Notes

Everyone who makes theory files gets to talk at the top. I’m going to be no different cause I’m dat Nicholas Kaechele- Theory
hack PD. ϕ

What you need to know (for you Novi out there)-

1. Don’t read everything that I wrote. If you’re in a round you want to conserve time so don’t read every single arg.
I make. Pick and choose the best ones and the ones that most apply to your situation. A lot of them are
essentially repetitive and get at the same idea through different paths.
2. T is a voter is for the NEG. If you run it on the aff you’re stupid
3. Same with that fact that T is a Non-Voter- you will automatically lose your T argument if you run this on the neg.
So non-voter is only for the aff
4. Agent CPs are where the neg advocates for a CP and the change comes in who does the plan, or the actor.
5. PICs are plan inclusive counterplans. They incorporate the aff plan textually or functionally
 T is Voter –
1. Education-
a) Depth over Breadth- It’s been found that people get a better understanding of topics when we focus
on one idea at a time. Too many topics shows that we don’t get true understanding of anything
b) Rez. changes- The resolution changes every year for a reason, to get a wider array of knowledge during
the year but during the year the framers what us to focus in depth on the resolution
c) Lit base- There is a strong literary base we’d be missing out on if the aff can get away un-topical affs
like this one.
d) Framers intent- The framers wanted us to debate the resolution but that isn’t possible without topical
affs
e) Key to true education-
f) Real world- A plan to deal with housing isn’t going to pass if the propose plan is talking about water
safety.
g) Higher standard- Debate holds people to higher standards and the aff needs to be able to defend that
their plan makes sense in the context that the framers wanted.
h) Reasonability- There is no such thing as a reasonable aff (it changes from person to person and what I
may think as reasonable does may not be reasonable to you)

2. Fairness-
a) Ground- Topicality is neg ground and it allows for the neg to have a bit of leverage in a debate round.
b) Limits- The aff explodes the topic without the rest we put on topicality. You must evaluate T to keep
future debates fair
c) Predictability- It is impossible for the neg to ever win a round if we face cases we could never prepare
for every round- T allows for us to level the playing field
d) Research burden- It puts an enormous strain on the neg to know every argument for every aff out for
this year. Topicality allows the neg to focus on the core of the topic then to spend five hours
researching a ridiculous case like (insert case) only to hit it once
e) Lit checks- We are going for T, notice how we haven’t been able to run Das or Ks with good links or
even case except for pointing out the flaws the aff forgot to cover

K/A/E/C/H/E/L/E
 Non-Voter –
1. Education-
a) Topic focus- Topicality brings us away from debating the merits of the case and instead focuses us on
debating the minor discrepancies versus words.
b) Policy- Our role as policy makers is to debate if the policy is good or not. Topicality takes away from
this core debate
c) Wide array better- Focusing on the same Affs ever weekend leads to bad education. A wide array will
let us learn about a greater spectrum of the world, policy shouldn’t be about reading the same blocks
every weekend but force us to change our arguments.
d) Repetition- The neg can run this argument for every single round. This does not lead to good policy
debate because
e) Real world- In the real world we are going to be faced with things that we didn’t prepare for- this
doesn’t mean we go complain to our moms how it isn’t fair, debaters need to learn that they have to
face the problems.
f) Aff creativity- If an aff runs across a new idea when researching, they can’t run it because it isn’t
something that a neg prepped for under the neg interp. This kills the education that would have been
gained from debating these cases.

2. Fairness-
a) Lit. Check abuse- The neg ran topic specific arguments, obviously they prepared for this round and
knew that our Aff was topical
b) Framer’s intent- Our aff focuses on the aspects that the framers wanted us to talk about. (insert what
you talk about) Running T takes away from that.
c) Neg Flex- The negs job is to be able to be flexible to all arg. By running T it kills the negs education by
not allowing them to think on their feet
d) Reasonability- if we are reasonably topical then you can’t vote aff as a judge. If you read the resolution
and can see our case run then you don’t vote us down.
e) Lit. Base- If we have significant authors who are writing about this, obviously it isn’t a ridiculously crazy
idea.
f) Limits- The neg limits the topic way too much for us to actually be able to debate a fair amount of
cases.
g) Time Skew- It only takes the neg a few seconds to run a topicality arg. and it has taken me at least 45
seconds to answer it.

