clash
FUTURE FIAT BAD
1. Solvency is proalistic we
dont know when or if plan
occurs
2. +iolates , should should
implies now voting issue
fairness < Aurisdiction
!. +iolates , resolved proves
plans not resolved on its
intentions voter fairness <
Aurisdiction
$. Skews Neg ground denies us
the aility to have uni(ueness for
our disads and case turns
ecause plan could e postponed
until our disads are nonuni(ue
'. +ote Neg on presumption
demonstrates )lan is not a good
idea now defer to the status
(uo
*. No literature for future action
means its non deatale
4. +oting /ssue competitive
e(uity
SEVERANCE BAD
1. Hoving target > allows the Aff
to sever out of Neg disad links.
destroying Neg ground
2. Not topical violates
FresolvedG which means FfirmG
ecause the Affirmative is not
firm in their 1AC advocacy.
/ndependent voting issue for
Aurisdiction
!. Cewards 1AC plan spikes
allows the Aff to spike out of neg
positions in the 1AC and sever
those spikes in the 2AC
$. infinitely regressive there
are an infinite amount of
unpredictale changes that can
e made to the Aff plan
'. voting issue competitive
e(uity
SEVERANCE PERMS GOOD
2
1. 0est )olicy 1ption
,he Affirmative should e
allowed to the test the
C)#% alternative on any
level possile in order to
deate the est issues.
which increases education
2. Ceal 8orld Congress
people typically make
changes to a piece of
legislation through the
process of law making
the plan is not the te&t of
the ill and thus suAect to
change. Ceal world
analogies allow us to put
deate in conte&t and set
oundaries.
!. "ustified y
conditional#dispositional
C) we have multiple
ways to test the
competition of the C)
the permutation is merely
another test of the net
enefit
$. 3oesnt hurt negative
ground the )ermutation
is a test of competition.
not a new advocacy they
still have the aility to
weigh the net enefit
against the permutation
and the plan
'. %ey to Affirmative
ground the affirmative
only has a finite way of
weighing the plan versus
the Cp. especially in the
world of a )/C or Agent
C) severance
permutations only way to
check ack the infinite
numer of C)s
*. Counterperms Check
Ause the Negs aility
to Counterperm ensures
fairness
4. )reserves Cesolutional
purpose the purpose of
the resolution is to initiate
further discussion. the
permutation doesnt
inhiit this goal7 it furthers
it in another direction
5. Not a voting issue the
Negative has the lock.
kritiks. )/Cs. and 2NC strategy
reAect the perm. not the team
TIME FRAME PERMS
BAD
1. /ts a severance and intrinsic
perm its non operational for
its original time frame and it
adds temporal se(uencing
makes them a moving target
and kills Neg ground
2. Skews Neg ground y the
time plan is passed. our disads
would e uni(ue
!. %ills C) ground /td
always e possile to do plan.
then C) or vise versa
$. they make solvency
proailistic we dont know
when or if the actually is
passed
INTRINSIC PERMS BAD
1. Skews Negative ground
allows the Affirmative to spike
out of Neg disads or C)s y
adding things to the plan
2. ?npredictale there are an
infinite amount of
unpredictale changes that can
e made to the plan
!. +oting issue competitive
e(uity
MULTIPLE PERMS BAD
1. Hultiple )erms are 0ad and
a voting issue for competitive
e(uityD
2. Hakes the Aff conditional
since they can go for any. all.
or none of the perms >
Affirmative Conditionality is
uni(uely worse since a stale
Aff Advocacy is critical to Neg
positions and testing whether
the plan is a good idea
!. No straight turn to check
we cant stick them with the
permutation through a straight
turn
$. Not reciprocal or predictale
they get ! worlds to choose
from we dont know which
theyll choose
MULTIPLE PERMS GOOD
1. Ceciprocity Counterplan
has multiple parts multiple
perms key to test these parts
2. ,he )erm is a test its not
advocated
A. /ts like a no link argument
a test to see if the C) is
germane whereas the Cp can e
advocated
0. ,he )erm is a comination
its Aust the plan and the
counterplan or some
comination of the two which
makes it no new world
TEXTUAL COMPETITION
BAD
1. )romotes +ague )lan writing
Affs could write +ague plan
te&ts to spike out of
counterplans this destroys
Neg ground ecause it also
denies us disad links. solvency
deates. and encourages 2AC
clarifications
2. %ills Neg C) ground no
counterplan is ever te&tually
competitive F0an )lanG C)s
arent te&tual competitive
Neg counterplan ground is key
to neg fle&iility and strategy
and not having to defend an
undesirale status (uo
!. @orces grammar C)s. which
triviali=e deate and decrease
education over actual policy
options
$. @unctional Competition
Bood
A. Ceal world policy makers
care aout the sustantive
enefits of ills and policies.
not the e&act te&t
0. 0est policy option
functional competition allows
the search for the est policy
option y allowing a true
comparison of net enefits
C. 3oesnt lead to infinite
regression literature and clash
check
TEXTUAL COMPETITION
GOOD
1. 2eads to etter competition
evaluation it sets a etter
rightline for when a C) is
competitive y limiting it to
te&tual precision. /t allows
fairer. less iased evaluation of
competition
2. ,e&tual competition key to
limiting out ad )/Cs which
improves Aff ground
A. ,hey allow any plan minus
type of C). like plan minus one
penny. or plan minus anything.
leading to ad deate and gutting
ground
0. ,hat destroys predictaility
ecause it allows an infinite
numer of tiny modification C)s
which Affs could never predict
!. /mproves )lan focus
ecause it forces a concise
deate over what the plan says it
does. improving ground and
education
$. Solves +ague )lans when
everything is listed e&plicitly in
the plan. it cant shift what it
does +ague )lans are 0adD
A. allows Aff 2AC morphing
where 2ACs interpret plan
operation to dodge links. destroy
Neg ground
0. guts Neg link ground y
making plans so small and
astract the Neg cant win a link
to anything
'. /ts more predictale y
allowing the focus on plan. and
is grounded in preround plan
disclosure

3