theory5-new

West Coast Theory Handbook 5, Page 1
WEST COAST DEBATE

Theory Handbook Volume 5
Edited by Jim Hanson
Written and Researched by

Mike Meredith
Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
WEST COAST DEBATE
THEORY HANDBOOK VOLUME 5
Edited by Jim Hanson

Written and Researched by
Mike Meredith
Finding Arguments in this Handbook

Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left.
We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible. You’ll find affirmatives,
disadvantages, counterplans, and kritiks listed alphabetically in their categories.
Using the arguments in this Handbook

We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will
use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files.
File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the
evidence out-loud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your
evidence in rebuttal speeches.
Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning

We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong
statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT
USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a
beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to
offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build upon them by doing your own
research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so,
you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.
Copying West Coast Evidence

Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard
work.
You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.
You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team
unless you very substantially change each page that of material that you share.
For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at wcdebate@hotmail.com and seek our consent.
Ordering West Coast Materials

1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
2. E-mail us at wcdebate@hotmail.com
You can also call us at 888-255-9133; fax us at 877-781-5058; or write to West Coast Publishing; 2344 Hawk Drive; Walla Walla WA
99362
Copyright 2008. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page! www.wcdebate.com
WHAT’S NEW & HOW TO USE THIS BOOK.............................................................................................8
PART ONE : ARGUMENT STATUS............................................................................. 9
Conditionality
Conditionality Bad 2AC.................................................................................................................................11
Conditionality Bad 2AR/1AR Overview........................................................................................................12
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Negation Theory..........................................................................................13
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Best Policy Option / Rational Decision.......................................................14
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Different Than Disadvantages...............................................................15
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Different Than Topicality......................................................................16
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Most Real World.........................................................................................17
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Time Skew Inevitable..................................................................................18
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (1AC Checks).....................................................................19
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : 2NR Will Be Consistent / Pick One............................................................20
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (Answer Theory Checks)...................................................21
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Reject the Argument Not the Team.............................................................22
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (Permutations Check).........................................................23
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Conditionality Key to PICs.........................................................................24
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Increases Strategic Thinking.......................................................................25
Conditionality Good 2NC...............................................................................................................................26
Conditionality Good 2NC – A2: 2AC Time Skew.........................................................................................27
Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : 2AC Strategy Skew / Contradictions.........................................................28
Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : Not Reciprocal...........................................................................................29
Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : Infinitely Regressive..................................................................................30
Dispositionality
Dispositionality Bad 2AC...............................................................................................................................31
Dispositionality Bad 2AR/1AR Overview.....................................................................................................32
Dispositionality Bad 1AR - A2: Straight Turn It / Like Any Argument........................................................33
Dispositionality Good 2NC............................................................................................................................34
Dispositionality Good 2NC – A2 : Strategy Skew.........................................................................................35
Dispositionality Good 2NC – A2 : Time Skew..............................................................................................36
Unconditionality
Unconditionality Bad 2AC.............................................................................................................................37
Unconditionality Good 2AC...........................................................................................................................38
PART TWO: TOPICALITY AND SPECIFICATION ARGUMENTS.....................39
Shells / Frontlines
Vagueness 1NC..............................................................................................................................................41
Vagueness 2AC..............................................................................................................................................42
Agent Specification (ASPEC) 1NC................................................................................................................43
Agent Specification (ASPEC) 2AC................................................................................................................44
Funding Specification (F-SPEC) 1NC...........................................................................................................45
Funding Specification (F-SPEC) 2AC...........................................................................................................46
Enforcement Specification (E-SPEC) 1NC....................................................................................................47
Enforcement Specification (E-SPEC) 2AC....................................................................................................48
‘As Per’ Bad 1NC...........................................................................................................................................49
‘As Per’ Good 2AC........................................................................................................................................50
Definitions
Dictionary Definitions Good..........................................................................................................................51
Dictionary Definitions Bad.............................................................................................................................52
Field Context Good........................................................................................................................................53

Field Context Bad...........................................................................................................................................54
Legal Definitions Good..................................................................................................................................55
Legal Definitions Bad.....................................................................................................................................56
“Common Person” Definition Good..............................................................................................................57
“Common Person” Definition Bad.................................................................................................................58
Standards
Grammar Good...............................................................................................................................................59
Grammar Bad.................................................................................................................................................60
Limits Good....................................................................................................................................................61
Limits Bad......................................................................................................................................................62
Bi-Directionality Bad.....................................................................................................................................63
Bi-Directionality Good...................................................................................................................................64
Effects Topicality Bad....................................................................................................................................65
Effects Topicality Good.................................................................................................................................66
Extra Topicality Bad.......................................................................................................................................67
Extra Topicality Good....................................................................................................................................68
Framer’s Intent Good.....................................................................................................................................69
Framer’s Intent Bad........................................................................................................................................70
Brightline Good..............................................................................................................................................71
Brightline Bad................................................................................................................................................72
Probabalism Bad.............................................................................................................................................73
Probabalism Good..........................................................................................................................................74
Weighing Mechanisms
Depth Outweighs Breadth..............................................................................................................................75
Breadth Outweighs Depth..............................................................................................................................76
Competing Interpretations Good / Reasonability Bad....................................................................................77
Competing Interpretations Bad / Reasonability Good....................................................................................78
Voters
Education is a Privileged Voter......................................................................................................................79
Jurisdiction is a Privileged Voter...................................................................................................................80
Ground is a Privileged Voter..........................................................................................................................81
Fairness is a Privileged Voter.........................................................................................................................82
T is an RVI.....................................................................................................................................................83
T is Not an RVI..............................................................................................................................................84
Mitigating Factors
Literature/Clash/Discourse Checks Abuse.....................................................................................................85
A2: Literature/ Clash / Disclosure Checks Abuse..........................................................................................86
A2: Including Our Affirmative Enhances Education.....................................................................................87
A2: Err Aff on Topicalty................................................................................................................................88
PART THREE: COUNTER-PLANS.............................................................................89
General Counter-Plans
2NC Counter-Plans Bad 2AC.........................................................................................................................91
2NC Counter-Plans Good 1NR......................................................................................................................92
Agent Counter-Plans Bad 2AC......................................................................................................................93
Agent Counter-Plans Good 2NC....................................................................................................................94
Conditioned Fiat Bad......................................................................................................................................95
Conditioned Fiat Good...................................................................................................................................96
Consultation Counter-Plan Bad 2AC............................................................................................................97
Consultation Counter-Plan Good 2AC..........................................................................................................98

Counter-Plans / Negative Fiat Bad 2AC........................................................................................................99
Counter-Plans / Negative Fiat Good 2NC....................................................................................................100
Extra/ Artificially Competitive Counter-Plans Good 2NC..........................................................................101
Extra/ Artificially Competitive Counter-Plans Bad 2AC.............................................................................102
PICs Bad 2AC..............................................................................................................................................103
PICs Good 2NC............................................................................................................................................104
International Counter-Plans Bad 2AC..........................................................................................................105
International Counter-Plans Good 2NC.......................................................................................................106
Multiple Actor Fiat Bad 2AC.......................................................................................................................107
Multiple Actor Fiat Good 2NC.....................................................................................................................108
Multiple Counter-Plans Bad 2AC................................................................................................................109
Multiple Counter-Plans Good 2NC..............................................................................................................110
Multiple International Agents Bad 2AC.......................................................................................................111
Multiple International Agents Good 2NC....................................................................................................112
Object of the Resolution Fiat Bad 2AC........................................................................................................113
Object of the Resolution Fiat Good 2NC.....................................................................................................114
Private Actor Fiat Good 2NC.......................................................................................................................115
Private Actor Fiat Bad 2AC.........................................................................................................................116
Topical Counter-Plans Good 2NC................................................................................................................117
Topical Counter-Plans Bad 2AC..................................................................................................................118
Utopian Fiat Bad 2AC..................................................................................................................................119
Utopian Fiat Good 2AC................................................................................................................................120
Specific Counter-Plans
Administrative / Bureaucratic Compliance Fiat Bad....................................................................................121
Administrative / Bureaucratic Compliance Fiat Good.................................................................................122
Courts Counter-Plans Bad 2AC....................................................................................................................123
Courts Counter-Plans Good 2NC.................................................................................................................124
Delay Counter-Plan Good 2NC....................................................................................................................125
Delay Counter-Plan Bad 2AC......................................................................................................................126
Executive Order Counter-Plan Good 2NC...................................................................................................127
Executive Order Counter-Plan Bad 2AC.....................................................................................................128
Lower Court Compliance Fiat Bad...............................................................................................................129
Lower Court Compliance Fiat Good............................................................................................................130
Referendum Counter-Plan Bad 2AC............................................................................................................131
Referendum Counter-Plan Good 2NC.........................................................................................................132
States Counter-Plan Bad 2AC......................................................................................................................133
States Counter-Plan Good 2NC....................................................................................................................134
Test Case Fiat Good.....................................................................................................................................135
Test Case Fiat Bad........................................................................................................................................136
UN Counter-Plans Bad 2NC........................................................................................................................137
UN Counter-Plans Good 2NC......................................................................................................................138
Veto-Cheato Counter-Plans Bad 2AC..........................................................................................................139
Veto-Cheato Counter-Plans Good 2NC.......................................................................................................140
Counter-Plan Competition
Text Comp Good / Functional Competition Bad.........................................................................................141
Text Comp Bad / Functional Competition Good........................................................................................142
Plan-Plan is Good.........................................................................................................................................143
Plan-Plan is Bad...........................................................................................................................................144
PART FOUR: PERMUTATIONS...............................................................................145
Intrinsic Permutations
Intrinsic Permutations Good 2AC................................................................................................................146

Intrinsic Permutations Bad 2NC...................................................................................................................147
Conditionality Justifies Intrinsicness 2AC...................................................................................................148
Conditionality Does Not Justify Intrinsicness 2NC.....................................................................................149
PICs Justify Intrinsicness.............................................................................................................................150
PICs Do Not Justify Intrinsicness.................................................................................................................151
Counter-Plans Justify Intrinsicness..............................................................................................................152
Counter-Plans Do Not Justify Intrinsicness.................................................................................................153
2NC Counter-Plans Justify Intrinsicness......................................................................................................154
2NC Counter-Plans Do Not Justify Intrinsicness.........................................................................................155
Severence Permutations
Severence Permutations Good 2AC.............................................................................................................156
Severence Permutations Bad 2NC................................................................................................................157
Kritiks Justify Severance / Discursive Severance Good..............................................................................158
Kritiks Do Not Justify Severance / Discursive Severance Bad....................................................................159
Timeframe Permutations
Timeframe Permutations Good 2AC............................................................................................................160
Timeframe Permutations Bad 2NC..............................................................................................................161
Multiple Permutations
Multiple Perms Bad 2NC.............................................................................................................................162
Multiple Perms Good 2AC...........................................................................................................................163
Status of Permutations
Advocating Perms Good 2AC......................................................................................................................164
Advocating Perms Bad 2NC........................................................................................................................165
PART FIVE : DISADVANTAGES..............................................................................166
Politics Disads Bad.......................................................................................................................................167

Politics Disads Good....................................................................................................................................168
Normal Means = Top of the Docket.............................................................................................................169
Normal Means = Bottom of the Docket.......................................................................................................170
PART SIX: KRITIKS................................................................................................... 171
Policy/Fiat Framework
Fiat Good......................................................................................................................................................172
Fiat Good - Coverstone................................................................................................................................173
Fiat Good – Rawls........................................................................................................................................174
A2 : Discourse & Kritiks Excluded / Irrelevant in You Framework............................................................175
A2 : Real Wold Education / Kritik Good For Activism...............................................................................176
A2 : Predictability is A Practice / Fiat is Arbitrary......................................................................................177
A2 : Resolved is On the Left Side of the Colon...........................................................................................178
A2 : Your Ground is ____............................................................................................................................179
A2 : Encourages Racist and Sexist Language..............................................................................................180
A2 : Mitchell.................................................................................................................................................181
A2 : Kulynych..............................................................................................................................................182
Kritik/No Fiat Framework

Fiat Bad........................................................................................................................................................183
Fiat Bad - Mitchell........................................................................................................................................184
Fiat Bad - Kulynych.....................................................................................................................................185
A2 : Education..............................................................................................................................................186
A2 : Undermines Aff Ground.......................................................................................................................187
A2 : Can’t Debate Politics............................................................................................................................188
A2 : Predictability / Predictable Ground......................................................................................................189
A2 : Not In the Literature.............................................................................................................................190
A2 : Need Real World Skills........................................................................................................................191
A2 : Do It Outside The Round.....................................................................................................................192
A2 : Undermines Clash................................................................................................................................193
A2 : Topic Specific Education.....................................................................................................................194
A2 : Undermines Strategic/Critical Thinking...............................................................................................195
A2 : Allows Advocating Truisms.................................................................................................................196
A2 : Allows Bi-Directionality......................................................................................................................197
A2 : Coverstone............................................................................................................................................198
Multiple Frameworks
Multiple Frameworks (Kritik & CP) Bad.....................................................................................................199
Multiple Frameworks (Kritik & CP) Good..................................................................................................200
Kritik Alternatives
No Text to the Alternative Bad....................................................................................................................201
No Text to the Alternative Good..................................................................................................................202
Plan Inclusive Kritiks Good.........................................................................................................................203
Plan Inclusive Kritiks Bad............................................................................................................................204
Vague Alternatives Bad................................................................................................................................205
Vague Alternatives Good.............................................................................................................................206
PART SEVEN: VOTERS............................................................................................. 207
Reject the Team Not the Argument..............................................................................................................208

Reject the Argument Not the Team..............................................................................................................209
Potential Abuse Good...................................................................................................................................210
In-Round Abuse Good..................................................................................................................................211
Time Skew is a Voter...................................................................................................................................212
Time Skew is Not a Voter............................................................................................................................213
Strategy Skew is a Voter..............................................................................................................................214
Strategy Skew is Not a Voter.......................................................................................................................215
Abuse is A Voter..........................................................................................................................................216
Abuse is Not A Voter...................................................................................................................................217
PART EIGHT: META-DEBATE & MISC................................................................ 218
Speed Good (1/2)..........................................................................................................................................219

Speed Good (2/2)..........................................................................................................................................220
Speed Bad.....................................................................................................................................................221
Author Advocate Good.................................................................................................................................222
Author Advocate Bad...................................................................................................................................223
Modifying Evidence Good...........................................................................................................................224
Modifying Evidence Bad..............................................................................................................................225
WHAT’S NEW & HOW TO USE THIS BOOK
New Additions to West Coast Theory
Less Cards and More Arguments – Each of the blocks have been updated and cards have been removed
to keep up with the increasingly technical nature of theory debate.
New Theory Blocks – Debate is continually changing and so too are the theory debates that happen inside
it, this book includes emerging issues in the debate community.
Round Long Theory Defenses – Because theory is an issue that can win or lose rounds it is often debated
in depth and throughout every speech in the round. This book provides you with defenses of each theory
issues that will be applicable in every speech even those specially tailored for the final rebuttals.
How to Use This Book
Introduction Sections – each class of theory argument includes within it an introduction section that
explains what the arguments are and how to use them. If, when looking at the index the argument and block
titles, they are familiar to you then the introduction section may not be necessary for you but you should be
familiar with the next two sections.
BE AWARE: These ‘be aware’ blocks are interconnections and ways to use the book that you may not be
familiar with.
Strategy Tips: These ‘Strategy Tip’ blocks are ways for you to outsmart your opponents and use theory
strategically to win you the round
Theory Blocks – Beyond that the theory blocks are ready for round after briefly familiarizing yourself with
the arguments they present then they can be read as they are whenever the opportunity presents itself or you
have to defend your theoretical stance in round. Good Luck!
PART ONE : ARGUMENT STATUS
If there is one theory issue that you should be prepared to debate about, it is the issue of the
‘status’ of argumentation as the majority of theory debates center round this issue. The ‘status’ of an
argument is how long and under what conditions a team has to continue to argue for or advocate one of
their arguments. Take, for example, a solvency argument. When a negative team runs a solvency argument
in the 1NC against an affirmative case that, for example, argues that the plan doesn’t do enough to address
the structural barriers of the status quo, they are traditionally allowed to continue to argue and defend that
solvency argument for as long as they choose. They could continue to advocate it in the 2NC, stop arguing
for it in the 1NR, or extend it throughout the entire round until the 2NR. While this is a very well accepted
standard what is constantly up for debate is for how long and under what conditions a team has to defend
and advocacy like a counter-plan or kritik alternative. Over the years, three basic categories of argument
status have risen to become dominate: Conditionality, Dispositionality and Unconditionality.
Conditionality is the status of a argument or advocacy that allows a team to defend an argument
for as long or as short a time as they choose. This status argues that even advocacies, like a counterplan,
should be held to the same standard as the previously discussed solvency argument. A negative team can
simply stop defending them at any point in the round. The first portion of this chapter will prepare you to
debate both sides of this issue.
Dispositionality is the status of an argument that takes a more moderated stance. It argues that
advocacies, such as counter-plans, are just like disadvantages. They are simply disadvantages of ‘lost
opportunity’ because by doing the affirmative plan the judge, in this view of debate, forgoes the
opportunity to do the counter-plan. Disadvantages, however, are not like solvency arguments the negative
tem cannot simply stop defending them whenever they choose. If, for example, an affirmative team
‘straight turns’ (reads a non-uniqueness argument and a link turn argument) then the disadvantage now
functions like an advantage for the affirmative and it still stays in the round whether the negative team
wants it to or not. In fact the only way that a disadvantage can go away with no risk to the negative is if
they concede a defensive argument like a ‘no link’ because that means they are agreeing with the
affirmative that it has no bearing in the round whatsoever.
When this model is applied to counter-plans, as it is in a status of dispositionality, the counterplan
is held to the same standard as a disad: a team can only stop defending it if they concede an argument like a
‘no link’. But what is a ‘no link’ to a counter-plan? If you remember the basis for dispositionality is that the
counter-plan is a disad of a lost opportunity because you forgo the opportunity to do the counter-plan by
doing the plan. So in order to prove that this ‘link’ to the ‘lost opportunity’ disad isn’t true they have to
establish that they can be done together, that the plan can happen without losing the chance to do the
counter-plan, with a permutation argument. That is why the first way in which a negative team is able,
under the constraints of dispositionality to stop defending a counter-plan is by conceding a permutation
because they are conceding that there is ‘no link’ or no relationship between and the counter-plan. The
second common way in which a negative team can stop defending a counter-plan, under the constraints of
dispositionality, is by conceding a theoretical objection to a counter-plan. By conceding a theoretical
objection to the counter-plan they are agreeing it is an illegitimate argument they should not be allowed to
make in the round. In that sense it is not so much conceding a ‘no link ‘ to the ‘lost opportunity’ disad as it
is conceding that there is no legitimate link between the counterplan and the round.
So, dispositionality provides the negative team the opportunity to stop defending their counter-
plan like they can stop defending a disad but it also means that under some situations they are forced to
defend their counter-plan just like sometimes, in the example of a straight turn, they are forced to defend
their disadvantage. But, what is a ‘straight turn’ to a counter-plan.?
BE AWARE : the definition of a straight turn to a counter-plan is a hotly debated issue some debaters and
coaches believe that in order to ‘straight turn’ a counter-plan the affirmative team must prove that the net
benefit to the counter-plan is more likely to happen in the world of the counter-plan than in the world of the
plan, others believe impact turning the net benefit is sufficient and others believe that one must prove that
the counter-plan creates the conditions in which it loses the ‘opportunity’ to enact itself.
If a straight turn is established, however, the negative team has to defend their counter-plan for the entire
round. As you can see, dispositionality allows to affirmative to have some control over when the negative
team has to defend or not defend their counter-plan but still affords the negative a lot of opportunity to stop
defending the counter-plan when they choose. Therefore many of the arguments included in the
‘conditionality’ section of this chapter may also be useful to you if you are advocating an argument
dispositionally.
BE AWARE : The previous discussion of dispositionality is the most commonly accepted and practiced
definition of dispositionality. Some teams, however, may make up their own definitions so you should be
certain, before beginning a debate about dispositionality of what the definition is for that particular round.
That said, no matter what the definition is the arguments included in the dispositionality section of this
chapter will apply nearly 100% of the time.
The final status of argument is ‘unconditional’’ this argument is the least common but also the
most simple. If an argument is unconditional it means that there is no situation in which a team can stop
defending that argument. It will be their advocacy for the entire round. The last section in this chapter
provides you the tools to defend or attack this sort type of argument status.
BE AWARE : Although for much of this introduction the concept of argument status has been applied to
counter-plans but they can apply to any argument, permutations, kritiks and affirmative plans. So, while
they are dominantly used to attack counter-plans, it is strategic use these arguments on any arguments that
you deem fit.
Strategy Tip – Although this chapter is divided up into multiple self contained sections (conditional,
dispositional and unconditional) it is important to realize the ways in which they interact. For example, if a
team is attacking one of you arguments for being conditional you should ask them how they would prefer
that the argument be run. They will likely argue that it should be read unconditionally. In that case you
should go to the unconditionality section and explain (with the blocks provided) why the way in which they
want the argument advocated is bad.
Conditionality Bad 2AC

Time Skew - Conditionality forces us to answer two possible worlds (the counter-plan and the status
quo) as opposed to one functionally cutting our time in half.
Strategy Skew – Makes it impossible for affs to effectively distribute offense or determine a good 2AC
strategy because not even straight turning a position is strategic when it could be kicked at any time.
Destroys Reciprocity in Debate – Affs are stuck with the 1AC while conditionality allows for
negatives to advocate any number of positions ensuring 2ACs are always two steps behind.
Undermines In-Depth Education – Conditionality encourages debaters to avoid rich round-long

policy comparison based argumentation in favor of multiple, brief, short circuited, surface-level generic
mini-debates.
Undermines Real World Education – Policy advocates can’t just change their mind in the middle
of a nine minute speech.
Encourages Contradictions and lack of Coherency in Negative Strategy– Inhibits affs

from making their best offensive arguments because they become double turns once one component of
contradictory negative strategy is kicked.
Justifies Infinite Counter-plans– Any defense of a single conditional counter-plan applies equally
well to multiple conditional counter-plans ensuring that 1NCs would read as many as possible and go for
whichever the 2AC drops. Also magnifies all of our impacts.
Conditionality is a Voting Issue, anything else is de-facto Conditionality – To simply

reject the counter-plan results in a reversion to a negative defense of the status quo which is what they were
looking for in the first place.
Conditionality Bad 2AR/1AR Overview

Extend Our Conditionality Bad Arguments –
1st- Conditionality Undermines 2AC Fairness

a) Splits 2AC time in half by forcing it to answer two negative worlds
b) Undermines the strategic value of the 2AC - our best offense cannot be made due to
negative
contradiction or, if it is made, distributed effectively as negative strategy is not cogent
2AC fairness concerns should be privileged over their claims to fairness as it is the
only speech that allows the aff to make offensive arguments and structures the rest
of the debate thus requires strict protection. This is also the only abuse that has
already happened in this round warranting immediate rejection.
2nd – Conditionality Undermines Reciprocity and Structural Fairness – Affs are forced
to defend only on advocacy to allow negatives to defend more than one is to undermine the sole bedrock of
fairness in debate: reciprocity.
3rd – Conditionality Undermines Education

a) Undermines In-Round Education – negatives bait 2AC undercoverage and 2ACs
respond by making generic and non-offensive argument turning debate into a race to
who can cover least effectively damning any hope of meaningful detailed policy
comparison
b) Undermines Real World Education – Real-world advocates are expected to maintain
consistent advocacy. Public officials are routinely criticized for flip-flopping from
election to election. Imagine if they flip-flopped in a single, hour-long debate.
Finally, all of our impacts should be magnified as all defenses they have lead down
the slippery slope of justifying infinite negative counter-plans.
Now, you should vote against them because to do anything else like reject the
counter-plan would just grant them the conditionality they demanded in the first
place and would not rectify the already committed 2AC abuse.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Negation Theory

Negation theory is codeword for unrestrained conditionality and negative abuse the
negative effects of which have been outlined in our 2AC. Unless they beat each of
those arguments this appeal to a ‘negation theory’ gets them nowhere.
This contradicts all their other theory arguments – education, a search for the best
policy option, and real world policy making are impossible in a world in which the
negative throws a bunch of incoherent arguments at an opponent just to undermine
the 2AC
We advocate “affirmation theory” – the inverse of “negation theory”

We win if the plan is better than or equal to anything the negative advocates.
Sticking them with what they advocate is the only viable check on free-wheeling
conditionality.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Best Policy Option / Rational

Decision
Our Impacts are a better internal link to the search for the best policy option. It is
impossible to determine the best policy option if education about those policies is forced
to surface level because of the lack of time and strategic argumentation that
conditionality demands.
Best Policy Option or the Rational Decision making model is in appropriate for debate
otherwise it justifies intrinsic permutations, 2AC plan shifts and a new plan in the 2AR so
long as they appear better than other options presented in the round. Such a model is
worse for both the aff and the neg.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Different Than Disadvantages

Not True – We can straight turn disadvantages and force them to go for it
maintaining the strategic value of the 2AC. Their conditional counter-plan allows
them to shift out of even that offense.
And, to kick a disad, you have to concede an argument to get out of it. For
counterplans, going for theory is like a straight-turn. There’s nothing they can
concede
Disads are versions of the status quo. We’re prepared to debate multiple defenses of
the status quo, but multiple potentially advocated alternatives are unfair
This justifies severance. If all arguments are conditional, there’s no reason we have
to defend the whole plan
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Different Than Topicality
Topicality is not an abusive form of conditionality because it is not an advocacy.