K/a/e/c/h/e/l/e
 Agent CP illegit–
1. Education-
a) Focus- Agent CP shift the focus away from the resolution and if the plan is a good idea to who should
do it which is less important
b) Illegit education- Without distinction between aff and neg ground, we are never going to be able to
have a fair debate.
c) Framers intent- Framers wanted us to talk about the actual merits of polices that were made from the
resolution, agent CPs take away from that.
d) Importance- The actor debate is much less important than discussing the actual merits of the policy.
e) Repetition- It forces us to run the same arguments over and over again instead of getting new
education.
f) Reasonability- If you can’t see this in a real debate round you shouldn’t vote for it here.

2. Fairness-
a) Ground-
b) Predictability- there are thousands of actors the neg could advocate for, it is impossible for the aff to
get information on all of them
c) Time skew- The neg can run this as a time skew because it take forever for the aff to answer always
leaving some aspect of the debate under covered
d) Regressive- the debates will become less intelligent and eventually we will always be debating actors
then policy
e) Precedent- You need to drop this team because if you let it slide it will become a precedent in policy
debate round (aka it will be the norm)

Nicholas k/a/e/c/h/e/l/e ha
 Agent CP legit–
1. Education-
a) Awareness- We need to be aware on who is actually doing the plan,
b) Real world- In the real world congress will debate about who is the best actor to do the plan and if
we’re supposed to role-play policy makers then we should do what real world policy makers do
c) Best policy- The aff has to advocate for the best policy and we, as the neg, have shown that doing the
plan with a different actor is a better policy than what the aff proposed.
d) Focus- theory bad, we should be focusing the debate on the best policy action the judge can make then
your cop out theory arguments.

2. Fairness-
a) Literature- We have real cards from qualified authors, obviously we can’t read any ridiculous agent CP
that the aff couldn’t prepare for or we wouldn’t have good authors
b) Ground- CP are neg ground and are key for a fair, educational debate. Non-topical agents are key neg
ground
c) Aff bias- The aff has infinite prep time so being not prepared for a round is not an excuse that the aff
can use
d) Link ground- Our CP allows the aff to attack our actor, this lets the aff actually have more link ground
then the neg

3. Voters-
a) If you really don’t think agent CP are legit, then don’t drop the team, drop the argument.
 PICs Good -
1. Education-
a) Real world- There is always revisions in congress about the way the words are written
b) Words matter- It is the way we communicate and without the proper use of words then none of our
ideas would make any sense. Debating the words is more important than debating the policy because
without words we can’t have policy.
c) Words key to understanding- We can’t move to other issues if the words that the aff uses to portray
their plan confuses the party
d) Higher standard- Debate is about being at a higher standard and without PICs then we can’t hold the
aff at that standard

2. Fairness-
a) Prep- The aff gets infinite prep, the neg is going to the round one step behind so by allowing PICs it
even the playing field leading to a better debate
b) Ground- This is neg ground, everything outside of the Aff is neg ground and not allowing PICs kills core
neg ground
c) Predictability- If the aff isn’t able to defend the words in their plan, then they obviously didn’t spend
their time out of this round well.
d) Reasonability- This is the most reasonable argument, having the aff stay to their words allow us to
actually debate the neg side (if they keep moving we are never able to pin the aff down)
e) Time skew- This isn’t a time skew, it’s taken us just as long to answer
 PICs Bad –
1. Education-
a) Nothing hurts education than essentially running our aff
b) Framers intent- The framers wanted us to be debating this topic instead of stupid arguments about one
word
c) Realistic argument- If you can’t imagine this argument in a real debate you shouldn’t be voting for it
d) Real word- We are roleplaying policy makers or congress persons. How many times have bills been
rejected by one word?
e) Trade off- It kills topic argumentation and is replaced with fighting over the definitions of words which
kills our topic education