Meaning that when the negative doesn’t go for topicality we are still defending our plan
against only one world.
Topicality is in a class of its own. It is a procedural prior to policy comparison unlike

counter-plans explicitly demand policy comparison and only by advocating them
unconditionally can good comparison be done.
This argument gets them nowhere, if they do think that there is no meaningful difference
between counter-plans and topicality it just means they should be forced to go for
topicality should you choose to run it.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Most Real World

Extend our standard from the 2AC conditionality is not most real world
unconditionality is most real world when policy makers and politicians flip flop they
pay for it. The negative team should too.
The fairness demanded by conditionality is also more real world each

congressperson has equal opportunity to speak no on congressperson gets double
the speaking time of all the others.
And fairness should come first because debate is not about precise real world
conditions otherwise new 2AR re-plans and disad linked off of waking up congress-
people to pass the plan would be justified.
Proves our In-Depth Education standard – instead of responding the details of the
1AC they moot it by restarting the debate in the 1NC
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Time Skew Inevitable

Time skew isn’t inevitable there are structural benefits to either side of the
resolution that balance any time based advantage the other side has. Adding
conditional counter-plans put time and strategic allocations out of balance
Even if there is a certain level of time skew in rounds due to speed differences
between debaters etc. that should be minimized as much as possible not maximized
by including an unfair counter-plan.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (1AC Checks)

The 1AC is not a structural aff advantage it is a check against the massive neg bias
of the block meaning that the neg doesn’t need a conditional counter-plan as well.
The 1AC is also not just eight minutes of pre-empts it still has to make a case and can’t
predict every disad or version of the status quo that negatives might cook up meaning
2AC time is still dedicated to beating 1NC defenses of the status quo.
Justifying Contradictions make the 1AC advantage irrelevant because any argument that
we could make against the counter-plan have already been shut out as strategic options
for the 2AC because they would become double turns if the counter-plan is kicked .
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : 2NR Will Be Consistent / Pick One

The abuse already occurred- the 2AC and the 1AR have already been skewed to the
point where one of their positions was forced to be under-covered, which means that
they get to make their decision after forcing us to make it an easy one.
No theoretical justification. Their arguments all justify going for the CP and the
status quo in the 2NR as much as for the rest of the debate
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (Answer Theory

Checks)
The time skew isn’t reciprocal - Answering theory does not divide their speech time
in half
The theory debate hurts the aff more than the neg. 2AC time skew was already split
in half and now the 1AR has to split its time between theory, the counter-plan and
the status quo.
Doesn’t check the strategy skew or conditionality justifying contradictions – there

are no offensive arguments that are sacrificed when they answer theory – not the
case with contradictory negative strategies.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Reject the Argument Not the Team

Extend our 2AC voter – to simply reject the argument would make the counter-plan
functionally conditional. The only way to render a ‘conditionality bad’ decision is to
vote against them.
Also, the abuse has already occurred – the skewed 2AC forced us to undercover the
other positions in the debate meaning to reject the argument would still create an
unfair round for the aff.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (Permutations Check)

Permutations are not an advocacy that the affirmative can go for they are a test of
competition means that the aff does not have two worlds to go for.
Permutations do not justify contradictory aff strategies because they must include
the entirety of the 1AC means that all of your offense still applies. Not true when a
conditional counter-plan is kicked.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Conditionality Key to PICs

Lack of conditionality doesn’t mean that you can’t read PICs it just means that you
can’t read bad PICs that don’t test a central enough component of the plan to fit
into a coherent negative strategy
Proves our lack of in-depth education standard - instead of committing the full
round to investigating the portion of the plan called into question by the PIC when
the PIC starts to get into trouble negative teams will simply kick it.
Undermines the value of PICs because aff’s can’t make their best offense or
important comparative link stories of offense because the negative would simply
kick them and stick the aff with a double turn.
Proves our 2AC Contradictions standard – The reason why the argue
Conditionality is critical to PICS is because they contradict the rest of their strategy.
This argument means they are conceding a 2AC strategy skew disadvantage to their
interpretation.
Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Increases Strategic Thinking

This is just codeword for stripping the 2AC down to bare bones and forcing a
strategy skew
Decreases strategic thinking – in fact it encourages negative teams not to come up

with cohesive negative strategies but instead throw the kitchen sink at the aff see
what is still standing after the fray.
And, good strategy can’t be determine until all arguments are tested and developed
conditional counter-plans force very few arguments to be tested at a very surface
level undermining complex strategic development.
Conditionality Good 2NC

Conditionality is critical to in depth policy comparison and education– Absent
conditionality negative teams are stuck defending poor policy and doesn’t challenge the aff on multiple
levels of comparison.
Search for the best policy option justifies – the counter-plan test the hypothesis of the case.
Tests should be conditional to ensure debate reaches the best answer to the question posed by the
resolution. Withstanding one test doesn’t prove a hypothesis, it must withstand all tests.
Conditionality teaches critical and strategic thinking –forces them to think in terms of
multiple contingencies and cope with multiple variables simultaneously. That is educationally beneficial
enough to justify the practice.
Conditionality is essential for counterplans. PICs don’t function with 90 percent of other
negative arguments and become unstrategic to research or run, preventing inventive negative research
More real world – policy advocates have to answer attacks from both sides
All arguments are conditional – affirmatives don’t extend every argument that they make so they
should be punished if we are to be. The counter-plan is no different its nothing but an opportunity cost
disad. A straight turn proves the counterplan doesn’t compete
Un-conditionality is worse. We don’t know until the 2AR whether they’re going for the permutation
or the plan, or both which means that we have to defend against more worlds longer than they do.
Voting issue is not the appropriate punishment – it only risks undermining education and
force a debate on theory. At worst they should choose the strategy we go for in 2NR.
Conditionality Good 2NC – A2: 2AC Time Skew

Any abuse cuts both ways – by conceding either strategy we lose all its advantages
and the strategic benefit we got from it in the first place. We also lose all the time
spent in the block extending it and answering theory. That’s enough trade off to
eliminate any on balance abuse.
1AC Checks Time Skew – the entire 1AC in-the-bank arguments against the world
of the status quo means the 2AC is really only answering one world and is already
ahead of the 2NC unless conditional counter-plans are allowed.
Answering Theory checks Time skew – the aff now has at least two possible worlds
to go for in the 2AR theory and Case.
Permutations check time skew – the negative team has to answer the world of the
affirmative as presented in the 1AC and the world of the affirmative as presented in
the 2AC permutation and multiple permutations are universally accepted. Means
the block is equally if not more skewed.
Time skew is also inevitable because of things we can’t control like speed and skill
differences between debaters and quality of evidence.
Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : 2AC Strategy Skew / Contradictions

Just because you can’t make every argument in your tubs doesn’t mean that your
strategy has been skewed it just means that you have to make better arguments
which proves our increased strategic thinking standard.
There are no contradictions in our strategy which means you can make any
argument you please – if there are they hurt the negative just as much as they aff.
Even if we drop the counterplan, we cannot retract any evidence read. Which means
they can concede either contradiction and have a straight turn to whichever strategy
we don’t’ go for. And that evidence can still form the basis for an affirmative turn
or an add-on advantage. They simply have to prove that the plan accrues the new
advantage, rather than relying on the claim that the counterplan precludes it.
Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : Not Reciprocal

Conditional counter-plans are reciprocal with the 1ACs speech-long attack on the
status quo and infinite prep time.
That is not an offensive argument – there are a lot of things in debate that aren’t
reciprocal, like the fact that the affirmative gets to speak first and last.
Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : Infinitely Regressive

You should only sign a ballot based upon actual abuse in the round voting on what
could potentially happen is like voting for a potential disad that they potentially
dropped
Our theory arguments don’t justify infinite conditional counter-plans because at

that point the educational benefits of conditionality that we’ve outlined would be
outweighed by the lack of fairness.
Dispositionality Bad 2AC

Dispositionality is no better than straight conditionality – Dispositionality is not like any
other argument as they will claim. All other arguments are defenses of versions of the status quo.
Dispositional counter-plans create multiple worlds dividing 2AC time in half.
Strategy Skew – Dispositionality ties the hands of the 2AC. Unless accept certain abuse they have to
answer the counter-plan solely with a straight turn forcing the aff to put all of their eggs in one basket and
makes it impossible for important defensive arguments to be made.
Destroys Reciprocity in Debate – Affs are stuck with the 1AC while dispositionality allows for
negatives to advocate any number of positions ensuring 2ACs are always two steps behind.
Undermines In-Depth Education –Dispositionality encourages debaters to avoid rich round-long

policy comparison based argumentation in favor of multiple, brief, short circuited, surface-level generic
mini-debates.
Undermines Real World Education – Policy advocates can’t just change their mind in the middle
of a speech.
Encourages Contradictions and lack of Coherency in Negative Strategy– Inhibits affs

from making their best offensive arguments because they become double turns once one component of
contradictory negative strategy is kicked.
Dispositionality forces debate about what constitutes a Straight Turn – That debate
encourages judge intervention and encourages debating about theory at the cost of substance.
Dispositionality is a Voting Issue, anything else is de-facto Conditionality – To simply

reject thte counter-plan results in a reversion to a negative defense of the status quo which is what they
were looking for in the first place.
Dispositionality Bad 2AR/1AR Overview

Extend our Dispositionality Bad Arguments
1st- Dispositionality is just as Unfair as Conditionality

a) It is not like any other argument because it brings an entirely different negative world into the
debate functionally cutting 2AC time in half undermines reciprocity and fairness
b) Skews 2AC strategy who is forced to make only one offensive argument or face massive
abuse and justifies contradictions again limiting 2AC options
2AC fairness concerns should be privileged over their claims to fairness as it is the
only speech that allows the aff to make offensive arguments and structures the rest
of the debate thus requires strict protection. This is also the only abuse that has
already happened in this round warranting immediate rejection.
2nd – Dispositionality Undermines education

a) Undermines In-Round Education – negatives bait 2AC undercoverage and 2ACs respond by
making generic and non-offensive argument turning debate into a race to who can cover least
effectively damning any hope of meaningful detailed policy comparison
b) Undermines Real World Education – Real-world advocates are expected to maintain
consistent advocacy. Public officials are routinely criticized for flip-flopping from election to
election. Imagine if they flip-flopped in a single, hour-long debate.
c) Forces debate over what constitutes a straight turn which encourages judge intervention and
lack of policy comparison
Now, you should vote against them because to do anything else like reject the
counter-plan would just grant them the dispositionality they demanded in the first
place and would not rectify the already committed 2AC abuse.
Dispositionality Bad 1AR - A2: Straight Turn It / Like Any

Argument
Dispositionality is not like any other argument. It introduces a new world that splits
2AC time in half. That’s our time skew argument
Straight turning the counter - plan forces us to eliminate a large portion of our best
defense. That proves the strategic skew, even if there’s no time skew – negative
teams will always be more prepared for the comparison of offense on their favorite
counterplan
Feeds the judge intervention argument. What constitutes a straight-turn is unclear,

which forces the judge into an untenable position
Dispositionality Good 2NC

Dispositionality is just like any other argument – Dispositional counter-plans are just
opportunity cost disads and the aff can force us to go for those disads by straight turning them. Means there
is no time or strategy skew any more than another disad or T argument.
Search for the best policy option justifies – the counter-plan test the hypothesis of the case.
Tests should be dispositional to ensure debate reaches the best answer to the question posed by the
resolution. Withstanding one test doesn’t prove a hypothesis, it must withstand all tests.
Dispositionality is critical to in depth policy comparison and education– Absent

dispositionality negative teams are stuck defending poor policy and doesn’t challenge the aff on multiple
levels of comparison.
Dispositionality teaches critical and strategic thinking –forces them to think in terms of
multiple contingencies and cope with multiple variables simultaneously. That is educationally beneficial
enough to justify the practice.
Dispositionality is essential for counterplans. PICs don’t function with 90 percent of other
negative arguments and become unstrategic to research or run, preventing inventive negative research
More real world – policy advocates have to answer attacks from both sides
Un-conditionality is worse. We don’t know until the 2AR whether they’re going for the permutation
or the plan, or both which means that we have to defend against more worlds longer than they do.
Voting issue is not the appropriate punishment – it only risks undermining education and
force a debate on theory. At worst they should choose the strategy we go for in 2NR.
Dispositionality Good 2NC – A2 : Strategy Skew

Turn - Dispositionality does not inhibit 2AC strategy, in fact, it grants control of even
negative arguments by allowing the aff to determine which strategy they are best suited to
answer. It was their choice so any abuse was their fault.
Turn - Dispositionality forces 2ACs to respond to and think about multiple contingencies
that’s our strategic thinking standard.
There are no contradictions in our strategy which means you can make any
argument you please – if there are they hurt the negative just as much as they aff.
Even if we drop the counterplan, we cannot retract any evidence read. Which means
they can concede either contradiction and have a straight turn to whichever strategy
we don’t’ go for. And that evidence can still form the basis for an affirmative turn
or an add-on advantage. They simply have to prove that the plan accrues the new
advantage, rather than relying on the claim that the counterplan precludes it.
Dispositionality Good 2NC – A2 : Time Skew

Any time skew is the 2ACs fault – they assess for themselves if they felt they were
better served by answering only one strategy or both. If they chose both it doesn’t
mean that we should be punished.
1AC Checks Time Skew – the entire 1AC in-the-bank arguments against the world
of the status quo means the 2AC is really only answering one world and is already
ahead of the 2NC unless conditional counter-plans are allowed.
Answering Theory checks Time skew – the aff now has at least two possible worlds
to go for in the 2AR theory and Case.
Permutations check time skew – the negative team has to answer the world of the
affirmative as presented in the 1AC and the world of the affirmative as presented in
the 2AC permutation and multiple permutations are universally accepted. Means
the block is equally if not more skewed.
Time skew is also inevitable because of things we can’t control like speed and skill
differences between debaters and quality of evidence.
Unconditionality Bad 2AC

Undermines Reciprocity – it sticks the negative with only one advocacy while the affirmative gets as
many permutations as they want as well as their initial plan.
Discourages New Argumentation – teams will no longer try out new counter-plans if they are
forced to go for them 100% of the time they will just stick with their old favorites.
Undermines Diverse Education and Shreds Negative Strategic Choices – they limit a
whole swath of negative strategic choices that they can no longer run undermining strategic thinking and
argument diversity.
Undermines the Search for the Best Policy Option – forces negatives to go for and defend
arguments they know are un-strategic.
Unconditionality Good 2AC

Enhances In Depth Education – forcing unconditional counter-plans ensures that the issue is given
a round-long in depth education with meaningful clash.
Encourages Argumentative Responsibility – unconditionality forces negative teams to think

twice before throwing an argument into the round ensuring they will have a solid defense and a round filled
with the best arguments in their tubs and good clash.
More Real World – policy-makers don’t just get to switch their advocacy whenever it is convenient.
Key to Reciprocity – the affirmative doesn’t get to change their mind the middle of the round so the
negative shouldn’t either.
Key to Strategic Thinking – forces negatives to determine a cohesive and coherent strategy before
the round instead of abandoning what doesn’t work.
Any Abuse is Their Choice – they could have run other strategies that were consistent with their
counter-plan or not run a counter-plan at all.
PART TWO: TOPICALITY AND SPECIFICATION ARGUMENTS

Although you are probably familiar with topicality there are two issues that you might not be as
used to debating about. The fist of which are specification arguments. Specification arguments address the
question an ongoing debate about how detailed an affirmative plan should be. It addresses the question, for
example, should the plan explain in detail who enacts the plan, how much the plan costs, how the plan is
enforced and who enacts the plan? The shells in the first section of this chapter provide both sides of each
of these issues. And while they all appear to be very separate issues they all center around one fundamental
question should the issue raised by the specification argument (be it agent specification or enforcement
specification) be something that the negative should be able to read disadvantages or counter-plans about.
The central thesis of any specification argument is if the affirmative does include a particular issue
in their plan text then the negative team won’t be able to be sure they could read a counter-plan or
disadvantage related to that issue. So, for example, if the affirmative team did not specify how much money
they spent on the plan the negative team could not read a counter-plan to spend a thousand dollars less on
the same plan because the affirmative would simply permute the specification in the counter-plan or just
say that because they have not yet specified that is the amount that they would spend.
Realizing that this is the case, when you are affirmative and a team reads a specification argument
against you recognize that it is only an argument as to why they would not be able to read a particular
counter-plan or disadvantage against you and should begin brainstorming reasons as to why they should not
be able to read that argument.
Strategy Tip : If you are having trouble coming up with reasons why the negative team should not be able
to read a particular counter-plan or disadvantage then simply look to the counter-plan or disad sections of
this book and you will find a plethora.
BE AWARE : The first section of this chapter includes the most common specification arguments and
responses to each of them. However, if you are debating an affirmative plan that has not specified
something you would like them to then the ‘Vagueness 1NC’ written in this chapter gives you the ability to
use it in any situation. The same is true of the ‘Vagueness 2AC’ portion of this chapter. If you are on the
affirmative and are debating a specification argument you arre not familiar with the ‘Vagueness 2AC’
block will provide you with responses to nearly any generic specification argument. But, don’t forget to
pay attention to the above Strategy Tip.
The second issue you may not be familiar with is the depth of topicality arguments. No longer is it
simply a question about whether or not an affirmative team falls within the bounds of the resolution as
established by the negative’s topicality argument in the 1NC. In fact, every portion of that 1NC argument is
up for debate and this section will provide you with the tools to contest each of those portions.
Definitions – Nearly every topicality debate involves a definition of a word in the resolution and a
counter-definition of that word and then debaters argue over which of those definitions is more limiting or
fair etc. What they often forget, however, is that the definitions themselves are up for debate. Should
debates use the definition from the law? from experts in the field of the resolution? The most common
definition? This section provides you the tools to address each of these questions and attack your
opponent’s definition while extending their own.
Standards – standards are the issue that most topicality debates come down to. Is a definition more
limiting or does it provide more ground etc. Many debaters, however, assume that their opponents
standards are good and try to meet them or fail to attack them and solely defend their own. What this
common strategy misses that that every standard has its down side. This section provides you the ability to
attack each of your opponents standards.
Weighing Mechanisms – Topicality arguments are one of the most notoriously difficult debates
from a judge to evaluate they are fast, have almost no cards and are very technical. So, it is the utmost
importance for you to ensure that you convince the judge of how to weigh the huge amount of arguments
made in a topicality debate. This section addresses two different ways that judges could evaluate topicality
debates. The first is ‘Breadth v. Depth’. Inevitably one definition in a topicality round will end up allowing
more issues to be discusses (expanding the breadth of discussion) and another will focus the debate over a
smaller number of issues (increasing the depth of discussion). Whichever one of these your definitions does
you should defend as better than the other and this block includes arguments for both. The second weight
mechanism is ‘competing interpretations versus reasonability’. ‘Competing Interpretations’ has become
one of the most dominate standards in debate and asks the judge to see each of the two debaters definitions
as interpretations of the resolution for the whole community and determine what would happen if everyone
in the community adopted that definition. Whichever definition would help debate in that hypothetical
situation, under the rubric of competing interpretation, is the one that the judge would vote for. The
opposite weighing mechanism of ‘competing interpretations’ is ‘reasonability’ is to ask the judge not to
consider what would happen if everyone strictly adopted a standard but if the interpretation was reasonably
fair for the particular debate that is taking place right now. So if your interpretation is great on paper but the
affirmative was still not very abusive in the round in question then you should pull out the ‘competing
interpretations good’ block provided here. On the other hand if your interpretation was reasonably good for
the round you are in but could tun bad if everyone adopted it then you should defend reasonability using the
‘Reasonability good’ block provided here.
Voters – Ultimately, however, you want you judge to vote for you on the issue of topicality which
is why the ‘voters’ section is perhaps the most important section in this chapter. In nearly every topicality
debate you will be arguing that either your definition is the most education, most resolutional, most fair or
provides the most ground and therefore the judge should vote for you. These are your ‘voters’. However, it
is unlikely that you will be defending all of these and your opponent will almost certainly have ‘voters’ of
his/her own. This section gives you the blocks to argue that your ‘voter’ is more important than theirs.
Whichever voter you end up defending pull that block from this section.
BE AWARE : Also included in this section is the discussion of whether or not topicality is a ‘reverse
voting issue’ (RVI). This is an argument that has fallen out of fashion but could lose you the round if you
are not familiar with it. It argues that because an affirmative team can lose on topicality then they should be
able to win on it as well. Negatives teams should, thus, if they lose a topicality debate lose the entire round
just like if they lost the counter-plan and disad they would lose the entire round. Be sure to familiarize
yourself with both sides of this issue it could end up winning or losing you a close round.
Mitigating Factors – Topicality Rounds are almost always close. This section gives you the ability
to argue that there are other factors in the round that can sway a close topicality debate your way.
Remember that the whole point of topicality is to ensure that there is good education, good clash and
enough literature to debate about you case. So, if the round already has these things in it or your aff is
particularly educational then you should point that out with the blocks provided here.
Strategy Tip : Combine these ‘mitigating factors’ argument with the ‘reasonability’ weighing mechanism
discussed above to strengthen the case as to why this round was ‘reasonably fair’
Vagueness 1NC
A. The Plan Is Written So Vaguely as to Render it Moot
B. Vagueness is Abusive
1. Undermines Ground and Clash – For everything that they don’t specify or leave unclear it is
a additional series of links to disads, critiques and counter-plan competition claims that we cannot make
and the debate cannot clash upon crippling the negative and the educational benefit of clash.
2. Makes the Aff a Moving Target – Not specifying or being unclear doesn’t mean that they
won’t specify or that become clear later on but that leaves that choice up to the affirmative after we’re
already made arguments and they know what specifications will get them out of all of our offense. Shreds
neg ground and makes the aff functionally conditional
3. Makes the Aff Unpredictable and Non-Topical – by not specifying they are not a definite
course of action and non-topical under the word ‘should’
FreeDictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ 2008
A definite course of action
4. Undermines Education – We can only debate about the things that the aff chooses to defend by
limiting those things to virtually nothing then we debate about so little that the debate becomes
educationally bankrupt.
C. That’s a Voting Issue

1. The Abuse has Already Occurred– We were unable to read counter-plans or complete our
strategy in the 1NC which means the round is already irrevocably skewed.
2. Cross-Examination Clarification is Inadequate – It allows them to shift out of offense, kills

pre round prep and is not binding.
3. 2AC Clarification is Inadequate – It allows them to shift out of the one position that we could
go for – Vagueness.
Vagueness 2AC
1. There is no Abuse– Our Plan is not wildly vague and there has been good clash in this round
2. Specifying Abuses the Negative with Specification-Based Advantages – By

allowing the affirmative to specify it also allows them to claim non-resolutional and extra topical
advantages.
3. Using Normal Means to Determine Education Enhances Real World

Education – Normal means and literature driven link story ties debate to the real world.
4. Specifying Allows Affirmatives to Specify Out of Links – If affirmatives can specify

this it is infinitely regressive and ensures that they can specify to get out of generic links.
5. Specifying Undermines Resolution-Based Education– Forcing the affirmative to

specify beyond this would discourage debate about the desirability of the resolutional action and
encourage debate about minutia.
6. No Resolutional Basis – The resolution is the deepest level of specification that is required of
the affirmative. Negative demands to specify further are arbitrary and unpredictable and not voting
issues .
7. Cross-X and 2AC Clarification Checks Abuse – If they were unclear they should have
asked in cross-x or the 2AC.
Agent Specification (ASPEC) 1NC

A. The Plan Is Vague – It does not specify which branch or branches of the government enact the
plan.
B. That is Abusive
1. Undermines Ground and Clash – They destroy our ability to run agent-based solvency
arguments, agent and process based counter-plans, and disadvantages based upon the differing actions of
the branches.
2. Undermines Education – Not Specifying undermines the potential for understanding the ways in
which the different branches of government functions which is 90% of education.
Richard Elmore 1980 , Public Affairs at University of Washington, Political Science
Quarterly v.94.4 p.605
The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the
discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of the policy choices
matters very little if the mechanisms for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In
answering the question “What percentage of the work is achieving a desired governmental action
is done when preferred analytic alternatives have been identified? Allison estimated that, in the
normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of
implementation
3. Undermines Debatability – The desirability of a specific course of action depends upon who is
acting it
4. Makes the Aff a Moving Target – Allowing the aff multiple potential agents allows them to
pick and choose which arguments they would prefer to link to


go for - ASPEC
Agent Specification (ASPEC) 2AC

1. Specifying Makes 1AC Non-Topical – ‘The United States Federal Government’ means
all parts of the federal government.
Merriam-Webster's Online, no date, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 2002
4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a
group as a whole <the elite>
2. Specifying Abuses the Negative with Agent-Based Advantages – By allowing the

affirmative to specify it also allows them to claim non-resolutional, extra topical and agent-based
advantages.
3. Using Normal Means to Determine Education Enhances Real World

Education – Normal means and literature driven link story ties debate to the real world.
4. Specifying Allows Affirmatives to Specify Out of Links – If affirmatives can specify

this it is infinitely regressive and ensures that they can specify to get out of generic links.
5. Specifying is Worse for Negative Ground– By defending all portions of the USFG the
negative gets more links than if the affirmative specified.
6. Agent Counter-Plans Undermine Education– They focus debates on minutia,

undermine resolution-based education and encourages vague plan writing undermining negative
ground.
7. No Resolutional Basis – The negative doesn’t force affirmatives to defend the entirety of the
rest of the resolution. Plan focused debate outweighs.
8. Cross-Examination Checks Abuse – If they are unclear in our plan text then they should
ask during 1AC cross-examination and ensure competition.
Funding Specification (F-SPEC) 1NC

A. The Plan Is Vague – It does not specify the funding for the affirmative policy.
B. That is Abusive
1. Undermines Ground and Clash – They destroy our ability to run any arguments linking to
their funding mechanism like spending, enforcement, economic impacts and funding based counter-plans
which is key to predictable negative strategy.
2. Makes the Aff a Moving Target – Not specifying allows the negative to shift out of any links
that the negative would read or competition to any funding based counter-plan.
3. Undermines Debatability – If they don’t specify how much funding is coming or where it is
coming from undermines the determining of desirability because it affects all portions of plan action and
feasibility.


go for – FSPEC.
Funding Specification (F-SPEC) 2AC

1. Specifying Allows Affirmatives to Abuse the Negative with Funding-Based
Disadvantages– Affirmatives will simply specify where their funding is coming from and claim
advantages based upon that shift.
2. Using Normal Means to Determine Education Enhances Real World Education –

Normal means and literature driven link story ties debate to the real world.
3. Specifying Allows Negatives to Specify Out of Links – If affirmatives can specify this it is
infinitely regressive and ensures that they can specify to get out of generic links.
4. Funding-Based Counter-Plans Undermine Education– They focus debates on minutia,

undermine resolution-based education and encourages vague plan writing undermining negative ground.
5. Cross-Examination Checks Abuse – If they are unclear in our plan text then they should ask
during 1AC cross-examination and ensure competition.
Enforcement Specification (E-SPEC) 1NC

A. The Plan Is Vague – It does not specify the enforcement for the affirmative policy.
B. That is Abusive
1. Undermines Ground and Clash – We lose ground, without enforcement specified we don’t get
specific links to disads, kritiks, or case argumentation which discuss how law works because 90% of the
plan is implementation
Richard Elmore 1980 , Public Affairs at University of Washington, Political Science
Quarterly v.94.4 p.605
implementation
2. Functional Object Fiat – If they refuse to tell us what happens in the case that someone doesn’t
obey the plan it gives us the same ground as if they simply assumed the plan solves, which destroys
negative ground because we can’t make solvency arguments.
3. Not-Specifying Makes them Non-Topical– They don’t justify the resolution because they
assume that everyone acquiesces to the plan as a precondition to it being a good idea which is functionally
extra topical.


go for - ESPEC
Enforcement Specification (E-SPEC) 2AC

1. Specifying Allows Affirmatives to Abuse the Negative with Enforcement-Based
Disadvantages– Specifying enforcement allows the affirmative to claim advantages off of the
punishment itself.
2. Using Normal Means to Determine Education Enhances Real World Education –

Normal means and literature driven link story ties debate to the real world.
3. Specifying Allows Negatives to Specify Out of Links – If affirmatives can specify this it is
infinitely regressive and ensures that they can specify to get out of generic links.
4. Enforcement-Based Counter-Plans Undermine Education– They focus debates on

minutia, undermine resolution-based education and encourages vague plan writing undermining negative
ground.
5. Cross-Examination Checks Abuse – If they are unclear in our plan text then they should ask
during 1AC cross-examination and ensure competition.
‘As Per’ Bad 1NC

The Affirmative only advocates their plan ‘as per’ a particular author. They should
lose.
1. Creates a Moving Target – every time the card is re-interpreted or a new card by that author is
read their advocacy changes and allows them to spike out of our best offense.
2. Undermines Counter-Plan Competition – there is no way to textually alter part of the

author’s advocacy to make a counter-plan competitive skewing negative strategy.
3. Creates Vague and Unclear Debates – it is never clear precisely what a particular author
intended or desires encouraging unclarity and lack of clash
4. Writing Important Parts into the Plan Solves all their Abuse – if it is so important to
their advocacy there is no reason why they can’t just copy the evidence into their plan text
5. Undermines Strategic and Critical Thinking into the Plan Making Process – it loses
the educational benefit of crafting a plan that is beneficial and trying to take all eventualities into account
and instead encourages affirmatives to simply advocate ‘what that guy/gal said’
‘As Per’ Good 2AC

1. Allows for More Predictable and Non-Arbitrary Debate – tying the plan to a particular
author encourages literature based and predictable education instead of debater contrivances.
2. Provides Better Literature Based and Thought Out Strategy – by including ‘as per’ in
the plan it allows the negative to go home and actually do research on our plan, something that is
impossible with other plan writing techniques.
3. Ensures Less Affirmative Shifting – by including ‘as per’ they have tied their plan to a huge
piece of evidence that doesn’t allow them to shift the meaning because it is contextualized by the evidence.
4. Enhances Negative Ground – they can now get links and arguments based upon everything that
is in our ‘as per’ card
5. More Real World – laws and court cases reference others and precedent all the time.
6. Allows for More Specific Debate – by tying it to the plan to a piece of evidence it allows for the
exact policy that the affirmative intended to be debated.
Dictionary Definitions Good
1. Most Predictable and Real World– As a culture when someone wants a definition they go to
the dictionary. Encouraging debate to use the same definitions results in the most functional form of
education
2. Guarantee Intent To Define – Any other definitions are only meant for the specific context in
which they are written even if they are seen as definitional. Defining is the only function of dictionaries
guaranteeing intent.
3. Most Qualified – The field in dispute when arguing topicality is the meaning of words. Dictionaries
are written by lexicographers, who are specialists in word meaning.
4. Most Consensus – Non Dictionary definitions come from only a single person. Dictionaries are
combined and researched by many authors ensuring more literature consensus.
5. Ensures Most Equality – Nearly everyone as access to a dictionary and is the place that most
people would go when looking at the resolution for the first time no matter how much research they’ve
done.
Dictionary Definitions Bad
1. Dictionaries do Not Search for an Optimal Meaning– they simply least every definition
which ensures an infinite number of unpredictable interpretations.
2. Undermines Real World Education – when the problems isolated by resolutions are discussed
by policy makers and experts in the field they don’t consult the dictionary that we all use they have
working definitions that are the most up to date and used in the field.
3. Least Qualified – Webster never worked in the field the resolution is discussing making them
wildly unqualified.
4. Out of Context – Dictionaries take words and define then in isolation from each-other the
resolution has a meaning as a whole and is relational between words dictionaries are the last place one
should go for such a definition.
5. Elitisit – Dictionaries also define and include terms premised upon the arbitrary choices of the
majority undermining equality and accessibility in debate.
Field Context Good

1. More Real World– when these terms are defined when addressing the problem in the real world the
terms are defined by experts in the field. Field context based definitions will provide the most educational
definitions.
2. Most Functional – these terms are used in the field in a particular manner because it facilities
conversation and easy expert function. Field Context definitions provide that benefit to debate.
3. Most Predictable – when one is doing research it begins in the literature making the definitions in
the literature definition the most predictable for all debaters.
4. Most Qualified – field context terms are the ones used by experts in the problem field of the
resolution making them the most qualified on this question.
5. Ensures Context and Maintains Terms of Art – the resolution and words only have
meaning in relation to one another and the resolution only makes sense when taken as a whole. Field
contextual definitions ensures relational and resolutional meaning.
6. Ensures Ground – by going to the literature for our meaning it ensures that there is literature and
cards on the question of the resolution. Their definition could leave little literature to scavenge through.
Field Context Bad

1. Field Context Definitions Beg the Question – the words determine the field not the other
way around to assume that a definition from the field that you think the resolution is based upon is logically
inconsistent.
2. Unpredictable– We have no way to guess in what way what crazy author chose to use the terms in
the resolution making the resolution nearly impossible to predict.
3. No Field Consensus– the field uses the words in a number of different ways which means that
there can be no agreement or objective basis for resolutional debate.
4. No Useful for General of Policy Use – field terms are meant for specific field bound meaning
but is not useful for general policy debate.
5. Enhance Equality and Education – using the precise hard to access definitions of field
literature excludes whole swaths of debaters who cannot afford access to those databases.
Legal Definitions Good

1. Most Contextual and Relevant – the resolution discusses a problem to be addressed via legal
action making legal definitions the most contextually adequate.
2. More Real World – when the law will be put into practice and interpreted legal definitions will be
used debate should mirror that method to gain the most functional education.
3. Most Refined – legal definitions have undergone intense and multi-party based scrutiny to ensure
the most precise meaning.
4. Most Predictable – because a law is the issue at hand going to the legal definition is the most
predictable course of action
5. Most Functional – Legal definitions have actually succeeded in the real world despite the variety of
cases and situations that they have had to conform to. Debate should take advantage of their ability to
facilitate discussion.
Legal Definitions Bad

1. Not Universally Applicable – legal definitions are determined and used for the particular case at
bar explicitly not meant to be applied elsewhere.
2. Un-limiting and Poor Definitional Basis –the meanings of the terms change every time a new
case is brought up ensuring that there is no limited meaning to the words that they choose to define using
legal dictionaries and are empirically not the best definition.
3. Not Real World – the definition of terms used today is not borrowed from centuries ago legal
doctrine. Confining debate to those terms ensures only arcane arbitrary knowledge.
4. Our Interpretation Fits the Legal Model Better – lawyers and congress-people define laws
and terms as they go if legal practice is the precedent that they want then we should mirror that process as
well.
5. Skewed and Arbitrary – legal definitions are those that lawyers were able to create to suit their
clients and they just happened to get a judge to agree with them up but they are explicitly not objective, fair
or equal.
“Common Person” Definition Good

1. Preserves Communication – the purpose of debate is to communicate positions and issues this
cannot be done unless we avoid using obscure terminology.
2. Ensures Relevancy – the way in which the word is commonly used is how it will be discussed in
new literature and how it is affecting the public today.
3. Checks Contrivances – Absent a Common Person standard then anyone could go back years or
find an obscure court case to artificially limit out a case.
4. Key to Predictability – The most common way the word is used is also the most predictable one
with the most literature.
5. Key to Funding and Support – Debate needs to re-align itself with the general public to ensure
funding and support for its future.
“Common Person” Definition Bad

1. Impossible to Determine –there is no way to determine what is the consensus on a give term
2. Undermines Predictability and Precision – common people allow words to slide in meaning
and into disuse which would undermine the limiting and fairness creating functions of the resolution.
3. Discourages Research, In Depth Debate and Education – to use the term only how it is
commonly used instead of how it is functionally used in context leaves our level of analysis and education
at the same level of those that do not do the activity.
Grammar Good
1. Predictability and Objectivity – Grammar has explicit and objective rules making the
grammatical resolutional interpretation predictable and objective and most conducive to debate.
2. Ensures Relational and Resolutional Meaning – words cannot be defined outside of the
grammatical context and placement in the resolution. Only by taking grammar into account can the
definition be determined.
3. Most Real World – The spirit of the law is not what wins court cases it is strictly what is written
down in precedent. Strict attention to grammar is how policy-making functions and how debaters should
view topicality as well.
4. Most Inclusive and Democratic – Grammar provides a common basis for understanding
between all debaters of all locales
Detroit News 1996
Peter T. Koper, an associate professor of English at Central Michigan University (CMU), dissents from
this prevailing orthodoxy. He sees these trends as inherently divisive. In Koper's view, "Grammar is not
elitist. It is, rather, quintessentially democratizing, the ability to use standard written English being the
condition for participating in public life in this country and in much of the rest of the world."
5. Grammar is Not Dictated by the Elites and Reflexive

University Wire 1999
But English had spent too long in the slums, among the illiterate, until its grammar became simplified.
The structure of the language changed often, but England's elitist francophone scholars didn't consider it
worth their time to interfere with or codify this peasants' language. Today, English remains one of the
most flexible languages in the world. "One of the reasons that English was able to evolve (with simple
grammatical structures) was because for several hundred years the natural flow of the language was
allowed to occur because it was the language of peasantry," says Howard Richler, author of A Bawdy
Language. "English is the only major language in the world that's never had an academy dictating
usage."
Grammar Bad
1. Grammar Rules Are Arbitrary – they are nothing bust social convention which means that the
socially agreed upon definition of the debate community is just as legitimate as those established by
English professors.
2. There is No Objective ‘Grammar’ – there are multiple theories and interpretations of what is
grammar and what is grammatical meaning which undermines any objective standards they main claim.
3. More Real World – Nothing is decided based upon strict grammatical interpretations. In fact many
legal decisions are made based upon the premise of what a ‘reasonable person’ would interpret.
4. Grammar Restricts the Growth of Language and Critical Thinking

Carol Winkler, Georgia State University, William Newnam, Emory University, and David Birdsell, City
University of New York, LINES OF ARGUMENT FOR VALUE DEBATE, 1993, p. 17
First, debaters can argue that strict adherence to grammatical standards restricts the development
of
language. Language depends on the creativity and invention of authors. Past conventions should
not
arbitrarily restrict creative thought and invention.
5. Strict Adherence to Grammar is Elitist, Racist and Crushes Local Knowledge

Carol Winkler, Georgia State University, William Newnam, Emory University, and David Birdsell, City
University of New York, LINES OF ARGUMENT FOR VALUE DEBATE, 1993, p. 17
Many sociologists argue that the upper classes have used strict rules of grammar to reinforce their
control and access to societal institutions. Many, for example, argue that standardized admission
testing for college represents this approach today because it requires access to the strict rules of
grammar to perform well on the Scholastic Aptitude Test and the Graduate Record Examination.
Reinforcing the power of the grammatical standard might reinforce the oppression some believe
such rules impose.
Limits Good
1. Key to Predictability – Without strict limits the number of cases would explode and the negative
could never adequately prepare.
2. Key to Education – Limits allow for greater depth of debate which is empirically the best result
after a year of debate.
3. The Damages of Under-Limiting outweighs the Harms of Under-limiting – a

creative debater can always come up with new topical cases but under-limiting requires infinite time which
is an impossible burden to take on.
4. Enhances Creativity In Debate and Research Skills – Strict limits encourage debaters to
innovate and find the nuances of literature to keep their advantages fresh.
5. Other Words Check Their Abuse Claims – Other words in the resolution provide the
flexibility that they demand but because of the importance of this word in the context of the resolution it
must maintain a strict limit.
6. Checks Infinite Prep Time and Aff Bias – absent limits debate would be skewed in favor of
the affirmative because absent limits the only advantage to be gained is to determine who has the most time
to research and affs only have to research one case.
7. Checks Big School Advantage – Excessively broad topics allow only the teams with the biggest
coaching staff to cover all the areas of research. Limiting the topic allows an even playing field because
even small squads can get to the literature and do an adequate job of reading all of it.
8. Key to Topic Specific Education– Excessively broad topics force negatives to compensate by
focusing on generics to make sure their strategy applies to the limitless caselist undermining topic specific
education.
Limits Bad
1. Decreases Education – Overlimiting ensure that debates become stale and only about a few issues
which makes debate educationally useless.
2. Skews Debate to the Negative – with generic disads, PICs and counter-plans that solve nearly
every advantage the only benefit the aff has is innovation within the resolution and a certain amount of
unpredictability to limit that out to only a few cases ensures that negatives will always be ahead.
3. Skews Debate in Favor of Big Schools – strict limits on the topic disallow marginalized
voices or the level of unpredictability that allows small schools out maneuver huge coaching staffs.
4. Other Issues Check All their Abuse – PICs, Generic Counterplans, Generic Disads and Topic
Linked disads ensure that there will always be ways to check back an overly broad topic.
5. Forces Literature Based Education – a broad topic ensures that negatives will have to plumb
every corner of the literature base instead of only the small portion of topic literature they outline.
6. Encourages Creativity and Critical Thinking – a broad interpretation of the topic invites
debaters to craft cases that are interesting and creative instead of the limited number presupposed by the
topic committee.
Bi-Directionality Bad
1. Limits – Bi-Directionality literally doubles the number of topical cases undermining predictability
2. Logically Impossible for Debate – A bi-directional resolution undermines the theoretical

foundation for debate because the resolution cannot be affirmed if it can include its opposite.
3. Shreds Negative Ground – the only check that negatives have against the infinite prep time and
nearly infinite case list of the affirmative is generic disads that the affirmative undermines by co-opting the
links to with a bi-directional resolution.
4. Undermines Clash – in a world of bidirectionality shiftiness and squirreliness are rewarded as

opposed to certain points of contestation which encourage clash.
Bi-Directionality Good
1. No Abuse – just because the same argument can be run on both sides of the resolution doesn’t mean
you can’t debate about it you would have to prepare against those arguments inevitably anyway.
2. Key to Check Abusive Generics – Generics undermine education and make debate skewed
toward the negative. Bi-Directionality ensures that they are able to immediately dodge them.
3. Impact is Inevitable – even the most unidirectional interpretation of the topic allows affs to read
hegemony good and hegemony bad dependant upon their plan.
4. Encourages Creativity and Strategic Thinking – when the ground isn’t clearly laid out for
either side of the resolution it puts the burden on debaters to come up with tricky and strategic affirmatives
that can co-opt negative generics.
5. Most Educational – Because the neg now has to research both sides of the resolution it means they
are forced to be educated about affs even if they weren’t planning on running them.
Effects Topicality Bad

1. Unlimits – Literally any action can eventually lead to topical action forcing impossible burdens on
the negative.
2. Undermines Ground – the affirmative can use their extra steps to spike out of disad links and
counter-plans shredding negative ground
3. Skews Neg Strategy – Allowing effects topicality allows the affirmative to control the entire roud
because they can conceded out of defensive internal link takeouts so that the topical effect of their plan
never happens or does happen based which was answered least effectively by the negative
4. Functional Future Fiat – by the time that the topical effect of the plan takes place the uniqueness
for disadvantages would be unpredictable.
5. Effects Topicality is Not Arbitrary – there is a simple test to determine if a plan is effectually
topical grant them zero solvency and determine if the action is topical.
6. Steals Negative Ground – effects topicality allows the affirmative to sap negative counter-plan
ground
Effects Topicality Good
1. No Ground Abuse – effects topicality still has a topical action occur at the end result of it steps
which means you have literally the same ground.
2. Enhances Topic Education – understanding the context of resolutional action and other events
that are interrelated with it significantly enhances the understanding of debaters toward the resolution.
3. Effects Topicality Bad Arguments are Arbitrary and Overlimit – every affirmative
involves a series of steps to get to solvency or addressing the resolutional questioning meaning that if no
effects are allowed then no cases are topical. Arbitrarily excluding our number of steps only functions to
undermine potential education.
4. Enhances Negative Ground – every new step that we take is additional ground that negatives
can link off of.
5. Resolution Mandates – the resolution isolates a problem that it demands be solved absent effects
affirmatives would have to fiat away the harm which is worse than the negative.
6. More Real World Education – Everything is judged by its effects in policymaking
7. Context Checks Abuse – our evidence indicates the literature views this case as topical which
means there is guaranteed predictability, clash and ground.
Extra Topicality Bad