2. Fairness-
a) Competition- It kills aff competition because the neg is basically able to run our aff against us.
b) Ground- This cuts deep into aff ground and makes it so the aff isn’t allowed to have a good case or the
neg will just take it
c) Reasonability- Out plan is reasonable so making a whole argument about one world doesn’t belong in a
policy debate
d) Time skew- The neg is able to run this as a time skew because it takes so much longer for the aff to
answer then it does for the neg to run it
e) Predictability- Our aff is predictable and does not take away from neg ground, they haven’t been able to
prove where there has been neg ground cut
f) There is nothing fair about a word PICs, the neg should know that these can’t be run seriously
 Condo Good
1. Neg Flex – Since the aff team decides what aff to talk about, the negative
should be able to decide what negative argument to talk about.the negative
should be able to have many options in the round, and to decide which is best,
so they can have some flexibility.
2. Advocacy Construction – in the real world, several different types of people
attack policies with different arguments, and people have to be able to answer
each side. Similarly, the neg should be able to take several different positions,
and the affirmative should be able to answer all of the positions against itself.
3. Research Incentives – If only one CP can be run, the neg has no reason to cut
more than one good CP, and the aff has less reason to research answers to all of
the different types of CP. This discourages proper education..
4. Argument Breadth – By being able to argue condo, several different arguments
can be read against the aff, allowing us to learn several different positions on
the aff. More is better, since we can learn diverse arguments and know every
perspective on a situation.
5. Logical Policy Making – the role of policy debate is to look for whether the aff is
better than the status quo or counter plan, and we should not try to limit us
from doing so. Conditionality finds the best policy option, since the neg has
more of a free reign to prove the aff should not be done.
6. [ONLY READ IF ONLY HAVE ONE OR TWO ADVOCACIES] No abuse – We only
read one CP (and one K). This renders most of the aff’s arguments on
conditionality moot.
7. Neg Ground – Neg should get some flexibility, because the aff has so much
advantage in the round. Aff has infinite prep time to make their aff and get to
choose what aff they will talk about.
8. Argument kicking – The aff can kick advantages, so it is unfair for the neg not to
be able to kick their arguments too.
9. 2NR defines advocacy – we aren’t going to go for several worlds in the 2NR, so
all abuse is gone by the 2NR
10. At best, drop the counterplan not the team. We should not lose the debate just
for being conditional; if the CP is conditional and conditionality is bad, the CP
should just be rejected.
 Condo Bad
1. Strategy Skew – The aff can’t go for straight turns or other offense on a CP,
because the neg can just spike any of their advocacies. This means certain
pivotal aff arguments are deterred, because they become pointless.
2. Time Skew – The aff has to spend less time on each advocacy, because they
have to argue more advocacies. Since the neg can go for any of these
advocacies, we have less argumentative time spent on the argument that they
go for.
3. Argument Depth – If the neg can read a whole bunch of arguments that they
won’t go for, we won’t in-depth of a debate on the important arguments in the
round. More in-depth debate is key to education, because it promotes us really
learning about an issue rather than just getting a superficial summary of an
issue.
4. Contradictions – If the neg’s arguments contradict, they can just advocate
multiple worlds or kick out of an argument. If the aff contradicts on an
argument, they lose, so the neg should not be allowed to in order to promote
competitive equity.
5. Kicking fairness - The neg can make as many conditional advocacies as they
want, and the aff has to prove each are worse than the aff plan. In contrast, the
neg can kick and concede any of the advocacies without losing anything.
6. Illogical – In the real world, policymakers don’t advocate a whole bunch of
different contradictory advocacies to only kick one, but rather they take one
position. They hinder education of the real-world.
7. Reciprocality – The aff can only advocate one world and can’t kick their aff, so
the neg should not be able to advocate more than one world either.
8. Pointless arguments – a lot of arguments are put out there as conditional time