1. Unlimits the Resolution – adding things outside of the resolved allows literally any action to
become within the scope of affirmative ground and undermines negative’s predictable ground.
2. Undermines Topic Specific Education – education forces us to debate, research and spend
time on issues outside of the resolved which undermines in-depth topic based education in favor of
uncontrolled bredth.
3. Skews Negative Strategy and Time – adding extra topical plan planks either skews negative
time by forcing debate about issues they could never predict or forces a counter-plan that undermines the
link uniqueness to any other portion of the strategy giving control of negative strategy to the affirmative as
early as the 1AC.
4. Allows Plan Spikes – ever extra topical action would allow affirmatives to functionally counter-
plan out of links or impacts to any negative disad.
5. Severance as Punishment is Illegitimate – it skews negative strategy and time in the 1NC
which means that it only benefits the affirmative.
Extra Topicality Good

1. Extra Topicality Increases Negative Ground – Each addition to the plan gives the negative
new disad links and the potential to impact turn any impact the affirmative has stuck themselves to.
2. No Ground Abuse – Extra topical plans still include a predictable link friendly topical plan which
negatives have all the ground they would otherwise have .
3. Counter-Plans Check Abuse – Negatives can capture any advantages the affirmative would
claim by advocating the extra-topical portions of the plan.
4. Key to Affirmative Enabling Mechanisms – Funding and Enforcement are both extra topical
plan planks without which affirmatives would always lose.
5. Enhances Education – By adding extra issues to the resolved it allows debaters to learn about
more issues and learn about the resolution in a variety of different contexts.
6. Not a Voting Issue – by simply not granting affirmatives the extra-optical plan plank would
undermine any abuse.
Framer’s Intent Good

1. More Experience – the framers are experts in debate and clearly know what should be argument
and what has empirically made good ground.
2. More Time – They argued over these same issues for weeks as opposed to a single round
3. Most Democratic – the framers choose what is voted upon by the community
4. Most Equal – The framers topic papers are the one thing that everyone has access to and guides their
research by. To force an arbitrary interpretation would benefit only those who are most connected in the
community.
5. Most Objective – Framers Intent is the only standard that can actually be looked up.
Framer’s Intent Bad

1. They Failed – Obviously it is not clear what was meant by the resolution so it should be up for
debate using community standards.
2. Undermines Critical Thinking – Debaters should not simply hope to determine what debate
elites handed down to them instead they should engage critical with the topic and define it for themselves.
3. No Impact to the Framers Intent – Who cares what a bunch of people determined at the
beginning of the year in order for debate to be fear our interpretation to be used.
4. Impossible to Determine – there are a number of different framers who did not outline their intent
anywhere making it an arbitrary and impossible to determine standard.
5. We meet the Framers Intent – One thing that the framers intended before anything else is for
debaters to debate not defer to them on every issue.
Brightline Good
1. Key to Predictability – No matter what the definition or where it comes from if it lacks a
brightline then the edges of the topical are wildly unpredictable.
2. Key to Education– absent a bright-line there is an incentive to debate topicality and theory and
every round will inevitably include at least some which undermine topic specific education
3. Undermines Judge Intervention and Ensures Equality – Brightlines leave no room for
judges to interpret or debaters to smudge during their speeches preserving fairness and equality.
Brightline Bad
1. Not Real World – words are not precise or unchanging which means that a brightline is a
linguistically impossible and artificial concept.
2. Undermines Critical Thinking and Debate – Brightline based definitions discourage

debaters for determining for themselves what words mean and what they should mean.
3. Impossible – definitions do not have brightlines interpretations of the definitions do which means
that our interpretation is just as ‘bright’ as yours.
Probabalism Bad
1. Kills Predictable Ground – if they have a probabalistic case then I only have the potential for a
contrived link story and because their case may not result in topical action I may have none at all.
2. Resolution Demands Certainty– by beginning with the definite article ‘the’ the most predictable
means of determining topicality limits out your case.
3. Explodes Limits – by allowing probablism it would allow for a nearly infinite amount of cases that
might fall under the resolution.
4. Key to Objectivity – absent our standard there is no objective way to determine what is topical
only the intuition and feeling of the judge at a particular time making research nearly impossible
Probabalism Good
1. Limiting Out Probablism Overlimits – no case is a certainty even empiricism doesn’t tell the
future like a crystal ball.
2. More Real World – nothing is certain and in the real world there aren’t artificial limits on
discussion and things that are ‘likely’ are discussed.
3. Hold them to the Same Standard – disad stories are just as probablistic to eliminate
probabalism is to undermine any meaningful argumentation.
4. Subjective – there is no objective way to tell what is probablistic and what is not. I’d say my case is
certain means their standard encourages judge intervention.
Depth Outweighs Breadth

1. Depth Leads to Breadth – the deeper we go the more we will realize that the issue is more
complicated forcing us to expand our research and interest
2. Breath is Inevitable – the issue that the debate centers around changes every round and every
resolution which ensures the divrse education they are concerned with
3. Breath is Undermines Education – Debaters who have to research broad topics learn very
little about all of things that they research about rather than learning a few things well.
4. Depth Enhances Real World Education – when doing research or hoping to be hired
debaters will have to specialize and be experts in a particular field debate should encourage these research
skills.
5. Breadth Undermines Substantive and Topic Specific Education – when the number of
issues and fields included in the debate is expanded generics and topicality are the only means for the
negative to respond
6. Depth Ensures Research – Depth-Based topics ensure that debaters plumb all aspects of the
resolutional question.
Breadth Outweighs Depth

1. Enhances Debater Creativity and Research – It sets the limit of the debate at the research
we can reasonably discover encouraging research and spending as much time in the literature base as
possible.
2. Enhances Real World Education – Research and education in the real world are not artificially
limited and allows debaters to have meaningful skills in a number of different areas and fields not just this
year’s resolution which is not meaningfully applicable in most debater’s lives.
3.Checks Stagnation – myopic focus on depth creates stagnant boring debates and undermines
creativity.
4.Breadth does not unfairly Benefit one Side – Breadth expands ground options for both sides.
It increases the choices for the affirmative and after the affirmative chooses their ground all other ground is
negative counter-plan options.
5.Enchances Topic Education – Breath allows for debaters to address the resolution from a number
of different angles and spectrums.
6.Depth Is Inevitable – the sheer number of rounds and tournaments ensures nuances will be strategic
and discovered.
Competing Interpretations Good / Reasonability Bad

1. Objectivity – Reasonability makes certain judge intervention to determine what ‘reasonable’ means
2. Doesn’t Justify Contrivances – If an interpretation truly is arbitrary then it will lose on other
standards like being outside the literature, unpredictable and, of course, arbitrary.
3. Key to Set a Precedent – What is considered ‘reasonable’ changes from round to round meaning
that reasonability provides no way for the community to be effectively guided or shaped absent competing
interpretations
4. Key to Maintaining Jurisdiction – Judges have no legitimate basis to vote for anything outside
the resolution even if there isn’t immediate abuse.
5. All of Our Offense Proves They are Not Reasonable – they cannot simply make the claim
that they are reasonable and ignore all of the abuse that we’ve outlined in our standards.
6. Thinking in Terms of Competing Interpretations Enhances Critical Thinking – It

forces thinking about how the debate community will function in response to a interpretation. This is what
allows debaters to consider what would happen if a law were to pass.
7. Key to Fairness – Absent weighing potential abuse then negatives will automatically have a benefit
because they will get to claim in-round abuse.
8. There is No Difference Between Real and Potential Abuse – the abuse occurred because
we were unable to read a better strategy and the cards that we had to leave in our tubs.
Competing Interpretations Bad / Reasonability Good

1. Justifies Contrived Interpretations – that exclude just one or two more cases than the
affirmative’s which encourages debating theory at the cost of substance.
2. Questions of Reasonability are Inevitable – Judges and debaters make the same
‘reasonability’ assessments when determining ‘we meet’ arguments are how likely it is that a certain
potential abuse scenario will play out.
3. Key to Affirmative Fairness – Affirmatives cannot outweigh, turn or win on topicality which
sticks the affirmative with only substantial defense in the form of reasonability. If that is not allowed debate
will be horrendously skewed to the neg.
4. Competing Interpretations Undermines Predictability – Negatives will always change

their interpretations to make it a little more limiting or allow for a little more ground which ensures there
will never be a stable division of ground
Education is a Privileged Voter

The Goal of Debate is to Education – without it the activity would sap itself of value making it no
more valuable than flipping a coin every round to determine winners and losers.
Education is Good – every kritik, disad and counter-plan that we run encourages us to live our
personal and political lives in a more meaningful, effective and positive way. Education saves lives.
Ground is not Intrinsically Good – its only the educational value of that ground that is meaningful
one could have a lot of ground that is nothing but minutia and it would be far outweighed by less ground
that would meaningfully contribute to the education experience of debates. .
Fairness for Fairness Sake is Horrible – it end points into flipping coins to determine the
outcome of rounds and can artificially limit out positive knowledge from debate.
Jurisdiction is a Privileged Voter

Jurisdictional is a priori – no other arguments can even be considered as a reason why
jurisdictional . questions are bad because they are not within your purview as a judge.
Jurisdictional Analysis is Intrinsically Valuable –it trains debaters for real world
understanding of policy makings. You cannot lobby a branch or agency that does not have the jurisdiction
to enact the plan an hope to effect politics.
Jurisdictional Preserves the Resolution – the only rule and goal of debate is to analyze the
resolution absent a strict maintenance of jurisdiction then the grounding for all other standards falls apart.
Key to Preserve the Role of the Judge – absent jurisdictional analysis then debaters can convince
judges that there role is nearly anything and explode the types of debate and analysis allowed.
Ground is a Privileged Voter

Ground is a Pre-Requisite to All Debate – debate can only happen if both sides have issues that
they can debate about if ground is sapped then debate literally cannot happen.
Ground Solves All other Voters – no matter what ground is granted debaters are smart and creative
enough to go deep in it, learn every possible about that issues and innovate from within.
.
Fairness is a Privileged Voter

Key to Debate as a Whole – without fairness then people feeling abuse will quit and no other voters
can be accessed.
Fairness is the Lens through which to View all Other Voters – education and ground may
both be great but if it is only for one side then debate has not achieved its goal because it limits it benefits
to only a few not the entire community.
Absent Fairness Abuse Skews All Other Voters – ground can be abused and skewed absent
fairness and so too can educational opportunities.
T is an RVI
1. Key to Check Strategy – The neg risks nothing by running topicality if we can’t win reverse
voters which encourages a violation for every word skewing strategy and time to the negative.
2. Key to Check Time Skew – Every moment spent answering topicality ensures that affirmatives
cannot have adequate time to answer another negative position ensuring time skew.
3. Trivializes Topicality – By running topicality when it is not a real issue it decreases its respect and
value when egregious violations occur.
4. Key to Reciprocity – Since topicality is a voting issue for the negative there should be a reciprocal
issue for the affirmative.
5. Encourages Argumentative Responsibility – the potential for a reverse voting issue on a

topicality argument encourages the negatives to be more accountable and avoid spurious or meaningless
debates.
T is Not an RVI
1. Assumes Abuse – A reverse voting issue assumes we are being abusive but just because we’ve run a
T violation doesn’t immediately mean abuse.
2. No Time Trade-Off – They would have to answer the other case or disadvantage arguments that
we would have run instead of topicality.
3. Answering the RVI Checks Time Abuse – the time I’ve spent here re-balances time.
4. Enhances Strategic Thinking – forces the affirmative to determine what real threats are in the
round and balance their strategy and time accordingly.
5. Undermines Education – it forces negatives to be stuck in a topicality argument already deemed

irrelevant ensuring a round-long T debate any time it is run.
6. Skews Negative Strategy and Balances Debate Unfairly Towards the Affirmative
– one of the primary functions of topicality is to ensure that affirmatives will defend certain parts of the
resolution. Absent conceded ‘we meet’ arguments then affirmatives will be able to shift out of negative
ground.
7. Topicality is a “if-then” Statement – Meaningful substantive debate cannot even occur if it is

not determined that the plan is within the jurisdiction of the judge.
8. Discourages Topic Limitation– If topicality really is an all or nothing issue than negatives will
be so unlikely to run it as to encourage affirmative to skirt the edges of the topic and make it impossibly
broad.
Literature/Clash/Discourse Checks Abuse

Literature Checks Abuse – there is tons of predictable evidence concerning our policy which solves
their predictability and education standards
Clash Checks Abuse – there is lots of good clash in this round which is what topicality is meaning to
ensure solving their impact
Discourse and Education Checks Abuse – the entire point of topicality is to ensure that there is
good meaningful education in the round including our aff does that
A2: Literature/ Clash / Disclosure Checks Abuse

1. There is Literature On Everything – there are scholarly works on every topic under the sun
and my blog has a lot of cards about me but that does not mean that I am a topical or beneficial discussion.
2. Skews Research Burden – That forces the negative to research nearly everything and makes
debate structurally affirmatively biased.
3. Doesn’t Check Predictability – Just because there is literature doesn’t mean there is predictable
literature even if teams have seen evidence concerning your case they wouldn’t cut it because it wasn’t seen
to be topical.
4. Undermines In-Depth Education – Forces negative teams to cut anything they ever come
across undermining depth at the expense of breadth.
5. It’s What they Justify – literature and clash checking abuse means that legalizing drugs would
always be topical because there is a lot of literature on it.
6. Don’t Punish Good Researchers – Just because I have cards on a lot just means I spend on my
time in the library not that they are topical
7. Not True – I could have run a much better and on point strategy had they run something that is within
the bounds of the resolution.
A2: Including Our Affirmative Enhances Education

1. Trades Off With In Depth Education – even if they potentially enhance the breadth of
education it is a direct trade off with a deeper understanding we would have with a topical case.
2. Education is Inevitable – including your case would only incur the disadvantages outlined in the
1NC
3. Education as Justification Unlimits the Topic – this would allow literally anything and
bring meaning debate as a whole to a screeching halt.
4. Turn – We Education More – we presented far more positions and extending them for longer in
the block. The aff just retreated the same ground from the 1AC in every speech.
A2: Err Aff on Topicalty

1. Err Neg on Topicality – aff win percentages are skyrocketing so the benefit of the doubt should be
given to us
.
2. Discourage Clash, Debate and Precise Definitions – negative teams would never make
precise topicality arguments that are close and precise but still important because of the presumption.
3. Our Impact Outweighs – it would be better to ensure the educational benefit of debate as whole
by holding a stricter standard to topicality than allowing their single case.
PART THREE: COUNTER-PLANS

The counter-plan has become the mainstay of negative strategy. It is becoming more and more
exceptional that a negative team will defend the status quo. As a result, counter-plans have become more
expansive and abusive, theory arguments have become a more threatening affirmative option and a solid
understanding of the theoretical basis for this move in the activity is absolutely critical. This chapter is
divided into three sections to aid you in that goal.
Generic Counter-Plans - This section attacks entire classes of counter-plans making them more
versatile. For example, a type of counter-plan that you might be familiar with is included here: the agent
counter-plan. This counter-plan agrees with the majority of the content of the affirmative plan but disagrees
with who should do that plan. If the congress enacts an affirmative plan, for example, a strategic agent
counter-plan might argue that the Supreme Court should do it instead. However, no matter what agent the
negative chooses the ‘Agent Counter-Plans Bad’ block included here will be applicable. While you are
likely familiar with the agent counter-plan as a generic argument there are a few that you may not be
familiar with that are included in this section.
‘Conditioned Fiat’ is a type of fiat that only gets enacted if another action takes place. A
consultation counter-plan is a good example of ‘conditioned fiat’. In a consultation counter-plan a negative
team asks another country or organization if the plan should happen. If they agree that it should happen
then the plan goes into effect and fiat is implemented. If they disagree then the plan doesn’t and fiat is not
implemented. Do you see how the enactment of fiat is conditioned on another action (whether or not the
other country or organization says yes or no)? The ‘Conditioned Fiat’ second of this chapter addresses this
class of counter-plan.
‘Artificially Competitive’ counter-plans are those counter-plans that only ‘compete’ (become
mutually exclusive options with the affirmative plan) due to the rules of debate. For example, an
affirmative team could advocate a plan that would protect wildlife and cost a million dollars. A negative
team could then advocate a counter-plan that uses that same million dollars to fund NASA. While it is
possible that both of these actions could take place in the real world (we could fund both NASA and protect
wildlife) assuming there is at least two million dollars in the federal coffers, it can’t happen in the debate
world because there is no legitimate permutation that could fund both plans. The ‘Extra / Artificially
Competitive Counter-Plan’ section of this chapter addresses this class of counter-plan.
‘PICs’ are partially plan inclusive counter-plans. They are counter-plans that also advocate some
portion of the affirmative. If an affirmative team advocated building a water purification system and a
fishing ban on a particular lake, a PIC might be to advocate just a fishing ban. The “PICs’ section of this
chapter addresses this class of counter-plan.
‘Object of the Resolution Fiat’ is a class of counter-plan that sees the resolution as divided up into
a subject and an object. The subject is the actor that the affirmative has control over (in most cases this is
the USFG) the object is the thing that the subject (often the USFG) is trying to affect. For example, if the
resolution was that the United States Federal government should increase food at to Africa a counter-plan
that uses ‘Object of the Resolution Fiat’ would be to fiat a county in Africa increase food cultivation or put
up food tariffs (or something else what might increase food in Africa absent US help).
‘Private Actor Fiat’ –because of the nature of policy debate and the fact that most resolutions
center around USFG action, most fiat is limited to public governmental action. Counter-plans that use
‘private actor fiat’ question that assumption and fiat a private entity like a business or a person to do their
counter-plan.
The rest of the counter-plans in this section are fairly well known if they seem un-familiar in name
look at some of the arguments in the blocks to see if that helps, ask a coach or look at other West Coast
debate training products that explain them in detail.
Strategy Tip – Some Counter-plans fall into more than one of these general categories. For example, if an
affirmative team advocated that the United States federal government should give military and economic
aid to Africa then a Counter-plan that advocated that the United States federal government given military
aid to after and the EU should give economic aid to Africa would be both a PIC (because it include the
USFG giving military aid that is already part of the plan) and fiats an international agent (the EU). As a
result you can make more than one theory argument against that counter-plan using the blocks in this
chapter.
Specific Counter-Plans - This section of the chapter provides specific and pointed attacks about
common counter-plans that negative teams may run. It is distinct from the ‘general section’ in that it makes
more specific attacks on counter-plans although they do fall into general categories. For example, the
‘States Counter-Plan’ theory debate is included in the Specific Counter-plan section which argues that
instead of the federal government doing the plan the fifty states should band together to do it. Although this
is an agent counter-plan and would be vulnerable to an attack from the ‘Agent Counter-Plans Bad’ Section
of the ‘Generic Counter-Plan Section’ the ‘States Counter-plan Bad’ is much more specific and relevant. So
choose wisely when decided which arguments to use from this chapter.
Counter-Plan Competition – The final concept that this chapter addresses is counter-plan
competition. Competition is the discussion of what counter-plans should be seen as mutually exclusive with
the plan. This section addresses three theories of competition. The first is functional competition.
Functional competition argues that counter-plans should be seen as mutually exclusive with the plan if
there is a meaningful functional difference between the way in which the two plans would be implemented
in the real world that would make it impossible to do both at the same time and still be beneficial. For
example, most plans in the real world are passed by congress passing a proposition and the president
signing it in the law. Because this is such a common way that when affirmatives write their plan they don’t
even include it they just say ‘The United States federal government should pass the plan’. A counter-plan
known as the ‘veto-cheato’ counter-plan has the congress pass a law, then has the president veto the law
and then the congress overrides the veto and passes it into law. In a functional view of competition this is a
legitimate counter-plan because the implementation and passage is different and the president can’t pass the
law as well as veto it.
Textual competition, in contrast, feels that this is not a legitimate counter-plan. Textual
competition argues that the counter-plan has to be textually different meaning having different words from
the affirmative plan in a way that cannot be combined. In the above example, the plan text would be written
‘ The United States federal government should pass the affirmative plan’ and the above counter-plan text
would be written ‘The United States federal government should pass the affirmative plan, the president
should veto the plan and the congress should override the presidential veto’. Although the two policies
cannot be combined functionally, the texts of the two certainly can.
The final form of competition is ‘plan plan’ standard. Plan-Plan is a standard of competition that
has fallen out of favor. It argues, however, that the entirety of competition is artificially constructed for
debate and in the real world one has to advocate their policy against every other possible option. For
example, if the affirmative plan were to increase caps on carbon emissions and the counter-plan were to
decrease taxes on businesses these two can be combined functionally and textually but plan-plan argues
that they should be seen as two competing options because no one has the power to do everything that is
possible and individuals need to prioritize.
2NC Counter-Plans Bad 2AC

1AR Strategy Skew – Saving the counter-plan for the 2NC makes all of if not the majority of the
2AC irrelevant functionally erasing all arguments from the flow
Time Skew – By functionally restarting the debate in the 2NC the negative is giving themselves double
the time of the as they still have the 2NC, 1NR and the 2NR while the aff only has the 1AR already the
most time pressed speech in the debate to respond. Make the debate unwinnable for the aff.
Undermines Reciprocity – Affs don’t get to save their plan or add new planks in the 2AC which
gives a massive benefit to the neg.
Undermines In-Depth Education – Starting the real debate half way through the debate ensure
that only surface level debate is allowed undermining the end goal of the activity.
2NC Counter-Plans are a Voting Issue – the 1AR time and strategy skew has already occurred
meaning if you only reject the counter-plan they still only have to answer the inadequate argumentation of
the abused 1AR. Rejection is the only fair option.
2NC Counter-Plans Good 1NR

Reciprocal with the 2AC– The 2AC is able to shift the 1AC advocacy and restart the debate by
reading add-ons. Only 2NC counter-plans are an adequate check and maintaince of reciprocity.
No Unique Abuse – Counter-plans are nothing more than disads of lost opportunity and if there was
not a counter-plan in the 2NC there would just be a whole slew of new disads and case turns which means
the 1AR would be time pressured either way.
Critical to Check Negative Time Skew – Absent 2NC counter-plans it shifts all of the time
pressure on the 1NC and leaves that as the only negative constructive while the affirmative still has two.
Best Policy Option Justifies – . It is necessary to allow counterplans in the second negative
constructive in order to guarantee the best possible test of the plan. Arbitrary exclusion of a whole category
of argument from fifty percent of the negative’s constructive speech time undercuts the quality of the test.
Increases Real World Education – Congresspeople are able to amend right up vote which is why
we should be able to amend right up to the rebuttals.
2NC Counter-plans Increase critical thinking – They provide a unique opportunity for the
first affirmative rebuttalist to develop their coverage and analytical skills.
2NC Counter-Plans are Not a Voting issue – At worst you should reject the argument and not
the team.
Agent Counter-Plans Bad 2AC

No Decision-Maker Model - There is no single decision maker that has the power to choose between
the courts and congress acting .Which means that they should have to prove the propensity for their actor to
take action in the case of the resolution not simply fiating it. I can decide to get up in the morning or go
sleep in all morning but I can’t decide my friend will cover all of my classes for me unless there is a
propensity for he/her to do so.
Net Benefits as Disads Solve Your Offense – Disadvantages test the agent of the plan not
counter-plans. Counter-plans themselves do not test the agent their net benefits do.
Functionally Object Fiat – The decision maker advocated by the counter-plan is one affected by the
plan itself. Because there is no non-arbitrary way to determine an affected or non-affected actor then any
agent counter plan should be considered object fiat which would undermine any hope of affs winning their
advantages.
No Opportunity Cost – Counter-plans are legitimate only insomuch as they represent a disadvantage
of lost opportunity. But agent counter-plans do not preclude any other actor for taking that same action
Undermines Reciprocity – Affirmatives are granted only one resolution based-actor and so too
should negatives otherwise they will be granted infinitely more strategic options than the affirmatives
making debate inherently unfair.
Undermines Topic-Specific Education – Undermines Topic-Specific Education – Moots the

resolution. Agent counter-plan debates are the same on every topic. They reduce topic specific education.
Steals Aff Ground – they moot the entirety of the 1AC skewing time in favor of the negative
Agent Counter-Plans are a voting issue – for fairness, education and to set a community
precedent against agent counter-plans.
Agent Counter-Plans Good 2NC

Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – In order to determine the best possible policy to
deal with a problem means that debaters cannot limit ourselves to only one actor.
The Agent is Critical to Policy Education – Different agents have different jurisdictions,
enforcement agencies and funding all of which are critical to understanding the important parts of policy.
Critical to In-Depth policy Education – Agent Counter-Plans are critical to engaging in the
solvency mechanisms of a plan of the affirmative’s agent. Otherwise the agent would fade in importance
There Is a Decision Maker – Different agents in the USFG will defer to another branch or the 50
states seeing them as better suited. The government will also ask for action on the part of international
agencies and other countries which means its more real world than they give it credit for.
Aff Choice of Agent Is Unfair – If the neg has to use the actor chosen by the aff then the aff will
strategically choose actors that limit out negative counter-plan options.
No Abuse – the affirmative chose to put that agent in their plan and therefore should be able to defend it.
Agent Counter-Plans are not a voting issue – the affirmative chose to put that agent in their
plan and therefore should be able to defend it.
Conditioned Fiat Bad

Infinitely Expands Research Burdens – Plans could be conditioned on literally any action or any
event all of which have to be researched by both teams but there is no way to predict what that event or
action would be making it impossible
Makes Their Advocacy a Moving Target and Ensures Strategy Skew – the plan could
pass, not pass or pass in the future dependant upon what they choose to concede or argue which allows
them to shift out of our best offense and puts total control of the round in their hands.
Functional Future Fiat – No matter what the condition is it will certainly happen at some point in
the future which undermines the potential for us to have uniqueness to our solvency or disadvantage
arguments.
Steals Affirmative Ground and Undermines Education – The counter-plan literally

includes the entirety of the plan which makes its discussion in the round irrelevant and shifts it to the
condition undermining topic specific education
Conditioned Fiat Good

Its Not Conditioned or Future Fiat – the plan is put onto the books as one action in the here and
now the rest is just implementation like any other law.
Enhances Education – conditioning the plan on the issue of our net benefit is the only way that the
issue will not get pushed to the wayside enhancing important but otherwise marginalized issues.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – there is no reason why debate should artificially
limit out a potential useful political choice and educational opportunity.
No Strategy or Ground Skew – we are only able to change the outcome of the condition by
conceding an argument the 2AC has made making the outcome of the counter-plan all up to them and they
have immediate build in ground to acting immediately or unconditionality good.
Enhances Real World Education – no plan or law goes into effect always and forever there is
always a condition upon which it can be repealed.
Net Benefits and Literature Ensure Ground and Check Abuse – the net benefit has to be
something huge enough to outweigh the immediate solvency deficit that the counter-plan accrues ensuring
that there is literature and debate on out issue that they would have to research to beat our net benefit if it
were run as a disad anyway.
Key to Check Unpredictable Affirmatives – including the entirety of the plan is the only way to
check squirrely and new affirmatives.
Consultation Counter-Plan Bad 2AC

Probabalistic Fiat – Based upon what they argue the counter-plan could result in the plan, something
more than the plan, less than the plan or a banning of the plan which makes it impossible for the affirmative
to spend any meaningful time answering each of those worlds and puts the ball in the court the negative to
decide what they really want in the 2AR.
Infinitely Regressive – They could fiat any country, individual or group in the entire world which
means that affs have to prepare answers to all of them and all the negative needs in a single generic ‘say
yes’ card skewing debate irreparably to the negative.
Artificially Inflates Small Disads – Because the counter-plan is 100% plan inclusive it grants the
benefit to the team that can contrive a net benefit which skews away from real world education.
Artificially Competitive – The net benefit is not a disadvantage to the plan it is an advantage of the
counter-plan but because of the abusive nature of their fiat they have undermined a legitimate permutation
to this constructed comeptition.
Future Fiat – The counter-plan fiats action by the USFG to engage in the consultation and then action
to implement the plan after the consultation which makes the counter-plan a functional delay counter-plan
skews debate to the negative.
Undermines Real World Education – At no point in history has the US granted veto power to
such specific policy making this a issue not written about in the literature and turns debate into a abstracted
game of hypotheticals instead of meaningful insight into the policymaking process as it exists today.
Skews 2AC Time – Because they don’t advocate any definite action of the counter-plan they force
the 2AC to read internal link evidence for the negative to determine meaningful links to disadvantages
which skews the debate towards the already time-favored block.
Undermines Topic Specific Education – Allowing consultation counter-plans would ensure that
we no longer learn about the specifics of the resolution or the plan because they are captured by both.
Competes off of Normal Means Not Something in the Plan Text – This forces
affirmative to be prepared for any and everything that is involved in every policy passing that skews debate
in favor of the negative who only has to attack one of them.
Consultation Counter-Plans are a Voting Issue – First because the abuse has already
occurred in the 2AC and Second because a community precedent needs to be set to outweigh the strategic
benefit these counter-plans would otherwise have.
Consultation Counter-Plan Good 2AC

Consultation Counter-plans are Uniquely Educational – They skew debate away from
assuming the arrogance and unilateralism of current US policy which means that their arguments as to why
it doesn’t happen very offense are just offense for us because it forces a more peaceful and full of potential
worldwide view of policymaking.
Literature and Solvency Evidence Check Infinite Regress – Negative need to have
evidence about the desire for consultation, ‘say yes’ cards on the issue concerning the plan and
recommendation in their solvency evidence which means that the counter-plan is predictable and debatable.
Probabalism is Reciprocal with Permutations – Affirmatives are able to choose to go for the
plan, the plan and the counter-plan or part of the plan and the counter-plan. That is the same as the outcome
of consultation but they get to choose which one making them even more abusive.
No Future Fiat Abuse – We do not fait in the future we put a law on the books right now that says
that will be enforced later. The ‘future fiat’ is no different than their enforcement mechanism. You can still
read solvency deficits as much as we can.
No Ground Abuse – The affirmative can still read advantages based upon the solvency deficit of the
time spent consulting, an advantage to unilateral action or an impact turn to our net benefit no matter what
counter-plan we run.
Uniquely Enhances Resolutional Education – We now get to see the resolution in an

international context and what it means to different actors. Also we have to have a resolutionally based
debate in the ‘say yes’/’say no debate’ which turns their topic-specific education claims.
Net Benefits as Disadvantages are Inadequate – Issues such as the importance of relations
with so called meaningless countries get unnecessarily pushed to the side in their ethnocentric power-
playing model of debate which means that the counter-plan is the only way to ensure adequate education on
these issues..
Forces Affs to Consider Their Implementation – Consultation is no different than any other
process counter-plan which means it is a critical test of the desirability of the plan.
Legitimate Opportunity Cost – The counter-plan is just a disadvantage of a lost opportunity they
could have consulted on this issue but they chose not to which means it is not artificially competitive as
they will claim.
Not a Voting Issue – At worst you should reject the counter-plan functionally cutting our block in
half is enough retribution for their hypothetical abuse claims.
Counter-Plans / Negative Fiat Bad 2AC

No Resolutional Justification – The affirmative fiat is justified by the word should in the resolution
the negative gets only the ground of ‘should not’ which implies inaction not another kind of action which
means that counter-plans should only be allowed if probabiliry in the status quo is first established.
Undermines Reciprocity – affirmative fiat is limited to the actor and the action in the resolution
negative fiat has no actor or action based limit which at a basic level disadvantages the resolution and
quadrubles the amount of research the affirmative has to do.
Counter-Plans as Disadvantages Solve Your Offense – If the counter-plan truly is an

opportunity cost then it can be run as a disadvantage and get all of the education that you are concerned
with.
Undermines Education – Negative fiat discourages in depth analysis of the aff case in particular and
a consideration of action versus inaction
Negative Fiat is a Voting Issue– for fairness, education and to set a community precedent.
Counter-Plans / Negative Fiat Good 2NC

Key to Reciprocity – The affirmative gets to fiat their plan which means that the negative should get
the ability fiat their counter-plan otherwise the aff would always win because their inherency evidence is a
100% solvency takeout to negative strategic options
Key to Check True Cases, Aff Side Bias and the Moral Viability of Debate – Absent
counter-plans negatives would be forced to defend the entirety of the status quo including the nearly
indefensibly horrible parts of it. Absent the counter-plan debate would become little more than a training
ground to justify horrificness.
More Real World – Most Real World policy debates are based around different ways to solve a
problem not just an advocate of solving a problem and someone ardently defending the existence of a
horrible problem.
Resolution Justifies – If the job of the negative is to prove the opposite of the resolution the ‘should’
that justifies affirmative fiat also creates an implicit ‘should not’ that justifies the negative counter-plan
because it proves a reason why a particular instance of the resolution should not happen.
Key to Test the Plan – Counter-plans are the only way to determine and test the opportunity costs
lost by doing the aff.
Negative Fiat is Not a Voting Issue – At worst you should just reject the counter-plan which
would stick us with the status quo and remove any fiat related abuse.
Extra/ Artificially Competitive Counter-Plans Good 2NC

Extra-Competition Benefits the Aff More than the Neg– Even if they had not researched
card one on the counter-plan the counter-plan functionally bans the plan making it an automatic disad .
Extra-Competition is More Real World – There are a limited amount of congressional resources
and attention which mans that policies that would be competitive by their standard are functionally
impossible.
Extra-Competition is Reciprocal – The affirmative is allowed to choose and craft the plan to
avoid the negative’s disadvantages and case attacks. The negative should be able to craft the counter-plan
to give them a strategic advantage on the permutation debate.
Extra-Competition is Predictable – There are only a number of resources and plan planks that are
up for contestation via extra-competition which ensures that affirmatives can predict them and debate them.
Permutations Check Abuse – If components of the counter-plan are literally non-competitive then
they can permute the extra-competitive parts of the plan.
Net Benefits Standard Check Abuse – The counterplan must be proven to be more advantageous
than the plan. The affirmative must demonstrate the advantages of the affirmative outweigh those of the
counterproposal. That would not be different for any other counterplan, and is not abusive.
Err Neg on Extra Competition – There is no bright-line for extra-competition. This argument, if
legitimated, would become an automatic shield for the affirmative against any cleverly written counterplan.
Extra/ Artificially Competitive Counter-Plans Bad 2AC

Extra Competition Undermines Literature-Based Education – Debates in the literature do
not set policies in contention via artificial constraints which ensures that debates remain shallow and
discourages resrouce.
Extra Competition Explodes Affirmative Research Burden – Extra competition makes

literally anything competitive so long as it, for example, uses the funding forcing the aff to have cards on
literally anything under the sun creating a massive negative side bias.
Undermines Educational Value of Clash – Extra-Competition ensures the comparison of

policies that do not inherently clash and undermine in-depth education.
Shreds Affirmative Ground – Extra Competition radically alters the status quo to the point that
disads to counter-plans have no meaningful uniqueness.
Undermines Real World Education – No congressperson could viably hope to defeat an

opponents bill by introduction another-one that arbitrarily bans it
Extra-Competition Destroys Permutation Ground - A counterplan may be a decent strategy

for the negative, but the affirmative needs to have a reciprocal right to test the counterplan. Extra-
competitive counterplans eliminate this ability by spiking out of our permutations.
PICs Bad 2AC
Undermines Resolutional Education – PICs focus debates around what color pens should be used
and how much money should be spent etc. That removes any meaningful connection between debates and
the resolution.
Undermines In-Depth Plan Based Education – PICs encourages affs to simply very extremely
vague plans to avoid PICs which means that we will never learn about the specificity of the plan
mechanisms or mandates.
Artificially Inflates small Disads – which skews the debate away from important policy
disagreements in the literature and toward debate contrivances.
Undermines real World Education – Democrats can’t simply agree with 99.9% of Republican
policies as the counter-plan does and hope to be a viable political or policy making force.
Infinitely regressive and Impossible to Predict – their CP shifts the debate onto the minutia of
any political action which is unpredictable and forces us to spend our prep time researching every aspect of
general political action that could potentially be used as a net benefit to a PIC
No Right or need for the PIC – they could simply read the net benefit as a disadvantage which
would gain all of the education they are concerned with without the counter-plan and without abusing the
affirmative.
PICs Good 2NC
PICs are most predictable - The counter-plan is just an exclusion of a portion of the affirmative
that they chose to put it in the plan which means they should be infinitely more prepared to defend it
against any other unpredictable counter-plan.
PICs increase in-depth education – PICs encourage in depth debate and tests of every portion of
the affirmative plan as opposed to only surface level attacks on all parts of the plan.
Forces precise plan wording and strategic thinking – PICs are best for education because
they force teams to consider the advantages and disadvantages of their plan text before they debate,
encouraging research beyond their solvency evidence and force strategic thinking .
All competitive Counter-Plans are PICs –They all have to include some portion of the plan or
the permutation would soundly defeat it. PICs are critical for the negative to have counter-plans at all.
PICs are Most Real World – Most debates in congress come down to small details that students
should become familiar with.
Exclusion Counter-plans are Critical to check Aff Abuse – Absent exclusion counter-plans
affirmatives would simply include multiple solvency mechanism, agents and enforcement protocols
skewing negative time and forcing them to debate against functionally infinite affs.
Net Benefits and Literature check infinite regression – We can only read PICs that have
decent solvency evidence prominent in the literature or net benefits large enough to overcome solvency
defeceits which means there is a set limits on PICs are are predictable
Net Benefits as Disadvantages are inadequate – It would force debate to ignore small but
important differences because they would not stand up to the entirety of the aff on their own and thus
become un-strategic to research or run which means that that education is lost.
PICs are Not a voting issue – At worst you should reject the counter-plan which would undermine
any strategic benefit we gained and they would have all the answers they would have made against the net
benefit as a straight disad.
International Counter-Plans Bad 2AC

Functional Object Fiat – US action affects the rest of the world. Allowing negatives to fiat that
world would justify fiating out of wars or that other countries stop causing the harms US action is intended
to prevent.
No Decision Maker Model – There is no policy-maker in the world that can choose between US
action and the counter plan which forces the judge to assume an impossible role to make a decision. They
should have to prove the propensity for their actor to take action in the case of the resolution not simply
fiating it. I can decide to get up in the morning or go sleep in all morning but I can’t decide my friend will
cover all of my classes for me unless there is a propensity for he/her to do so.
of lost opportunity. But international agent counter-plans do not preclude any other actor for taking that
same action
Unpredictable – There are an infinite number of other countries, NGOs and International
Organizations that negatives could fiat which makes being aff impossible.
Undermines Reciprocity – The affirmative is limited to USFG action and the negative should be as
well to preserve fairness.
Perpetuates US Exceptionalism – The assumption that the rest of the world will clean up after the
US who has no responsibility is the mindset that has justified some of the worst atrocities in recent history.
Undermines Topic-Specific Education – Undermines Topic-Specific Education – Moots the

resolution. International counter-plan debates are the same on every topic. They reduce topic specific
education.
International Counter-Plans are a Voting issue – for fairness education and to set a
community precedent against international counter-plans.
International Counter-Plans Good 2NC

Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – The counter-plan tests the aff by evaluating other
actors which is critical to getting in depth education about the aff and which actor would be best suited.
Resolution Demands – The Resolution asks the question of the desirability of the of US action
towards global problems. Which makes it predictable and educational.
Disallowing Other Actors Perpetuates US Ethnocentrism – This argument rests upon the
assumption that the US is the only legitimate actor which is ethnocentric and imperialist.
There is a Decision Maker Model – the US will defer to other countries to take a particular action
and will ask other countries to cover their responsibilities in other parts of the world.
Literature Checks Infinite Regression – Our solvency evidence indicates that our agent is
within the literature as important to the problem isolated by the affirmative which creates a functional limit
and checks infinite regression.
Key to Negative Ground and Critical Affirmative Thinking – Absent International

Counter-plans to check them affirmatives will simply not consider the necessity of the US as an actor or
solvency agent and unstrategic affs like throwing money at a problem will be given an undeserved
advantage.
International Counter-Plans are Not Voting issue – At worst we should lose the counter-plan.
Multiple Actor Fiat Bad 2AC
Strategy Skew – Multiple actors undermines the ability for the 2AC to make some of their best offense
which is based upon the other actors in the negatives counter-plan
Multiple Actors are Unpredictable – There are an infinite number of permutations of actors that
be combined to engage in the negative counter-plan which are not written about in policy literature and are
impossible for affs to predict.
Multiple Actors are Utopian – Many actors that otherwise wouldn’t acting in concert is entirely
unrealistic and undermines real world education.
Multiple Actors are Not Reciprocal – The resolution binds the aff to only one actor allowing the
neg to have more than one creates a structural bias in favor of the affirmative.
Infinitely Regressive – Fiating more than one actor allows absurd counter-plans like fiating that all
countries in the world not go to war with one another.
No Decision Maker Model – There is no judge persona that exists for ejudicating the comparison of
multiple actors. Which makes it impossible for the judge to make a coherent or meaningful decision first
assessing the persona they should adopt.
Multiple Actor Fiat is a Voting Issue – The strategy skew has already happened in the 2AC
simply rejecting the counter-plan would legitimate that abuse.
Multiple Actor Fiat Good 2NC

The Accusation of Multiple Actors is Arbitrary – We are not fiating multiple actors, we are
fiating passage by a permutation of potential actors, which is the same as the affirmative plan fiating every
branch of the USFG or every senator. Also the law passed by the plan compels many actors to act. Because
it is little more than semantics it applies to them just as much does not justify rejection.
Single Actor Fiat Justifies Multi-Actor Fiat – Any disadvantages they could read against a
single agent counter-plan can also be read against a multi-actor counter-plan but now they have double the
ground. If they can’t find a disad that isn’t based upon the other actor that we’ve chosen then they haven’t
done their research.
Real World – Many actions like the counter-plan need to be passed via the actions of many actors
even if they are non-action or acquiescence like ad hoc committees or international organizations like
NATO or the EU
Key to check the Resolutional actor – The affirmative has the benefit of sole fiat power of the
most suited and powerful actor concerning the topic this year. Multiple actors are a critical check on the
strategic advantage of that actor.
Literature Checks – Our solvency evidence is proof that this counter-plan is predictable and that there
is a limited number of permutatoins.
Their Decision Maker-Model is Inaccurate – Their theory argument only make sense if one
conceives of the judge as a congressperson of as the USFG. But debate can better find the best policy
option and ideas outside the political mainstream if other decision maker models such as an non-partial
observer are accepted.
Any abuse is reciprocal – we would be laughed out of the round if we tried to read a specific
congressperson disad because the nature of fiat prevents that kind of specificity – there is no reason why
the aff deserves to read a disad on one part of our counterplan’s actor
No Abuse or Ground Loss – Affirmatives can still read disadvantages based upon the actors of our
actors after the plan is passed. Fiat power only allows for the passage of the counter-plan nothing more.
Multiple Actors is not a Voting Issue – No abuse has occurred in this round and at worse we
should be stuck with a single actor.
Multiple Counter-Plans Bad 2AC
Time Skew – Multiple counter-plans force the affirmative to divide 2AC time in half, or thirds
structurally disadvantaging the aff.
Multiple Counter-Plans Undermine In-Depth Education - Including multiple counterplans

in the round precludes any effective or in depth analysis of any of them
Undermines Reciprocity – Affirmatives are only able to defend one plan. Giving negatives the
ability to defend more than one skews the round unfairly in their favor.
Undermines Real World Education – Senators and the Senate are only able to defend and discuss
one policy any given time. Trying to play all sides of an issue trains debaters in an unrealistic manner.
Multiple Rounds Solve all their Offense – Affirmatives still have to be prepared for the various
counter-plans that they are concerned with because they will have to deal with each of them over the course
of a tournament or a season. By focusing on each one of them one at a time they can be more effectively
understood and debated.
Multiple Counter-Plans are a Voting Issue – The abuse has already occurred in the 2AC
rejecting any of the counter-plans would still leave the aff with an inadequate set of answers to the
remaining counter-plan rejection is the only option.
Multiple Counter-Plans Good 2NC

No Unique Abuse - Multiple Counter-Plans are not theoretically different from one counter-plan with
multiple mandates which means you could treat they as all part of one which would assuage all your
concerns and be a good alternative to rejection.
Multiple Counter-Plans Key to Test Multiple Advantages - Counter-plans are critical to test
the intrinsicness of advantages by solving them. If negatives were limited to only one counter-plan they
could not test all advantages and affs would be structurally advantaged.
Multiple Counter-Plans Key to Real World Education - Legislators often debate multiple
policies simultaneously - frequently legislators will choose between several different possible bills and
amendments
Multiple Counter-Plans Force Critical Thinking– forces them to think in terms of multiple
contingencies and cope with multiple variables simultaneously. That is educationally beneficial enough to
justify the practice.
Multiple Counter-Plans Key to Reciprocity– Affirmatives get to write multiple planks into
their plan limiting negatives to only one counter-plan is to put them at a unfair disadvantage.
Counter-Plans are no Different Than any other Argument– Negatives get to read multiple
disadvantages and topicality arguments. Counter-plans are just disads of lost opportunities which means
that, as far as theory is concerned, negs need multiple counter-plans like they need multiple disads.
Multiple Counterplans Key to Education and the Search for the Best Policy Option–
Multiple Counterplans ensure education about the plan compared to all logical policy options instead of
placing an artificial limit on it and the education benefit of such comparisons.
Negation Theory Justifies – Negatives It is not our job to prove the superiority of any one policy
option. That job rests with the affirmative, since they have the burden of proof.
Multiple Counter-Plans are Not a Voting Issue – At worst you should just stick us with one of
our counter-plans .
Multiple International Agents Bad 2AC