wasters, since the neg does not have to go for it. This promotes discussion of
unnecessary arguments in place of actual substantiated arguments.
9. Tactics over substance – Instead of going for their best arguments, negs will just
go for their least covered argument, if there is conditionality. This means we
don’t debate the core of the topic, but rather just what is strategic, preventing
what one learns.
[READ THIS] Conditionality is a voter issue for reasons of competitive equity and
education.
 Intrinsic Perms Good
1. Best policy option – The role of the debate is to find the best policy option, and
if the aff in any way can make the best policy option, we should win.
2. Rational Actor – If a policymaker rationally considers this aff alone as good, it
should be good. Things outside the plan, should not affect the decision
3. Encourage research – Intrinsicness perms add a diverse set of new arguments
core to the aff and the topic, and incentivizes the neg to research all of the
flaws of the CP.
4. No shift in advocacy – We still advocate all of the 1AC, and all we have to prove
is that the 1AC is good.
5. It’s real world – in the real world, bills usually don’t just advocate one single
plan. For example, riders are added to bills all of the time.
6. Aff ground – The neg gets to decide all CPS, and they get thirteen minutes to
answer the intrinsicness perm, while we only have five minutes to answer their
arguments. Intrinsicness perms keep it more fair for the aff.
7. Incentivizes diverse arguments – Intrisincess perms eliminate generic CPs that
can work well with the aff in certain situations. The neg must prove the CP is
always bad with the plan.
8. At best, drop the perm not the team. We should not lose the debate just
because of one perm we made; they don’t lose ground, and we have several
other reasons not to vote for the CP. We just have to prove our aff is good.
 Intrinsic Perms Bad
1. It’s unbeatable - A perm, where you add something would always be better
than the CP, because you could always claim you do something great outside
the resolution. For example, any counterplan of doing the CP and also providing
aid to every starving person in the world would of course win, but that would
render any CP moot, and make counterplans no longer ever a winnable
argument.
2. It’s unpredictable – Intrinsic perms could literally be anything outside both the
plan and the counterplan, and the neg could never be able to predict all of
these. This would prevent us from researching the different ways of the CP,
because the aff could always just make a random perm.
3. Moving target – If intrinsicness perms are allowed, the aff will not add certain
things to the plan, because it would make them link to a disad, but they will
then add it on to their plan later through an intrinsicness perm on any CP, so
that they beat the CP and avoid key neg ground.
4. It doesn’t follow the plan text. If the aff wanted to include _______, they should
have just put it in their plan text. By adding something else outside both
advocacies, the aff is disencentivizing plan focus, which is key to predictable
and focused debate.
5. Time skew – An intrinsicness perm takes only a few seconds to make, but they
take a very long time to answer, because often offense and solvency arguments
are necessary. This shifts the debate largely in favor of the neg, (especially if
they read several intrinsicness perms).
6. Aff bias – Neg should get some flexibility, because the aff has so much
advantage in the round. Aff has infinite prep time to make their aff and get to
choose what aff they will talk about.
7. Extending aff Solvency – The aff can’t claim it does more than it does on a
disadvantage or topicality, since it would make all arguments moot. This should
also true for a CP.
8. The addition is not competitive with the CP. Both _____ and _____ can be done
together.
9. Infinitely regressive – If we read offense on an intrinsicness perm, they can just
kick out of it and read another intrinsicness perm. This limits core offensive
arguments, because they aren’t worth the time.
[READ THIS] Intrinsicness is a voter issue for reasons of competitive equity and
education.
 Depth outweighs Breadth
Research proves – depth better leads to greater future success
Arrington 9 (Rebecca Arrington, Rebecca Arrington is a communications specialist at the CFA institute, March 4, 2009 “Study Finds that
Students Benefit From Depth, Rather than Breadth, in High School Science Courses” https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-finds-students-
benefit-depth-rather-breadth-high-school-science-courses)