Undermines Reciprocity – the aff is limited to only one governmental agency so the negative should
be limited to one as well.
Strategy Skew – the multiple actors of in the affirmative plan disallows affirmatives from making the
best solvency deficit arguments because of the double solvency of the other actors and the disadvantages
based upon the other actors fiated by the aff.
Unpredictable and Infinitely Regressive– the are an infinite number of permutations of

international agents that negatives could conglomerate into a counter-plan making it literally impossible for
affirmatives to prepare for rounds in advance.
Undermines Real World Education – Having most of the world come together to pass a single
policy is without real world precedent and utopian to the point of undermining the education value of
debate.
No Decision-Maker Model – No one writes evidence comparing plan to multiple actors passing a
resolution simultaneously because it won’t ever happen. This is bad because it will always advantage the
negative team, which can simply win on a net benefit, and it destroys education
Functional Object Fiat – US action is meant to influence the rest of the world and stop international
problems. By granting negatives the ability fiat those countries then the negative is allowed to fiat solvency
for the affirmative.
Multiple International Actors are A Voting issue – the strategy skew has already occurred
simply rejecting a single agent then our insufficient answers to the remaining actor would still remain.
Multiple International Agents Good 2NC

Key to Check USFG Action – the United States government is one of the strongest, most well
financed and powerful agencies in the world multiple international actors is the only way to check this
overwhelming affirmative benefit.
Multiple Agents Claims are Arbitrary – The counter-plan is nothing but a collaboration of
agents working to pass a single action. That is no different from the multiple US governmental agencies
that do it.
Multiple Agents Increase Affirmative Ground – They are now able to read disadvantages and
their 2AC blocks based on each of our agents.
Real World – the EU, NATO, government-NGO co-opts and any other number of ad-hoc committees
prove the propensity for international collaboration in the real world. This is something that has to be
addressed by policy debaters.
No Aff Abuse – The affirmative still gets US perception, hegemony and domestic US advantages no
matter how unpredictable our choice of country is.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – The counter-plan tests the aff by evaluating other
actors which is critical to getting in depth education about the aff and which actor would be best suited.
There is a Decision Maker Model – the US will defer to other countries to take a particular action
and will ask other countries to cover their responsibilities in other parts of the world.
Literature Checks Infinite Regression – Our solvency evidence indicates that our agents are
within the literature as important to the problem isolated by the affirmative which creates a functional limit
and checks infinite regression.
Key to Negative Ground and Critical Affirmative Thinking – Absent Multiple-Actor

International Counter-plans to check them affirmatives will simply not consider the necessity of the US as
an actor or solvency agent and un-strategic affs like throwing money at a problem will be given an
undeserved advantage.
Multiple International Actors are Not Voting issue – At worst we should lose one of the
actors in our counter-plan.
Object of the Resolution Fiat Bad 2AC

Object of the Resolution Counter-plans Shred Affirmative Ground and Solvency
Benefits– Object of the resolution counter-plans justify negatives simply fiating away the problem
identified by the resolution and the aff is attempting to solve which means that affs will always lose due to
any risk of a disad.
Undermines Resolution-Based Education – Shifts debate away from the question posed by the
resolution by making it magically disappear and force debates over the benefits of USFG action.
Undermines Real World Education – Wishing away problems make debate so vastly different
from any real world policy options that it will undermines the educational viability of the activity.
No Policy-Maker Model – No one individual can choose between taking US action to solve a
problem and wish the problem out of existence which makes it impossible for the judge to render a cogent
decision. I can choose to stay in bed or get up when my alarm goes off but I can’t choose a world in which
my friends will perform all of that day’s duties for me.
Inherently artificially competitive – there’s no mutual exclusivity, which artificially inflates small
disads and prevents effective strategic answers
International Fiat Solves Your Offense – the negative still has plenty of ground and can still test
the necessity of USFG action by fiating an agent that is not the object of the resolution.
Object of the Resolution is Utopian – which means that even if there is solvency evidence there is
not counter-solvency evidence which skews debate to the negative and why literature doesn’t check.
Object of the Resolution fiat is a Voting Issue – for fairness education and to set a community
precedent against object of the resolution fiat.
Object of the Resolution Fiat Good 2NC

The Resolution Questions the Necessity of US Action – the counter-plan is the only means to
effectively answer that question
No Ground Abuse – All the affirmative has to do is read an advantage based upon USFG action like
superior solvency, relations or hegemony which would provide an advantage over an object-based counter-
plan.
Reciprocal with Affirmative Resolutional Specification – The affirmative has to defend the
plan and not the resolution which is why negative teams are excluded from fiating the object of the plan but
because of the benefits of specifying a part of the resolution they have lose the benefit of excepting the
object of the resolution from negative fiat.
Reciprocal with the Aff Inherency – The affirmative has to wish away their problems as well
such as the attitudinal inherency of senators who oppose their plan that they wish away.
Solvency Evidence Checks Abuse – The counter-plan has solvency evidence for the action of the
plan which proves it is predictable
Real World Education Justifies – The USFG often asks for other countries who are better suited
for the job to aid in its efforts worldwide.
Best Policy Option Justifies – Artificially limiting the choices presented by the judge undermines
the education aim of the round.
We are not fiating an ‘object’– Our actor is as much a subject as the USFG to imply otherwise is to
perpetuate US exceptionalism and violence.
Object of the Resolution is Not a Voting Issue– At worst you should reject the counter-plan
which would resolve any object based abuse.
Private Actor Fiat Good 2NC

More Real World Decision Maker Model – Presidents get to decide whether or not there will
be an executive order or a supreme court decision but we as debaters get to decide to give our money
resources and activism towards private charities and organizations or give money to the government.
Key to Check USFG Action – Affirmatives have the massive benefit of resolutional claim to
governmental action which means superior solvency and authority negatives need to have a non resolutiona
form of fiat to check that benefit.
Key to Test Desirability of Government Action – Absent Private Actors the debate leaves us
assuming the government is the be-all and end-all of policy action, comparison and problem-solving.
Private action fiat is the only way to determine the desirability of the type of affirmative agent.
No Affirmative Ground Abuse – All they have to do is write advantages based upon government
action like precedent setting, better regulation, industry relations ,international relations or hegemony or
read a disadvantage based upon industries functionally self regulating.
Private/Public Division is Arbitrary – There are still ‘private’ individuals in the ‘public’ entity
that they are fiating we are doing no different. .
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – In order to enhance the educational value of the
activity debate should not arbitrarily exclude policy options that would best address the problem by limiting
them to governmental activity alone.
Solvency Evidence Checks Abuse – Our solvency evidence indicates that there is discussion of
this potentiality in the literature and is therefore predictable and debatable.
Uniquely Educational Now – A number of important traditionally governmental duties have been
handed over or are largely dealt with in the private sector which. Including private actor fiat in debate
makes debate far more relevant .
Private Actor Fiat Bad 2AC

Undermines Reciprocity – Affirmatives are limited to governmental action and negatives should
to. This still gives them alternative US agent actors and international actors which is enough ground to limit
negatives to reciprocal action.
Object Fiat – Private actors are the actors that governments attempt to influence which means that
this counter-plan is definitionally object fiat and allows negatives to simply solves the problem that affs try
to deal with via government action ensuring that negatives will always win with any risk of solvency
deficit.
No Decision Maker – There is no individual actor that is able to decided between individuals
magically solving the problem isolated by the government and governmental action which forces the judge
to adopt an untenable persona and make incoherent decisions.
Undermines Real World Education – At no time in history has industry randomly decided to
regulate itself which means including this counter-plan makes debate training for nothing more than
utopian hypotheticals.
Government Actions Solves All Their Offense – They can still read counter-plans that
provide incentives to the private industry which means that the reaction of private industry will still be
included in debate.
Topical Counter-Plans Good 2NC
The Plan is the Focus of the Debate – The affirmative does not have to prove the resolution true
or untrue which is why a topical counter-plan does not justify an aff ballot. If the aff were tasked to defend
the entirety of the resolution then they would be forced to defend an infinite number of counter-warrants
which would abuse the aff far more than our counter-plan.
Topical Counter-Plans Increase In-Depth Education – Absent topical counter-plans we

can’t discuss the resolution in depth only compare it generally to non-resolutional options
Topical Counter-Plans are Key to Negative Flexibility and Limiting Aff Abuse –
Limiting the neg to everything outside of the resolution undermines our ability talk about the USFG at all
or even the most useful mechanism for dealing with the affirmative problem which either makes counter-
plans un-strategic and impossible for skews negs towards non-US based abusive counter-plans.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – Many times the best solution for a particular
problem lies within the bounds of the resolution but outside the bounds of the plan. Banning topical
counter-plans artificially creates a limit on what policy options debate rounds can consider.
More Real World – Congress members and political parties often agree with general goals like the
resolution but disagree about how to get there. A comparison of topical policy options most accurately
mirror this sort of debate.
Encourages Precise Plan Wording and Strategic Thinking – to ensure that they have a
solid defense of all parts of their plan when debating against a plan that generally and resolutionally the
same.
No Affirmative Abuse – there are still plenty of disads affirmatives could read to specific plans so
long as they aren’t reliant on simply impact turning the generalities of the resolution in which case they
have bigger problems and they had to prepare for this when they were negative as well.
Topical Counter-Plans are not a Voting Issue – At worse you should reject the topical counter-
plan.
Topical Counter-Plans Bad 2AC
Proves the Resolution True – Which justifies an affirmative ballot so even if they win the counter-
plan we win the round.
Unpredictable– The aff can only be expected to predict counter-plans that lie outside the resolutional
limits
Limits Education – Don’t learn about different strategies to address the resolutional problem only an
aff that they will learn about next round
More Real World – Democrats can’t agree with nearly all of the Republican party’s platform and
hope to be a legitimate policy making body. In the same way negatives can’t agree with the affirmatives
resolution.
Multiple Rounds Solve All Your Offense – We can learn about the counter-plan that you are
concerned with when you are affirmative or when a different aff runs it.
Non-Resolutionally Based Counter-Plans Check Any Abuse – Negatives still have a nearly
infinite amount of non-topical counter-plans that allow just as much creativity and strategic options.
Overburdens the Affirmative Research Burden – Affirmatives are forced to research

everything outside of the resolution and negatives have to research everything inside of it. Topical Counter-
plans undermine that balance of research forcing the affirmative to do twice as much research.
Strategy Skew – Topical counter-plans force the affirmative to debate against themselves and withhold
their best offense that s based upon negatives not taking topical action .
Encourage Vague Plans – The proliferation of topical counter-plans will encourage affirmatives to
write vague broad plans to force out the competition of topical counter-plans undermining education.
Topical Counter-Plans are a Voting Issue – The abuse has already occurred in the 2AC and
before the round simply rejecting the counter-plan will still leave the round unfairly balanced.
Utopian Fiat Bad 2AC

Uses Fiat to Generate an Unfair Benefit – In a world of utopian fiat then rounds are not decided
over who has done the most research or who has the most strategic policy instead who can use fiat to
change the world the most.
Sheds Literature Base – No one writes except in passed in opposition to utopia undermining the
research value of debate and affirmative ground.
Undermines Real World Education – because a utopia is not likely to come about and certainly
not likely to come about by a random act of fiat or us wishing it to be so they turn debate into a practice
group for impossible politics.
Shreds Ground and Clash – utopian fiat allows them to spike out of any ground that we could have
had.
Undermines Reciprocity – the resolution limits the affirmative to a pragmatic and realistic policy
change and so the negative should be limited to it as well.
Utopian Fiat Good 2AC

Enhances Ground – the more fiat that we use the more that we change the wold the more ground that
they have to attack it.
Enhances Literature – not everyone’s utopian is the same which means that there are people that
think our utopia is precisely the opposite.
Enhances Clash – utopian fiat shreds away the pragmatic concerns and goes directly to the goals of a
particular team.
Still Real World Possibilities – utopian fiat still allows individuals to align themselves with others
with similar goals when they leave the activity.
Utopian Fiat is Subjective – utopianism is a subjective claim what is utopian to you is not utopian to
me.
Utopian Thinking Enhances Real World Education and Policy Making

Lynn H. Miller, Professor of Political Science at Temple University, GLOBAL ORDER: VALUES AND
POWER IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, 1990, p. 130-131
The great value of the more utopian suggestions is that they should force both those who conceive
them and those who study them to consider all the many possibilities for political change that may
or may not be realizable at the moment. In other words we should not measure their worth solely
in terms of whether they might soon be adopted; rather, we should let them direct us toward the
kinds of realistic policies that could eventually produce a political environment more supportive of
such arrangements.
Utopian Thinking Is Inherently Valuable and Saves Lives

Jonathan Schell, Staff writer for the New Yorker, THE FATE OF THE EARTH, 1982, p.161-162.
In this timid, crippled thinking, “realism” is the title given to beliefs whose most notable
characteristic is their failure to recognize the chief reality of the age, the pit into which our species
threatens to jump; “utopian” is the term of scorn for any plan that shows serious promise of
enabling the species to keep from killing itself (if it is “utopian” to want to survive, then it must be
“realistic” to be dead); and the political arrangements that keep us on the edge of annihilation are
deemed “moderate,” and are found to be “respectable,” whereas new arrangements, which might
enable us to draw a few steps back from the brink, are called “extreme,” or “radical.”
Administrative / Bureaucratic Compliance Fiat Bad

Shreds Solvency Ground – by fiating administrative agencies they are functionally fiating solvency
which menas they spike all of our solvency arguments via trick of fiat.
Shreds Disad Ground via Object Fiat – administrative agencies are those entities that the plan
attempts to change the actions of. By fiating that they go along we lose disadvantages related to their
backlash and rollback which is no different than fiating that criminals stop committing crimes because in
this case the agencies are the ones causing the problem.
Undermines Counter-Plan Ground and Governmental Education – using the executive

agencies to enact the plan should be negative counter-plan ground. Eliminating that counter-plan as good
negative ground undermines the potential for debates to educate about the balance of power between these
two parts of the government.
Undermines Education and Disallows Discussion of the Functioning of

Administrative Agencies.
Richard Elmore 1980 , Public Affairs at University of Washington, Political Science Quarterly v.94.4
p.605
implementation
Undermines Real World Education – at no time does every agency do exactly as they are told
and act in unison making debate artificial and useless outside of the round.
Discourages Research and Agency Education – If fiat simply mandates action then there is no
incentive to do research or spend time determining what the literature discusses.
Administrative / Bureaucratic Compliance Fiat Good

Key to Affirmative Viability – If administrative and bureaucratic compliance is not allowed then
the inherent barriers in the status quo would make every aff a non-starter and affs would have to pass
policies that were already likely to be passed anyway undermining aff ground and uniqueness to negative
positions.
Key to the Potential for Policy Comparison and Education – the function of fiat is to
abandon questions of what ‘would’ actually happen and determine what ‘should’ happen. By forcing debate
on what the bureaucratic agencies would actually do it short circuits the potential for real clash and debate
over the congress and executive agencies.
Enhances Ground – the expanded use of fiat and actors gives them more links to the responses of
those actors giving them stronger and more links to the disads they are concerned with.
Key to Check Research Explosion and Literature Basis – forcing us to research the effects
of each individual administrative agency is an impossible burden and steers debate away from where the
literature is focused.
No Abuse – it is still a governmental entity so well within the bounds of negative counter-plan ground
and negatives can counter-plan out of the agencies to eliminate any abuse.
Courts Counter-Plans Bad 2AC

Fiating Courts Requires the Fiating of a Test Case –this is the very definition of private
actor, mindset and abusive fiat. There is literally no theoretical difference between fiating a person bringing
a case to court and fiating that they stop committing a crime.
Undermines Real World Education – the Supreme Court has never passed a policy as specific as
our plan making the counter-plan useless to debaters outside the round and makes the activity
meaninglessly isoteric.
Shreds Affirmative Ground and Clash – the Court have never acting in such a way ensuring that
there is no meaningful literature base leaving the aff without any compelling evidence no matter howmuch
time they spend at the library.
action and the counter plan which forces the judge to assume an impossible role to make a decision. Which
means that they should have to prove the propensity for their actor to take action in the case of the
resolution not simply fiating it. I can decide to get up in the morning or go sleep in all morning but I can’t
decide my friend will cover all of my classes for me unless there is a propensity for he/her to do so.
Courts Counter-Plans Undermine Topic Specific Education – they can be read every year
in every round making topic rotation irrelevant and force debate to center only around the actor and not the
issues.
Explodes Negative Ground – allowing the courts to take an action that is so far beyond their normal
means of functioning would allow the negative to hijack, via fiat, any actor to do any action undermining
predictability and fairness in debate.
Functionally Object Fiat – The decision maker advocated by the counter-plan is one affected by the
plan itself. Because there is no non-arbitrary way to determine an affected or non-affected actor then any
agent counter plan should be considered object fiat which would undermine any hope of affs winning their
advantages.
of lost opportunity. But agent counter-plans do ont preclude any other actor for taking that same action
Courts Counter-Plans Good 2NC

Uniquely Educational – Guantanamo, the recent Gun Decision and Roe v. Wade all prove that the
courts are perhaps the most powerful and political branch in the government today. If debaters are to be
effective policymakers or activists then they need to be informed as to the functioning and possibilities of
court action.
Reciprocal and Predictable – the Resolution grants affirmative fiat power to all of the United
States Federal Government so there is no fair reason as to why the negative would not get the same fiat
power.
Enhances Critical Thinking – Just because the court is unlikely to act in the way that our counter-
plan demands doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t. Counter-plans like this encourage creativity and critical
thinking.
Key to Negative Ground – the negative needs a federal government actor in order to check back
affs that can only be done on that level. Eliminating the courts cuts counter-plan ground in half.
Literature Checks – there are whole swaths of literature discussing the benefits and disadvantages of
court action and court activism
Delay Counter-Plan Good 2NC

Delay Counter-plans Uniquely Enhance Education – Delay Counter-plans allows us to
evaluate pressing issues such as the timeframe of war, when economic crises would occur and systemic
harms that would otherwise be crowded out by speculative future scenarios.
Enhances Real World Education – Now is not the time is a common and crucial argument that
has determined the path of a number of important policy choices.
Disproves the Resolution – ‘Should’ in the resolution is time-bound – it assumed desirability

relative to the status quo.
No Aff Abuse – All they have to do is read an advantage that isn’t theoretical or hypothetical and is a
reason that it should be done in the status quo.
Net Benefits and Literature Checks Abuse – There are only so many events that are worth the
automatic solvency deficit within a reasonable time-frame that our solvency evidence would write about
which means they are predictable and debatable.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – an important part of determining the desirability
of the plan is its timeframe to artificially limit out entire portion of desirability testing undermines the
educational benefit of debate.
No Right to Spike Generics – Just because the argument applies to many cases doesn’t mean that
its abusive it just means that its important and something debaters should consider.
Delay Counter-Plan Bad 2AC

Undermines Reciprocity – Affirmatives use of fiat is limited to the status quo negatives should be
bound to it as well.
Infinitely Regressive – Forces the aff to defend against counter-plans that delay the counter-plan, a
day, a week, a week and a day etc. Explodes affirmative research burden to the point of absurdity.
Artificially Competitive – The negative is using fiat to inflate small disads making it definitionally
artificially competitive and skews debate in favor of the negative who can always find a net benefit to
delaying a few days.
Undermines Topic Specific Education – Allowing delay counter-plans ensures that debaters
will never talk about the resolution just the generic disads that are avoided by delaying the resolution
Not Competitive – The resolution says ‘should’ which means that affirmatives don’t have to defend
the time frame and the negative is still defending the resolution and the plan presented in the 1AC.
Executive Order Counter-Plan Good 2NC

Uniquely Educationally Valuable Now – the Bush administrations use of the pen and the
increased executive power that his office has been granted makes understanding the role of the executive
and the legislative power that it has uniquely timely education.
Key to Testing the Agent of the Affirmative Plan and Reciprocity – because Congress is
the main legislative actor and the courts have little law making ability the executive counter-plan is the only
means by which the agent of the aff plan which affects passage, implementation, funding and solvency, all
crucial aspects of desirability, can be debated.
Enhances Real World Education – a number of important pieces of legislation have been passed
via executive order to ignore the viability of this policy making option artificially narrowly focuses policy
education.
All of Their Reasons why Executives Orders are Uncommon or Unconstitutional are
offense for us – just because they are dangerous or unlikely doesn’t mean we shouldn’t learn about it, in
fact the more dangerous it is the more we should understand its functioning in order to combat and argue
against it.
Solvency Evidence Checks Abuse –Our solvency evidence indicates that this counter-plan is
predictable in the literature and news and is a predictable and hotly contested counter-plan every
presidential cycle on.
Forces Precise Plan Wording and Critical Thinking –Counter-plans such as this one are the
only way to ensure that affirmatives consider other options that the legislature and how to defend the
legislature when writing their plan.
Forces Civic Knowledge –Although the topic changes every year ensuring a good knowledge of the
interplay of the branches of government is invaluable and useful education that would be lost absent the
counter-plan.
Legitimate Opportunity Cost – There is no way that a president could attempt to pass an executive
order when the congress has already done which means that after the plan the opportunity to do the
counter-plan is gone.
Reciprocal With Affirmative Fiat –The affirmative is able to fiat their plan through the executive
so the negative should be able to also.
Executive Order Counter-Plan Bad 2AC

Undermines Real World Education – executive orders are rarely used and they are not something
that we as debaters have control over. A focus on policy action that we can influence is the only way to
ensure that the critical thinking that we learn here is useful in the real world.
Undermines Topic Specific Education – the executive order versus legislative passage is the
same debate every single year and skews debate away from the resolution and encourages lazy unchanging
debate.
Executive Order is Plan Inclusive and Undermines Plan Based Education – skews
debate away from focus on the plan and artificially inflates small net benefits skewing debate towards the
negative.
Undermines the Civic and Moral Viability of Debate– Executive orders are a circumvention
of the constitutional process that undermines democratic checks on the executive debating about the
horrible possibilities of our government turns debate into a training ground to justify atrocity and nothing
more.
Encourages Vague Plan Writing – Executive Order counter-plans are educationally self defeating
because affirmatives will stop specifying their agent which undermines any hope of agent-based education.
Net Benefits as Disadvantages Check Abuse– If there is a legitimate opportunity cost then the
counter-plan could simply be read as a disadvantage and the same education could be gained.
No Decision Maker Model – There is no single decision maker that has the power to choose
between the executive and congress acting .Which means that they should have to prove the propensity for
their actor to take action in the case of the resolution not simply fiating it. I can decide to get up in the
morning or go sleep in all morning but I can’t decide my friend will cover all of my classes for me unless
there is a propensity for he/her to do so.
Lower Court Compliance Fiat Bad

Shreds Solvency Ground – They are functionally fiating solvency by assuming that everyone
agrees with the ruling and goes along with the plan meaning we cannot read solvency arguments because
they have spiked them via fiat theory.
Shreds Disad Ground via Functional Object Fiat – the lower courts ae the actors that the
Supreme Court hopes to influence by fiating them they are engaging in a especially abusive form of object
fiat because we don’t get links to lower court capital disads or backlash arguments which are core ground
against the courts counter-plan.
Undermines Court Education– One of the most important parts of the court system Is how the
differing levels of courts interact with one another. By fiating away that discussion it abandons the potential
for learning about those issues and how the courts reallt function
Undermines Real World Education and Potential for Desirability Testing – the
Supreme Court doesn’t simply get to demand that the lower courts do as they wish which makes the
counter-plan artificial and inapplicable to the real world to the point that debaters could not truly determine
whether courts are really a beneficial actor.
Encourages Research and Still Allows the Court Counter-Plan – they just have spend
time researching the lower courts and find solvency evidence.
Lower Court Compliance Fiat Good

Key to the Potential for Policy Comparison and Education – the function of fiat is to
abandon questions of what ‘would’ actually happen and determine what ‘should’ happen. By forcing debate
on what the lower courts would actually do it short circuits the potential for real clash and debate over the
courts.
Key to Reciprocity – when a team uses the congress they don’t have to defend every single
congressperson or executive agency doing as they are told so we should not force a different standard on
teams that use the courts as an actor.
Enhances Ground – the expanded use of fiat and actors gives them more links to the responses of
those actors giving them stronger and more links to the disads they are concerned with.
Key to Check Research Explosion and Literature Basis – forcing us to research the effects
of each individual lower courts is an impossible burden and steers debate away from where the literature is
focused.
No Abuse – it is still a governmental entity so well within the bounds of negative counter-plan ground
and negatives can counter-plan out of the lower courts to eliminate any abuse.
Referendum Counter-Plan Bad 2AC
Probabalistic Fiat – The counter-plan could result in plan passage or plan non passage or some
change to the plan that affirmatives can never predict which divides 2AC into thirds and saves the decision
until the 2NR skewing debate in favor of the neg.
Future Fiat – The counter-plan involves fiat of the referendum then fiat of plan passage which
multiplies the abuse by making it a functional delay counter-plan and allows negatives to artificially inflate
net benefits.
Not Real World – A federal policy has not been passed by referendum for multiple decades which
undermines the educational value of debate.
Undermines Topic Specific Education – The referendum debate is the same every single year
which makes changing topics meaningless and stagnates debate.
Functional Object Fiat – The population that they consult is the object of our plan meaning that
allowing the negatives to consult the object of the plan ensures an unbeatable negative strategy.
Infinitely Regressive – They could consult any group or sub group in the population and they could
condition the implementation of the plan on anything. .
Artificially Inflates Small Disads – Because it includes the entirety of the plan which means that
the team that can contrive a net benefit is privileged which undermines educational benefit of debate.
Referendum Counter-Plan Good 2NC

Referendum Uniquely Educational – Debate cannot simply be a training ground to determine
who can make ‘better’ authoritarian decisions. It must include considerations of our individual votes and
choices because that is what we have most control over and makes us better education by not excluding an
important form of policy making that the current government would have us forget about.
Referendum Counter-Plan is Net Beneficial to the Affirmative – The negative cannot

choose the outcome of consultation unless the affirmative gives them the choice to concede an affirmative
argument which means that it straight jackets the 2NC not the 2AC .
No Ground Abuse – All they have to do is read a benefit to government action separated from the
people or a delay based solvency deficit .
Solvency Evidence Checks Abuse – Our solvency evidence indicates that public input on this
issue is of critical importance which means it is researchable and predictable.
More Real World Education – The demand for more citizen involvement in government
generally and the need to include local communities into policy decisions is an important political question
Probabalism is Reciprocal with Permutations – Affirmatives are able to choose to go for the
plan, the plan and the counter-plan or part of the plan and the counter-plan. That is the same as the outcome
of consultation but they get to choose which one making them even more abusive.
No Future Fiat Abuse – We do not fait in the future we put a law on the books right now that says
that will be enforced later. The ‘future fiat’ is no different than their enforcement mechanism. You can still
read solvency deficits as much as we can.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – Public involvement is an important test of
desirability there is no reason why debate should artificially exclude them at the cost of education.
States Counter-Plan Bad 2AC

Functional Object Fiat – The states are compelled by federal government laws which allows
negatives to fiat out of disad links.
Undermines Topic-Specific Education – The states counter-plan engenders the same debate
every year undermining resolution-based education.
Undermines Real World Education – The fifty states have not acted in unison since the inception
of the country which undermines the value of policy comparison and makes it impossible for affs to do
effective research.
Multi-Actor Fiat – Which undermines reciprocity and the viability of affirmative disadvantages.
No Decision-Maker Model - There is no single decision maker that has the power to choose between
the the states acting in unison and the USFG .Which means that they should have to prove the propensity
for their actor to take action in the case of the resolution not simply fiating it. I can decide to get up in the
morning or go sleep in all morning but I can’t decide my friend will cover all of my classes for me unless
there is a propensity for he/her to do so.
States Counter-Plan is a Voting Issue – for skewing time, education and to set a community
precedent.
States Counter-Plan Good 2NC

States Counter-Plan enhances education and tests an important question of policy
comparison – state or federal action is am important question to determine policy desirability as the
states have a particular state in a number of different problem areas.
There is a Decision Maker Model – federal actors will defer action to the states based upon
jurisdiction or better solvency or ask for state help or co-operation on a particular matter.
Legitimate Opportunity Cost – Federal Action and Jurisdiction is zero-sum with state action an
jurisdiction
Not Multi Actor Fiat – Although there are different components of government acting in unison to
pass our plan the same occurs at the federal level and is therefore not worthy of rejection and there is no
abuse as they all taking a single action.
Massively Increases Affirmative Ground – Affirmatives are now able to read state specific
economy, politics and solvency-based disads.
More Real World Education – Although we all participated to some degree in the federal level it is
in a very indirect way state governments are much more responsive. Education about state action is, thus,
the most useful and likely to be used education in our political lives.
States Counter-Plan is not a Voting Issue – at worst the counter-plan should be rejected which
would rectify any state based abuse.
Test Case Fiat Good

The Court Doesn’t have to Fiat a Test Case – They can Always find a case to rule on
any issue.
Adamany (Prof @ Wayne State) 1990 David, The American Courts: A Critical
Assessment p.9
With more than 5,000 cases pending annually the Supreme Court can almost
always find a case to raise any policy issue that the justices wish to decide.
And Even if there is no case the Court can demand the next case to argue about
your aff
Adamany (Prof @ Wayne State) 1990 David, The American Courts: A Critical
Assessment p.9
When the Court cannot find an issue on its docket, it may order parties to argue
and issue that the justices want to consider.
Test Case Fiat is Normal Means which ensues predictable literature and negative
ground.
Test Case Fiat is Critical to the Courts Counter-Plan which is critical to education
about all branches of the federal government and the search for the best policy
option.
Test Case Fiat Bad

Test Case Fiat is Private Actor Fiat – The Supreme Court requires a test case for a decision to be
made. No evidence says a test case would be brought in status quo so the aff is fiating private individuals to
bring their case. Private Actor fiat is object fiat and justifies fiating away affirmative harms.
Plan Violates the Mootness Clause in the Constitution – Courts cannot take up issues unless
there is not judicial controversy on the issue the plan violates that clause. That violates the precepts of fiat
because it should be as close as possible to the real world in which unconstitutional plans would not be
passed and are outside of the judges jurisdiction
Makes Affirmatives Extra-Topical – by going outside of the specified resolutional actor (the
USFG) and uses private citizens.
UN Counter-Plans Bad 2NC

UN Counterplans Undermine Reciprocity – the UN includes the fiat of every single country in
the world while the affirmative is only able to fiat one skewing debate to the negative.
Functional Object Fiat – US action affects the rest of the world. Allowing negatives to fiat that
world would justify fiating out of wars or that other countries stop causing the harms US action is intended
to prevent.
action and the counter plan which forces the judge to assume an impossible role to make a decision. Which
means that they should have to prove the propensity for their actor to take action in the case of the
resolution not simply fiating it. I can decide to get up in the morning or go sleep in all morning but I can’t
decide my friend will cover all of my classes for me unless there is a propensity for he/her to do so.
of lost opportunity. But international agent counter-plans do not preclude any other actor for taking that
same action
Plan Inclusive – the US is part of the UN which allows the negative to co-opt all affirmative ground.
Not Real World – Never has the UN come together to pass such a specific policy with no opposition
UN Counter-Plans Good 2NC

Uniquely Beneficial Education – the UN is becoming an increasingly important and relevant actor
in the globalized world. Discussion of this counter-plan in debate is important to guide the education of
modern debaters.
Key to Real World Education and Debate – the US v UN action debate is one that has
determined the course of elections and national policy. The UN counter-plan is the only means by which
this question can be tested.
Key to Check the Power of the US – although the UN has more actors than the US but the US still
has a much strong economy and the ability to dispatch a military and intervene internationally these are not
choices the UN has.
UN action is Functionally a Single Actor – the UN is and is described as a cohesive entity which
ensures that there is literature and debatability ensuring functional reciprocity.
There is a Decision Maker – the whole Bush presidency proves that the US has to make a choice
between acting unilaterally or taking the advice of international organizations like the UN.
No Affirmative Ground Abuse – all that the affirmative has to do is read an advantage that is based
upon US action like hegemony or relations.
Veto-Cheato Counter-Plans Bad 2AC

Multiple Actor Fiat – Which is unpredictable as there are an infinite number of potential actors and
combination actors that could be used, is unpredictable and not reciprocal with affirmative one actor fiat.
Future Fiat – They plan involves one action and then at one point in the future another action take plan
and than again at another point in the future fiat is involved which means that we cannot predict uniqueness
for the disadvantages that we would run because the status quo has been changed multiple times since the
assumptions of the literature.
Multiple Step Fiat – Not only do they fiat more than one actor the fiat that actor taking more than one
action which is not reciprocal with the affirmative single step fiat and allows them to solve the links to the
disadvantages that we would otherwise read.
Plan Inclusive – Which shifts debate away from the merits of the plan and skews it towards the debate
of trivial process based advantages which not only skew debate in favor of the negative but hurts topic
specific education.
Unpredictable – This counter-plan is so far outside the bounds of accepted policy passage mechanisms
that it is unfair for the affirmative to predict it and drains 2AC prep time to answer.
Functional Object Fiat – Ensuring the compliance of and reading disadvantages to the reaction of
other branches in the US government is critical ground when a agent counter-plan like this is introduced.
By allowing fiat of the these objects of the plan it allows the negative to fiat out of links to disadvantages
and solvency deficits.
Undermines Real World Education – At no time in the history of US government has the
legislature conspired with the executive to pass a policy in such a way which undermines the usefulness
and educational benefit of debate as an activity.
No Decision Maker Model – There is no person in the government that could choose to orchestrate
such a fantastic series of events which forces the judge to situate themselves in an unattainable and illogical
persona forcing an incoherent and interventionist decision.
Veto-Cheato Counter-Plans Good 2NC

Uniquely Education Now – The Bush administration has rendered a number of vetoes overridden
which indicates that it is a unique time to gain education concerning the override process. Their resurgence
also checks the lack of literature and unpredictability arguments.
Forces Civic Education – The counter-plan is the only means to understand the ways in which the
branches of government interact with one another which is education is most useful to life after debate.
Critical to Test the Normal Means of Plan Passage – as demanded by the resolutional action
and lack of affirmative specification.
Teaches and Forces the Consideration of Political Choices and Inner Workings of
Politics – Fiat has turned debate into a world where we wish away the political implications of the plan
only by questions of veto and the power to override is the political strength and political deals that are
struck between different branches of government considered.
Real World – This process happens all the time and is written into legislative note as a very real
possibility. We should not arbitrarily exclude political potentials otherwise debate becomes myopically
inwardly focused.
Veto Reciprocal With Affirmative Fiat – Their fiat extends to the president as well it is just that
they are fiating that the president does not veto the plan otherwise we’d win on the argument that the
president does not like your plan as indicated by the fact that (s)he has not passed it and would prohibit
passage
Solvency Evidence Checks Abuse – Our solvency evidence indicates that there is discussion of
this potentiality in the literature and is therefore predictable and debatable.
Multi-Step and Multi-Action Fiat is Arbitrary and Reciprocal with Affirmative –

They are no more multi-step or mulit-action than we are they involve a number of different groups in the
government and members of those groups. Our counter-plan is no different.
Legitimate Decision Maker – The president often has to make the choice of vetoing a bill to make a
political standing knowing that it will risk being vetoed.
Text Comp Good / Functional Competition Bad

1. Enhances Core of the Topic and Core of the Literature Debate – functional
competition allows for debates about tiny portions of the plan to become something that that counterplan
competition and the debate can be centered on. Text comp ensures that only the most important and central
parts of the plan are up for debate.
2. Functional Competition is Infinitely Regressive and Skews Debate to the Negative

– competition based upon normal means ensures that the affirmative has to research and defend every part
of policy making while the neg only has to defend one and allows counter-plans like veto cheato, delay,
consult and an infinite amount of tiny PICs.
3. No Neg Ground Abuse – they still get a tone of core counter-plans and generics which are written
about and defended far better in the literature than their counter-plans. Further they can write most of their
plans in a textually competitive way. Any counter-plans they lose are their own fault.
4. No Abusive Permutations – the permutation still has to include the entirety of the plan and be net
beneficial scrabble perms and ‘ban the plan’ don’t meet either of those requirement.
5. Net Benefits as disadvantages Solve Their Offense – all of the normal means education can
solved and analyzed via net benefits linked off of normal means.
6. Functional Competition is the Internal Link to All of Their Offense – We’d specify,
for example, if we weren’t afraid of the functional PIC. .
Text Comp Bad / Functional Competition Good

1. Grants 100% Control of Strategy and the Round to the Affirmative – a standard of
textual competition ensures that the debate can only happen about things that the affirmative wants to
debate about and chose to put in their plan eliminating any hope for new, creative and non-constrained
negative strategy because it allows the affirmative to set up the negative right where they want them.
2. Encourages Vague Plan Wording – the less clear a plan text is written the less ground the
negative has to create textual competition creating a strategic incentive for affirmatives to be unclear and
decrease education.
3. Encourages Logical and Real World Impossibilities in Policy Making – textual

competition allows affirmatives to do things like advocate the opposite of their plan which makes debate a
training ground for arbitrary as opposed to real world education.
4. Makes the Aff a Moving Target and Undermines Reciprocity– it allows the aff to add
words like ‘bur’ o ‘not’ which remove significant portions of the plan shredding pre-established negative
offense.
5. Allows Scrabble Permutations – textual permutations allow affirmatives to functionally add

things to the plan by taking various words that were not intended by the counter-plan or the plan.
6. Literatures and Net Benefit Check Their Abuse– there are not an infinite amount of
counter-plans that can be run and in order to have functional solvency and meaningful net benefits need to
be bound within a bound set of literature making them predictable and debatable.
7. Undermines Counter-Plan Based Education – PICs, Process Counter-plans and Exclusion

based counter-plans allow small but important and debated about portions of the affirmative by eliminating
them we are only going to learn about the plan in vague strokes and generalizations.
8. Doesn’t Solve Your Impacts – teams will just find tricky ways to write the text or grammar of
their counter-plans.
9. Focusing on the Text Allows Abusive Counter-Plans – that do things like change the
spelling grammar or wording without any real functional difference skewing debate towards minutia.
Plan-Plan is Good
Counter-Plan Competition is Artificial and Not Real World– there are only a limited
amount of resources and time that government and people have to address so no one really has the
possibility of implementing everything that isn’t immediately mutually exclusive.
Enhances Topic Specific Education – Plan Plan requires that both team address the resolution and
more time is spent addressing the topic itself as opposed to arbitrary negative topics.
Enhances Predictability – Negative ground becomes infinite when it is not limited by the resolution
using plan plan to limit it to topical action affs are certain of what they will have to defend themselves
against. .
Enhances Agenda Setting and Prioritizing Education – Prioritizing and setting agendas is a
real world policy-making skill that debate has abandoned plan-plan re-invigorates.
Plan-Plan is Bad
Plan Plan Undermines Logical Search for the Best Policy Option – no reasonable person
would reject a plan just because there is another good idea in the world.
Undermines Educational Testing of the Resolution – in a world of plan plan we only hear
about topical ways to address a problem and don’t force affirmative to defend their policy from different
schools of thought stagnating debates.
Discourages Strategic Thinking and Affirmatives – Affirmatives no longer will look for the
most strategic or accommodating affirmative instead they will simply read the one with the biggest
advantage.
Competition is Real World – In Congress and Real World Debates you cannot defeat a bill or idea
just with another random non-applicable idea.
Competition Solves all of their Advantages – We can still determine what time, resources and
priorities are expended by determining which policy uses the least amount of them in comparison.
PART FOUR: PERMUTATIONS

This chapter addresses the permutation. As you probably know a permutation is combination of
the affirmative advocacy and the negative advocacy, kritik alternative and counter-plan. The most common
permutation is known as the ‘do both’ permutation which advocates doing the entirety of the plan and the
entirety of the counter-plan at the same time. This permutation has almost no solid theoretical concerns in
the debate community. When theoretical issues begin to be raised is when permutations start to include
more or less than the entirety of the plan and the entirety of the counter-plan. The most common of which
are known as the intrinsic, severence and timeframe permutations.
Intrinsic permutations are permutations that include all of the plan, all or some of the counterplan
and something not included in either. If, for example, an affirmative plan was to give food aid to Africa and
a negative counter-plan was to cut taxes for US businesses, a intrinsic permutation might be to give food
aid to Africa, cut taxes to US business and protect marine wildlife of the coast of California. The first
section of this chapter provides you the arguments to make these sorts of permutations and attack them
when they are made against you.
Severance permutations are precisely the opposite they include less than the entirety of the plan as
well as some, none or all of the counter-plan. For example, if an affirmative plan were to provide funding
for solar power as well as nuclear power and a negative counter-plan were to fund only solar power arguing
that nuclear power was dangerous a severance permutation would be for the affirmative to advocate
funding only solar power (‘severing’ the nuclear portion of the plan for the sake of the permutation).
The third type of common permutation that you should be prepared for is the ‘time frame
permutation’ if you remember the ‘do both’ permutation attempts to do the entirety of the plan and the
entirety of the counter-plan at the same time a timeframe permutation still tries to do the entirety of the plan
and the entirety of the counter-plan just not at the same time. For example, if the plan were to demand that
reserve army troops be moved to Afghanistan and the counter-plan were to demand that reserve army
troops be moved to Iraq a timeframe permutation might be to demand that reserve troops be moved to
Afghanistan and then move them to Iraq.
Strategy Tip – You might notice a number of blocks in this section are titled as some argument justifying
another argument. For example, Conditionality justifies intrinsic permutations. These arguments point out
the importance of recognizing that a permutation is a reactive argument, it is only done in response to a
counter-plan so if you can come up with reasons why the counter-plan forced a potentially questionable
permutation you will have the edge over your opponents.
The next sort of argument presented in this chapter is the ‘status’ of permutations. This section
addresses the question of what sort of argument a permutation is. When the affirmative makes a
permutation does it become their new advocacy an addition to the plan or not? The first school of thought
presented here argues that it is. These arguments are presented in the ‘Advocating Perms Good’ section of
this chapter. The opposing view argues however that they are not advocacies rather the are just ‘tests of
competition’. This stems from the school of thought concerning counter-plans discussed in ‘part one’ of
this book that argues that counter-plans are simply ‘disadvantages of lost opportunities’ and ‘permutations’
are making the argument that the plan does not preclude the counter-plan so it is just a’no link’ to the ‘lost
opportunity’ disadvantage and just like a affirmative team isn’t forced to advocate their ‘no link’ argument
on a disadvantage they shouldn’t be forced to advocate the ‘no link’ argument on a counter-plan.
The final, and related, argument presented in this chapter is the ‘multiple permutations’ section.
This section argues that whether a permutation is intrinsic, severance or neither the affirmative should only
be allowed one of them. Much of the argumentation in this section, as you will probably recognize is
deeply related to whether or not a permutation is a change in advocacy or not because if a permutation is an
additional advocacy for the affirmative (like an additional plan) then allowing more than one permutation
allows the affirmative to advocate five or even ten different plans depending upon how many permutations
they make.
Intrinsic Permutations Good 2AC

Focusing on Intrinsic Merits Only Way to Preserve Topic Specific Education –
instead of forcing debates over issues not found in the topic literature like generic disadvantages and
counter-plans that skew topic specific education and make changing the resolution almost unnecessary
intrinsic permutations force topic specific education.
Focusing on Intrinsic Merits Only Way to Preserve Real World Education - those in
congress don’t get to make arguments like ‘this would hurt my political capital’ they have to provide a
reason why a plan is good on its own terms. Intrinsic perms ensure that that is the case.
Focusing on Intrinsic Merits Only Way to Benefit Future Policy Making Activism -
the political, economic and status quo situation will be wildly different when we are in a position to be
advancing policies so when we are determining which ones we should support in the future they should be
good intrinsically not because of a happy coincidence of being at the right place at the right time.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies - the function of debate is to determine what policy
is the most desirable there is no reason to artificially limit out certain policies to the detriment of overall
education.
Reciprocal With Negative Fiat - counter-plans test the intrinsicness of the advantage to the plan so
we should be able to test the intrinsicness of the plan to the disadvantages. Else the counter-plan should be
rejected for justifying the perm.
Topicality and 2AC Permutations Check All Abuse - We could save the entire plan until the
2AC if we saw fit but we choose. In this case its as if we read half in the 1AC and half in the 2AC so long
as its topical there is no abuse. Affirmatives have the right to make new argument in the 2AC.
No Neg Ground Abuse - You just need to run a disadvantage that is actually intrinsic to our
affirmative.
Key to Check Artificial Competition – Absent intrinsic permutations negatives will be able to
win every round via artificially competitive counter-plans.
Not a Moving Target – Permutations are only a test of competition they cannot be advocated.
Solvency Evidence Checks Abuse and Encourages Education – When researching the
counter-plan they should have looked at other methods of solving the problem and should have predicted
answers to them.
Counter-Perms Check – They can also include the intrinsic aspect of our permutation in their
counter-plan. They just have to prove that the counter-plan alone if better which is the standard of any
counter-plan debate.
Intrinsic Permutations Bad 2NC

Shred Literally All Negative Ground - There is no disad that cannot be resolved by fiating away
its impact via a law that bans it etc.
Skews Negative Strategy - They make the aff explicitly conditional and a moving target which
means the negative can have a stable target to attack.
Undermines in-Depth Education - They functionally restart the debate in the 2NC when we are
again able to make non-intrinsic arguments which turns all of their offense.
Non-Intrinsic Education is Good - Nothing is intrinsically desirable. We need to analyze policies

in context of the status quo to make it meaningful.
Undermines Real World Education - Policy-makers do not get to exclude entire arguments of
opponents by claiming they are ‘not intrinsic’.
Political Considerations are Good - Policy-makers don’t have total power to pass other policies
when their law goes poorly in debate there is only so much political will on a given issue.
Intrinsicness Perms Don’t Test Competition - Counter-plans are competitive with the 1AC
policy but not the now changed 2AC policy.
Conditionality Justifies Intrinsicness 2AC