A recent study reports that high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in
greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less
time on each. Robert Tai, associate professor at the University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, worked with Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington and
Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to conduct the study and produce the report. "Depth Versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High
School Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Coursework" relates the amount of content covered on a particular topic in high school classes with students' performance in
college-level science classes. The study will appear in the July 2009 print edition of Science Education and is currently available as an online pre-print from the journal. "As a former high school

teaching fewer topics in

teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that

greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science," Tai said. "These results are based on
the performance of thousands of college science students from across the United States." The 8,310 students in
the study were enrolled in introductory biology, chemistry or physics in randomly selected four-year colleges and universities. Those who spent one month or

more studying one major topic in-depth in high school earned higher grades in college science than
their peers who studied more topics in the same period of time. The study revealed that students in courses that
focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched
on every major topic. The study explored differences between science disciplines, teacher decisions about classroom activities, and out-of-class projects and homework.
The researchers carefully controlled for differences in student backgrounds. The study also points out that standardized
testing, which seeks to measure overall knowledge in an entire discipline, may not capture a student's high level of mastery in a few key science topics. Teachers who "teach to the test" may
not be optimizing their students' chance of success in college science courses, Tai noted. "President Obama has challenged the nation to become the most educated in the world by having the

largest proportion of college graduates among its citizens in the coming decade," Tai said. "To meet this challenge , it is imperative that we use the research
to inform our educational practice." The study was part of the Factors Influencing College Science Success study, funded by the National Science Foundation. It is
currently published online in Science Education, a peer-reviewed educational research journal, published by J. Wiley & Sons.
Severance Perms Good/Bad
 Severance Permutations Good
A: Interp: A perm is legitimate if it includes enough of the plan to remain reasonably in line with
the aff
B: Standards:
1. Policy-making education: Laws are not rejected wholesale because there is a
small problem with them; the negative part is simply removed. To prove a
policy is bad, the general idea has to be proven to be bad, which is what the
neg’s responsibility should be. This attitude is critical to policy-making
education.
2. Strategy skew: Giving the aff a reasonable amount of leeway in a permutation is the
only way to prevent severe strategic skew. Under their interp, a 1NC can spend 7
min 45 seconds proving that one miniscule aspect of the plan is bad, and then
mooting the entire 1AC in the remaining 15 seconds with a PIC. This prevents real
clash and leads to unfair debate.
C: Voter:
Education: Advocacy construction skills and fairness are key to educational debate.
Advocacy construction skills are crucial for a well-rounded education. Fairness is
crucial because without fair debate, there would be no participation and thus no
education. Our impacts are preservation of the game and skills education, both of
which are a priori to any other impact
 Severance Permutations Bad
A: Interp: Any legitimate perm must endorse the entirety of the aff plan (insert “1AC
representations”/”1AC discourse” as desired)
B: Standards:
1. Strategic Skew: The potential for abuse with severance perms is massive. They
effectively ruin the entire purpose of a perm, which is to evaluate the
competitiveness of the CP or the alt. This is massively unfair, because even
competitive counter-advocacies can be nullified by the severance perm.
2. Grounds: By making counterplans and kritiks effectively useless, the aff restricts
the neg ground to include only case arguments and disadvantages. This robs the
neg of core ground, and produces heavily unfair debate.
3. Advocacy Construction: If the aff is allowed to sever out of parts of their
advocacy at will, they will have no incentive to ever construct an effective and
defendable advocacy. Requiring the aff to defend their 1AC is the only way to
teach them how to make it better, which is key to skills education.
C: Voter
Education: Advocacy construction skills and fairness are key to educational debate.
Advocacy construction skills are crucial for a well-rounded education. Fairness is
crucial because without fair debate, there would be no participation and thus no
education. Our impacts are preservation of the game and skills education, both of
which are a priori to any other impact
K Conditionality Good/Bad
K Conditionality Bad
 <IF THEY HAVE 1 CONDO K>
A: Interp: Kritiks must be unconditional. A conditional kritik should be considered
abusive
Solt 3 (Roger, Debate Coach at the University of Kentucky for 30 years. "The Disposition of Counterplans and
Permutations: The Case for Logical, Limited Conditionality." Wake Forest University. Wake Forest University
Debate Team, 2003. Web. 30 June 2015. <http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Solt2003.htm>.)

Is kritik conditionality legitimate? One plausible answer is that it is as legitimate as counterplan conditionality. The same, or very similar, arguments speak for and against both counterplan
and kritik conditionality. There is, I would suggest, at least one argument to the effect that kritik conditionality is less

legitimate than counterplan conditionality. It is sometimes said that conditional counterplans force the affirmative to debate in two different worlds at once. (The negative, of
course, has to do so too.) But this seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. Conditional policy arguments at least all operate within the general realm of policy discourse. Conditional kritiks may

involve two or more distinct discursive frameworks or worldviews. It is this worldview conditionality which
may be deemed uniquely problematic. One reason might be that it is too hard to think, sequentially, within different worldviews. This does not seem to be a very strong argument.
Learning to think within different frameworks is probably a good thing. A better argument, I think, is that if we choose to debate about core underlying

assumptions or about fundamental worldviews, we should attempt to do so in as much depth as

possible. And especially if these are, as kritikers often argue, the most important things to talk about,
then if they are raised, debating them exclusively might well seem warranted. There is also, of course,
the problem of the less radical argument contaminating the advocacy of the more radical. You
shouldn't eat at the restaurant you are picketing, even if you say the food is bad. Is there a form of logical, limited kritik conditionality? Probably so. It seems reasonable
for the negative to say both "reject statism" and "reject the plan because it makes the evil statist system even worse." This seems closely analogous to the counterplan plus status quo option which I have defended in the main
article as legitimate. But once the range of alternatives the negative can choose to embrace goes beyond kritik plus status quo, they would seem to have entered the realm of unconstrained kritik conditionality. And this seems to
happen fairly frequently. Negative teams often defend two or more kritiks in the same round, each of which at least implies an independent alternative. Or, a kritik is often coupled with both a counterplan and with a status quo
defense. Once again, this would seem to constitute unconstrained, rather than limited conditionality. Kritiks are not counterplans, but they often function in the same way, as forms of counter-advocacy. Therefore, counterplan
theory offers at least a heuristically useful analogue for our thinking about kritiks. Just as counterplan permutations enlighten us as to the mutual compatibility and mutual desirability of policy options, kritik permutations can
enlighten us as to the mutual compatibility of the ideas advanced by the two sides in the debate. The plan inclusiveness debate with regard to counterplans should help to illuminate the debate over advocacy-inclusive kritiks.
Likewise, what we think about conditionality in the context of counterplans would seem to have relevance to how we think about it in relation to kritiks.
B: Standards:
1. Strategy Skew: Allowing the neg to advocate for both the status quo, a kritik,
and potentially a counterplan as well is a major hit on the aff strategy. In
defending against one worldview, an aff might be forced to make concessions
that the neg can capitalize on with another worldview. This is unreciprocal
skew; while the aff is locked to one advocacy and one worldview, the neg can
have multiple, and pick whichever is most strategic, leading to unfair debate.
2. Advocacy Construction: Forcing the neg to defend their advocacy is crucial to
advocacy construction skills. If the neg can kick their advocacy the moment it
becomes a strategic burden, they will never learn to really defend their
advocacies under pressure. This prevents development of real world skills
3. Education Depth: As the card said, kritik conditionality wrecks depth of
education. This is awful for kritikal advocacy and education in general.
C: Voter:
Education: Depth of education, advocacy construction skills, and fairness are key to
educational debate. Depth of education is crucial because without it our knowledge
base is shallow and useless. Advocacy construction skills are also crucial for a well-
rounded education. Fairness is crucial because without fair debate, there would be no
participation and thus no education. Our impacts are preservation of the game,
topical education, and skills education, each of which is a priori to any other impact
 <IF THEY HAVE MULTIPLE Ks>
A: Interp: The negative team should be allowed only one conditional kritik. Running
multiple conditional kritiks is abusive
Solt 3(Roger, Debate Coach at the University of Kentucky for 30 years. "The Disposition of Counterplans and
Permutations: The Case for Logical, Limited Conditionality." Wake Forest University. Wake Forest University
Debate Team, 2003. Web. 30 June 2015. <http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Solt2003.htm>.)

Is kritik conditionality legitimate? One plausible answer is that it is as legitimate as counterplan conditionality. The same, or very similar,
arguments speak for and against both counterplan and kritik conditionality. There is, I would suggest, at least one argument to the effect

that kritik conditionality is less legitimate than counterplan conditionality. It is sometimes said that conditional
counterplans force the affirmative to debate in two different worlds at once. (The negative, of course, has to do so too.) But this seems to be a bit of an
exaggeration. Conditional policy arguments at least all operate within the general realm of policy discourse. Conditional kritiks may involve
two or more distinct discursive frameworks or worldviews. It is this worldview conditionality which may be
deemed uniquely problematic. One reason might be that it is too hard to think, sequentially, within different worldviews. This does not seem to
be a very strong argument. Learning to think within different frameworks is probably a good thing. A better argument, I think, is that if we choose to

debate about core underlying assumptions or about fundamental worldviews, we should attempt to
do so in as much depth as possible. And especially if these are, as kritikers often argue, the most
important things to talk about, then if they are raised, debating them exclusively might well seem
warranted. There is also, of course, the problem of the less radical argument contaminating the
advocacy of the more radical. You shouldn't eat at the restaurant you are picketing, even if you say the food is bad.
Is there a form of logical, limited kritik conditionality? Probably so. It seems reasonable for the negative to say both "reject statism" and "reject the plan because it
makes the evil statist system even worse." This seems closely analogous to the counterplan plus status quo option which I have defended in the main article as
legitimate. But once the range of alternatives the negative can choose to embrace goes beyond kritik plus status quo, they would seem to have entered the realm of
unconstrained kritik conditionality. And this seems to happen fairly frequently. Negative teams often defend two or more kritiks in the same round, each of which at
least implies an independent alternative. Or, a kritik is often coupled with both a counterplan and with a status quo defense. Once again, this would seem to
constitute unconstrained, rather than limited conditionality. Kritiks are not counterplans, but they often function in the same way, as forms of counter-advocacy.
Therefore, counterplan theory offers at least a heuristically useful analogue for our thinking about kritiks. Just as counterplan permutations enlighten us as to the
mutual compatibility and mutual desirability of policy options, kritik permutations can enlighten us as to the mutual compatibility of the ideas advanced by the two
sides in the debate. The plan inclusiveness debate with regard to counterplans should help to illuminate the debate over advocacy-inclusive kritiks. Likewise, what
we think about conditionality in the context of counterplans would seem to have relevance to how we think about it in relation to kritiks.
B: Standards:
1. Strategy Skew: Allowing the neg to advocate for multiple Ks is a major hit on
the aff strategy. In defending against one worldview, an aff might be forced to
make concessions that the neg can capitalize on with another worldview. This is
unreciprocal skew; while the aff is locked to one advocacy and one worldview,
the neg can have multiple, and pick whichever is most strategic, leading to
unfair debate.
2. Advocacy Construction: Forcing the neg to defend their advocacy is crucial to
advocacy construction skills. If the neg can kick their advocacy the moment it
becomes a strategic burden, they will never learn to really defend their
advocacies under pressure. This prevents development of real world skills
3. Education Depth: As the card said, kritik conditionality wrecks depth of
education. This is awful for kritikal advocacy and education in general.
C: Voters:
Depth of education, advocacy construction skills, and fairness are key to educational
debate. Depth of education is crucial because without it our knowledge base is
shallow and useless. Advocacy construction skills are also crucial for a well-rounded
education. Fairness is crucial because without fair debate, there would be no
participation and thus no education. Our impacts are preservation of the game,
topical education, and skills education, each of which is a priori to any other impact
K Conditionality Good
 <IF YOU HAVE 1 CONDO K>
A: Counter-Interp: The neg should be allowed one conditional kritik, and not be
considered abusive
B: Standards:
11. Advocacy Construction: The aff should be able to defend that their affirmative
is both superior to the status quo and comparable policy options and not
rooted in harmful assumptions. The aff shouldn’t just have to defend their
assumptions, but also prove that they are a good policy option. This skills
education is precluded by barring the negative from a conditional kritik.
12. Strategy Skew: If the neg is barred from reading a conditional kritik, the aff can
moot the entire neg case by kicking an advantage once a criticism is run against
it. This effectively makes it impossible for the neg to win, because they have
had their K link stolen and they can’t fall back on the status quo. This is a major
fairness impact.
Voter:
Education: Advocacy construction skills and fairness are key to educational debate.
Fairness is essential Advocacy construction skills are also crucial for a well-rounded
education. Our impacts are preservation of the game and skills education, both of
which are a priori to any other impact
 <IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE Ks>
A: Counter-Interp: The neg’s job is to prove that the aff is bad in any way possible,
including multiple criticisms.
B: Standards:
1. Advocacy Construction: The aff should be prepared to counter any argument
that can be brought up against their affirmative. In real life, an advocacy often
must be defended against arguments from multiple, potentially contradictory
perspectives. Allowing the aff to impose arbitrary restrictions on what can be
run against prevents skills education.
2. Neg Flex: The aff gets infinite prep time, primacy and recency, and decides the
stasis point, giving them an inherent advantage. In return, the neg must be
given the ability to pick and choose their winning arguments. Any arguments
for reciprocality between the aff and the neg ignore the advantages granted to
the aff by the rules of the game. This is crucial for fair debate.
C: Voter
Education: Advocacy construction skills and fairness are key to educational debate.
Advocacy construction skills are crucial for a well-rounded education. Fairness is
crucial because without fair debate, there would be no participation and thus no
education. Our impacts are preservation of the game and skills education, both of
which are a priori to any other impact
 Floating PIKs Good/Bad
* For anyone who doesn’t remember, a floating PIK is when the neg reads a K and an
alt, allows the 2AC to speak, and then reveals in the block that the plan would happen
in the world of the alt (e.g. “drone surveillance could be limited after we adopt the
counter-conduct”)
Floating PIKs Bad
 Floating PIKs Bad (2AC Prempt)
If the plan or the plan’s function can be done after the alt, then this must be stated in
the 1NC if the neg wishes to garner it as alt solvency. Floating PIKs ran in the block
should be considered abusive.
 Floating PIKs Bad (1AR)
A: Interpretation: If the plan or the plan’s function can be done after the alt, then this
must be stated in the 1NC if the neg wishes to garner it as alt solvency. Floating PIKs
ran in the block should be considered abusive.
B: Standards:
1. Strategy Skew: The Floating PIK puts an unfair tactical squeeze on the 1AR. It
takes 5 seconds to read, but the 1AR has to spend minutes responding to it or
lose the debate. The only reason the neg would choose not to read the PIK in
the 1NC is because they acknowledge this strat skew. Strategy skew is a major
impact to fairness, because it’s nearly impossible for the 1AR to effectively
respond to all of the block and a floating PIK
2. Educational Breadth: When the neg is allowed to subsume the aff with a
floating PIK, they can run the same K with the same impact every round and
never have to worry about the specifics of the aff they are up against, meaning
the neg learns very little about the many intricacies of the topic itself. ]
3. Educational Depth: With the Neg able to subsume the case at any time, there’s
no reason for the Aff to deeply research their case. Instead, they must conduct
broad research to defend against the innumerable Ks that could steal their
ground.
C: Voter
1. Education: Fairness, depth and breadth are key to educational debate. Breadth
and depth of education are crucial because without either of them, the
education doesn’t exist. Fairness is important, because without fair debate
there will be no participation, and participation is key to education. This an in-
round impact, you have to vote on education first.
Floating PIKs Good
 Floating PIKs Good
*This isn’t very good. The simple solution is to NOT RUN FLOATING PIKS, but if you must…

A: Interpretation: All of the constructive speeches can be used to make new

arguments, including the 2NC
B: Standards:
1. Strategy Skew: The affirmative gets two full constructives to make new
arguments, as well as unlimited prep time to block them out. Preventing the
2NC from making new arguments while still allowing 2AC add-ons is
unreciprocal, and massively slants the debate towards the aff.
2. Advocacy Construction: The aff should have to learn how to make affirmative
cases that are defendable in their entirety. The difficulty of responding in the
1AR incentivizes the aff to learn their aff better and have quick efficient
responses for why every aspect of their aff is good, which is best for depth of
education
C: Voters
1. Education:
Depth of education, advocacy construction skills, and fairness are key to
educational debate. Depth of education is crucial because without it our
knowledge base is shallow and useless. Advocacy construction skills are also
crucial for a well-rounded education. Fairness is crucial because without fair
debate, there would be no participation and thus no education. Our voters
outweigh theirs, we access the same fairness and topical education impacts, as
well as skills education that their interp doesn’t allow for.