Reciprocity Justifies Intrinsic Permutations - Conditionality allows the negative to change
their stance and advocacy in the middle of the debate intrinsic permutations are the only reciprocal check to
the advocacy change.
Testing Justifies Intrinsic Permutations – The only meaningful defense of conditional counter-
plans is they are a test of the plan which means that we should be able to test the counter-plan and disads in
the same way.
Conditionality Theory Justifies Intrinsic Permutations - Conditionality presumes a model

of debate in which the best policy option should be found even at the expense of fairness which justifies our
intrinsic permutation.
Even if they Win that Intrinsicness is Bad They Still Lose - the internal link to that impact
is their conditional advocacy.
Conditionality Does Not Justify Intrinsicness 2NC

Not a Reciprocal Check - Spiking out of the disad does not mirror the abuse of a conditional
counter-plan in fact it is a wholly unrelated strategy. It doesn’t just make the counter-plan go away it makes
all potential negative strategy go away.
Reciprocal Checks Already In Place – Affirmatives already get to have the entire 1AC to attack
the non-counter-plan strategy and conditional advocacies in their permutations there is no reason why they
have to be intrinsic.
Reciprocity Demands Conditional Plan Not Additions – This is tantamount to a negative

reading two conditional counter-plans because when they kick one they are going back to their 1AC
advocacy. When we kick one we go back to the status quo which should be the same for affirmatives if
reciprocity is the justification.
Intrinsicness is Worse – Our conditionality is a predictable and limited response in the literature to
the problem presented in the 1AC. That at least provides a functional check where it is literally impossible
to predict and answer the perm.
Best Policy Option Does Not Justify – There are limits to the search for the sake of fairness
which is conditionality and permutations.
PICs Justify Intrinsicness

Ground Reciprocity Justifies - PICs allow negative teams to remove planks of the affirmative plan
skewing ground toward the negative. Intrinsicness rebalances ground.
Time Reciprocity Justifies - PICs moot the majority of the 1AC without a reciprocal disadvantage
so new additions are necessary to rebalance time.
Focusing Rationale Justifies - PICs focus debate on certain portions of the plan. Intrinsicness
responses also focus debate on the plan by eliminating disads that aren’t intrinsic to the plan, because some
intervening action could prevent them.
More Real World - a small problem with a bill does not derail an agenda instead small changes are
proposed. Intrinsic perms more mirror the real world.
Exclusion Counter-Plans are Worse - PICs force a substantial time trade off in favor of the
negative. An intrinsic perm means that they don’t get to extend a disad.
is their PICs.
PICs Do Not Justify Intrinsicness

PICs are not Intrinsicness-Premised Arguments- PICs are not a test of the intrinsicness of the
plan to its advantages it is a competing policy option so it is not reciprocal.
Intrinsic Perms Skew Ground Aff – What could be added to the plan is wildly unpredictable we
can only use PICs to remove a part of the plan that they choose to put in and should be ready to defend.
Intrinsic Perms Skew Time Aff – PICs are a single policy option perms give the affirmative two
policy options to choose from.
Key to Pre-Round Prep and Policy Analysis – If affirmatives can simply perm away part of a
plan when it is challenged in depth by a PIC then there is no incentive to think critically about the aff that is
chosen.
They Have to Win that PICs are Wildly Abusive – They are only making arguments as to
why this checks back mass abuse but they have to win that claim to justify this argument.
Counter-Plans Justify Intrinsicness

A Counter-Plan Is an Intrinsic Argument – It checks the intrinsiness of aff advantages and
focuses debate on the real merits of the plan – that’s why no one claims politics advantages – they would be
trivial to counter-plan out because they aren’t relevant to the core question of desirability.
Intrinsic Arguments Rebalance Ground – Counter-Plans give the neg the ability to usurp
massive chunks of 1AC ground. This is the only way to restore affirmative ground.
More Real World - a small problem with a bill does not derail an agenda instead small changes are
proposed. Intrinsic perms more mirror the real world.
is their counter-plan.
Counter-Plans Do Not Justify Intrinsicness

A Counter-Plan Is Not a Test of Intrinsicness – Counter-plans are not a test of the intrinsicness
of the plan to its advantages it is a competing policy option so it is not reciprocal.
Intrinsic Perms Skew More Ground and Time than Counter-Plans – Affs can still use
the parts of the 1AC that were not counter-planned out of to attack the counter-plan. The perm functionally
restarts the debate and shreds all ground that the 1NC set up giving the aff a massive time benefit.
More Real World – Congress-people don’t have the ability to pass any laws that they want at all
times. In fact bills get rejected because they aren’t doing enough or didn’t plan for enough contingencies.
They Have to Win that Counter-Plans are Wildly Abusive - They are only making
arguments as to why this checks back mass abuse but they have to win that claim to justify this argument.
2NC Counter-Plans Justify Intrinsicness

Key to Advocacy Reciprocity – If the negative is allowed to shift their advocacy in the 2NC the
then affirmative should be able to make a parallel shift.
Key to Time Reciprocity – Adding the counter-plan in the 2NC creates a negative time skew by
functionally restarting the debate in the block leaving only the 1AR the respond. Intrinsicness rebalances
time.
The Theoretical Basis for 2NC Counter-Plans is Intrinsicness Testing – The only
legitimate justification for new advocacy shift is to check 2AC add-ons and determine their intrinsicness of
the plan action which justifies our permutation testing the intrinsicness of the net benefit to the counter-
plan.
2NC Counter-Plans are More Abusive Than our Intrinsic Permutations – The
permutation is a test of competition, the 2NC counter-plan is an additional advocacy which means that any
abuse they win via our permutation is doubled as a result of their counter-plan.
is their 2NC counter-plan.
2NC Counter-Plans Do Not Justify Intrinsicness

Intrinsic Arguments are More Unpredictable – Intrinsic Permutations are non-topical and not
included in the plan or the counter-plan making them wildly unpredictable. Counter-plans are a means of
solving the problem isolated by the plan which means that they should be able to research, predict and
debate.
Intrinsic Arguments Skews Time and Strategy Worse than 2NC – The counter-plan
skews strategy against the 2AC as well as the 1NC because it undermines the offense and status quo
assumed in both. Intrinsic arguments, however, restart the debate in a rebuttal leaving far less time to
respond than the constructive speech that the counter-plan begins in.
Intrinsic Arguments Undermine Education Far Worse than 2NC Counter-Plans –

Intrinsic permutations restart the debate in the 1AR ensuring a shallow debate.
Permutations Check Advocacy Shift – Legitimate permutations provide multiple affirmative

advocacy shifts in the 2AC and new shifts in the 1AR.
2AC Add-Ons Check Advocacy Shift – The affirmative already has a new advocacy shift
available to them via a 2AC add on. This is a more fair check because it is in a constructive.
They Have to Win the 2NC Counter-Plans are Wildy Abusive –They are only making
arguments as to why this checks back mass abuse but they have to win that claim to justify this argument.
Severance Permutations Good 2AC

Forces Negs to Consider All Parts of the Plan – In order for severance perms to not be
devastating the negative will have to attack all planks of the plan not juts the ones they would most like to.
Severance ensures that they engage all of the 1AC.
More Real World – Laws are not rejected wholesale because there is a small problem with them the
negative part is simply removed.
Topicality Checks Abuse – The entirety of the plan is within the bounds of the resolution so the
negative should have ground on all portions of it.
Reciprocal With the Counter-plan – Counter-plans allow the negative to change their advocacy
that the affirmative was defending against, the status quo, the severance perm is the same.
Severance Perms are the Only Check on Abusive Counter-Plans – Severance

permutations are the only way to guard against plan inclusive and artificially competitive counterplans.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies - the function of debate is to determine what policy
is the most desirable there is no reason to artificially limit out certain policies to the detriment of overall
education.
Enhances Negative Strategic Thinking - Severance permutations force negatives to think on

their toes and not assume that their opponents are going to staunchly defend only what they thought they
were going to defend.
Severance Permutations Bad 2NC

Shreds All Negative Ground – Any link to any disad or case turn can be wished away by their
permutation.
Severance Perms Undermine Education – Severance Perms functionally restart the round
anytime the aff makes a permutation which ensures a shallow debate.
Severance Perms Undermine Reciprocity – Severance Perms allow the aff to functionally have
two plans the one in the 1AC and then a conditional advocacy that begins when they choose to make a
permutation.
Severance Perms Undermine Negative Strategic Thinking – Discourages negatives from

coming up with a coherent and interesting strategy it forces them to take affirmative plan planks on with
full brunt force.
Severance Perms Undermine Affirmative Pre-Round Policy Analysis – Severance

perms don’t encourage the affirmative to come up with defenses of potential negative arguments or paring
down the plan because they can simply abandon anything that doesn’t turn out well in the round itself.
Undermines Real World Education – When an opponent has a bill that solves a problem without
a disadvantage of a proponent’s bill the proponent doesn’t win the opposition does.
Severance Perms are Worse Than Any Isolated Abuse They’ll Claim – They are
conditional and multiple and wildly unpredictable.
Kritiks Justify Severance / Discursive Severance Good

We deserve it – Negatives get more lenience with kritik alternatives. It’s easier for a
negative team to extrapolate the meaning of the alternative based on kritik evidence,
meaning that we deserve more lenience in our permutations.
It’s Their Fault - Without a link grounded in plan, we can’t pin down a stable
permutation based only in plan since the kritik and plan don’t operate on the same level.
As long as the permutation is consistent with our advocacy, it should be legitimate.

The kritik introduces a new realm of advocacy comparison, meaning that we should be
allowed to compare that corresponding layer of our advocacy. We are simply using the
non-policy aspect of our advocacy in our permutation rather than our fiated action
It is impossible to sever out of discourse because discourse is fluid, which is just another
reason why the nature of kritiks justify aff lenience
Forcing severance retains an effective deterrent. We still lose valuable time and arguments.
Disallowing severance fractures movements. Many of the most powerful movements, from the
civil rights movement to radical environmentalists have split over rhetorical choices.
Kritiks Do Not Justify Severance / Discursive Severance Bad

Discursive Severence Destroys all Negative Kritik Ground – because it allows them to
literally spike the only thing that kritiks link to
Justifies Severing All Links – there is no meaningful difference between a link to a

criticism and a link to a disad
Skews Negative Strategy – because it makes the affirmative a moving target that we can
never generate a strategy against
Assumes Abuse – but our alternative and links are clear so we shouldn’t be punished so
harshly
Severance Undermines Movements – when movements are seen as selling out their
ideals it destroys the fire that they once had.
Timeframe Permutations Good 2AC

Key to Test Artificial Competition – Absent a timeframe permutation negative teams will simply
advocate a policy with a tiny net benefit and generate competition by the fact that two things can’t be done
at the same time.
Enhances Intrinsic Plan-Based Education – Forces disadvantages to clash with the plan and be
time specific enhancing plan focused education.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – Timeframe permutations may be the best manner
to combine policy options. Debate should not artificially limit itself to potential policy options.
No Negative Ground-Loss – It still includes the entirety of the plan which means if they had any
offense it is a reason to prefer the plan over the permutation
Counter-Perms Check – They can also include the time aspect of our permutation in their counter-
plan. They just have to prove that the counter-plan alone if better which is the standard of any counter-plan
debate.
Resolution Demands – The resolution simply makes the claim that the plan should happen it doesn’t
specify a timeframe in fact it explicitly excludes time based considerations. Means the perm is predictable
and most resolution-based.
Timeframe Permutations Bad 2NC

Shreds Negative Disad Ground – All of our disadvantages and case terms assume the current
political environment which means that by moving the plan in the future they undermine all negative
ground
Infinitely Regressive & Undermines Negative Counter-Plan Competition – Even ban

the plan becomes uncompetitive when the plan can be passed and immediately repealed.
Functionally and Justifies Intrinsicness – They are adding an addition of time that exists in
neither the plan nor the counter-plan which is the definition and theoretical basis of intrinsicness which
allows affirmatives to fiat out of any disad impact by an plan addition in the 2AC.
Undermines the Educational Benefit of Clash – They side-step the necessity to make a choice
between to mutually exclusive options undermining in depth clash.
Multiple Perms Bad 2NC

Skews Negative Time – Multiple Permutations forces the negative to answer a potentially infinite
number of affirmative world which skews negative time.
Skews Negative Strategy – It is impossible to effectively distribute offense when they can abandon
their advocacy at any point in time even if adequate offense was used to respond to it.
Undermines Reciprocity – We are stuck with a single counter-plan and advocacy which
affirmatives are allowed more than one.
Undermines In-Depth Analysis of Competition – Permutations are an important test of the

viability of policies to be enacted simultaneously. Abandoning them at any risk of offense encourages
affirmative to go for permutations with the least amount of analysis.
Multiple Permutations are a Voting Issue – The damage is already done because the block has
inadequately answered each of the affirmative advocacies.
Multiple Perms Good 2AC

Important to Adequately Test Counter-Plan Competition – Multiple permutations are
critical to determining the competition of all parts of the plan and find the best combination of policies.
No Negative Ground Abuse – The permutations all include the entirety of the plan which means
that all of their abuse would still apply.
No Negative Strategy Abuse – The permutations are entirely predictable because they are just
inclusions of parts of the negative counter-plan which they should be ready to defend anyway.
Permutations are Not Advocacies – Permutations are simply tests of competition which means
they are no more abusive than multiple ‘no link’ arguments and ensures no strategy skew.
Enhances Education – Multiple permutations focuses in depth debate on specific portions of the
counter-plan.
Reciprocal With Counter-Plans – Negatives get the ability to alter their advocacy via the counter-
plan which means we should get more than one permutation.
Multiple Permutations are Not a Voting Issue – At worst we should be stuck with one counter-
plan.
Advocating Perms Good 2AC

Key to Check Conditional Counter-Plans – Negatives get to defend the counter-plan or the
status quo based upon their own choice without the ability to advocate permutations the negatives would
simply run conditional counter-plans skew affirmative strategy and how no meaningful punishment as a
result.
Search for the Best Policy Option Justifies – No reasonable person would vote for the counter-
plan in a world where the permutation is a better and available option.
No Ground Loss or Strategy Shift – the permutation still includes the entirety of the plan
maintaining stable negative ground and includes parts of the counter-plan that they should be ready to
defend or cross-apply affirmative answers to.
Key to Check Time Skew – our permutation was made in the 2AC just like any other piece of
offense ensuring that they had the entirety of the block to answer it which already skews debate in favor of
the negative.
Advocating Perms Bad 2NC

Undermines Reciprocity – The negative does not get to arbitrarily amend their counter-plan so there
is no reason why the affirmative should be bale to amend their plan on a whim.
Skews Negative Time – Forces the Neg to answer two possible worlds instead of one. Kicking a
negative conditional counter-plan is not reciprocal because it hurts the negative just as much to abandon all
the time decided to that counter-plan. The affirmative has spent no time advocating their perm.
Skews Negative Strategy – The entirety of the 1NC is premised upon answering the plan as it exists
in the 1AC to change it renders the majority of the negative strategy meaningless.
Undermines Education – They are functionally restarting the debate in the 1AR which guarantees
shallow debate and comparison between policy options because there are simply not enough speeches left.
Undermines Competition Analysis – If permutations are nothing but an additional advocacy then
the function of the permutation to determine the parts of the counter-plan that are a legitimate opportunity
cost become irrelevant and the educational value of that debate and a focus on mutual exclusivity is lost.
PART FIVE : DISADVANTAGES

The disadvantage has been such a longstanding integral to negative argumentation that there are
almost no outstanding theory issues. The sole exception is that of the politics disadvantage. Although a
common argument its link lies in an unclear portion of fait : normal means. The politics link, many times,
depends upon an understanding of fiat that uses the ‘normal means’ of plan passage through congress
which requires that, for example, there is debate, horse-trading and political capital is drained. There are,
however, other view of fiat that argue that fiat functions more like a ‘magic wand’ which bypasses these
political concerns to may way for more pure debates about the apolitical benefits and disadvantages of the
affirmative’s plan. The first section of this chapter (‘politics disads good/bad’) addresses these two schools
of thought concerning politics.
But even if it is determined that a ‘normal means’ based view of fiat (which allows a politics
disadvantage) is the best one for a particular round, the theoretical quibbles surrounding the politics
disadvantage are not over, it has just shifted the question to what ‘normal means’ is. Does it mean that the
plan passes immediately? Or does it mean that the plan is just like any other bill and must wait its turn to be
debated in the congress. As you might see the answer to this question determines whether or not there is a
link to many politics disadvantages at all. So if you enjoy running politics or need a new way to defend
against them you should familiarize yourself with the last section of this chapter.
Politics Disads Bad

1. Undermines Specific, In-Depth and Topic Specific Education – The politics
disadvantage is run every round on every topic and there is zero educational benefit to debating politics
now.
2. They Misconceive Fiat – the disad makes no sense if, as the ‘should’ of the resolution demands, it
is impossible to assess blame, capital or backlash without knowing how the plan is passed.
3. Morally and Politically Bankrupt – it teaches the worst form of policy making, passing laws
based on political considerations than the benefits of the plan.
4. Skews Debate to the Negative and Undermines Reciprocity – political process

disadvantages artificially construct negative ground in a way that unbalances the debate – the negative
cannot claim advantages off of moving issues off the docket.
5. Political Process Disadvantages Overburden Affirmative Research Demands – it

forces the affirmative not only to research their plan but the benefits and disadvantages of every item on the
agenda.
Politics Disads Good

1. Increase Plan Specific and Topic Specific Education – political process disadvantages are
not generic, in fact, they require and encourage issue-specific research for ensuring good links.
2. Increases Education about Policy Making – Politics and the popularity of a policy affects
plans and policy in its passage, implementation and effect.
3. No Research Abuse – Affirmatives only have to research their plan and its political effects which
is what they will learn about if they are deep in their literature of their policy.
4. Enhances Real World Education – in order to determine what policies should be supported and
which are possible one needs to be aware of the political ramifications and who needs to convinced in order
to pass a plan.
5. Politics Disads are Not Uniquely Abuse – politics disadvantages are not the only generic
disadvantages which means the abuse they are concerned with is inevitable which means there is no reason
to sacrifice the politically based education of our disadvantage.
Normal Means = Top of the Docket

1. Key to Negative Disadvantage Ground – if the affirmative can put their plan at the bottom of
the docket then it is unclear when it will pass, or what the world will look like after the docket has been
debated and passed ensuring that negatives will be able to determine the uniqueness for any of their
disadvantages.
2. Top of the Docket is Real World – Congress does shift the docket to when an emergency or
important event forces it to and special sessions can be called. The plan is an example of such a situation.
3. Key to Literature Analysis, Research and Education – No literature assumes passing the
plan at some arbitrary point in the future and very few discuss policies in the abstract which makes the
available literature base very small and artificially limited.
4. Key to Debatability and Determining the Desirability of the Plan – Nothing is good or
bad inherently or in a vacuum it only becomes desirable or undesirable in a particular time and context
which means top of the docket is the only way to preserve clash and debatability.
5. Bottom of the Docket is Functional Aff Specification – and would allow them to pick and
choose any possibility of normal means that suits them best.
6. Key to Reciprocity – Negatives don’t get to fiat the plan pass in the future so affirmatives
shouldn’t either.
Normal Means = Bottom of the Docket

1. Key to Real World Education – plans and policies don’t automatically get passed they have to
go through a number of politically necessary steps which includes things like waiting until other issues are
resolved.
2. No Literature Abuse – because the plan would have to wait until other issues are resolved
individuals that lobby for the bill write about it understanding there is a fight ahead. Also there is no
literature that assumes a magic wand immediate implementation model suggested by fiat.
3. Key to Testing True Desirability of the Plan – because magic doesn’t occur in the real world
debaters need to understand what the effect would be of the plan if it passed in a real world possible
manner because that is how it would happen if they supported it outside the round.
4. No Ground Loss – the negative has no right to the politics disadvantage the concrete plan and
resolution specific effects of the plan will still occur a few weeks from now.
5. Enhances Negative Ground – counter-plans function to provide the negative the option of
changing normal means to gain competition ensuring that negatives can run counter-plans to move the plan
up or down the docket.
PART SIX: KRITIKS

The criticism has gained recent massive popularity within the debate community. These are
arguments that pre-suppose that debaters should not discuss government policy or what the United States
federal government should do but instead what we as debaters should do, what our unsaid assumptions are
and what our philosophical grounding are for the arguments are that we make. As you can tell this radically
shifts nearly everything about debate from what research debaters have to do to what arguments they
should make. As such, it is intimately tied to the theory of what debate should be. This discussion of ‘how
debate should be broadly’ is often termed the ‘framework’ for debate. It establishes what is in and out of
bounds. The ‘framework’ section of this chapter addresses both sides of the issue the ‘fiat good’ section
argues that debates should use ‘fiat’ power to discuss what the federal government should and should not
do at the expense of discussing what we as individuals should do. As such it is immediate and automatic
attack that you can read against any criticism no matter what it is. The second section titled ‘fiat bad’
argues precisely the opposite that we should debate only about what we as individuals should do at the
expense of discussing government policy. Finally, the last section titled ‘multiple framewoks’ argues that
whether a team has chosen to use a fiat based framework or a non-fiat based framework they should only
choose one and not defend both.
As you can see each of these frameworks includes extensive blocks to answer the arguments on
either side until a very late stage in the debate. That is because the framework is an argument that radically
re-alters the round and can allow a team to win or lose no matter how well they are doing on other issues.
The final section of the kritiks chapter discusses the alternative to the kritik. It is important for
affirmative teams to begin to think of kritik alternatives as just like a counter-plan. Because although they
are often vague and avocate individual action instead of government action they are still the only way that
the affirmative team is able to determine what the negative is advocating so it should be and clear and fair
as any counter-plan. This section addresses kritik alternatives that do not have a stable text, are plan
inclusive or are very vague.
Strategy Tip: Because kritik alternatives are just like counter-plans they are susceptible to the same faults
as counter-plans. They could be conditional, utopian etc. So when debating or defending a kritik be sure to
look at the ‘counter-plans’ and ‘status’ chapters of this book to aid you as well.
Fiat Good
Key to Predictable Ground – Unless the Affirmative and the Negative defend the hypothetical
enactment of the plan via fiat then it becomes a starting point for an external criticism or ethic that we
cannot predict from the resolution shredding all of our ground.
Key to Clash – A lack of fiat encourages negative teams to avoid the question asked by the resolution
and presented by the affirmative plan instead they criticize something outside and beyond it.
Key to Topic Specific Education – Their criticism could be read against every plan on every topic
making it educationally bankrupt.
Key to Policy-Making Education – Absent fiat then debate becomes useless as a forum for future
policy-making and learning about the functioning of education.
Key to Strategic Thinking – if we have to defend our true goals, assumptions and languages instead
of the hypothetical possibilities of plans then you cannot concede double turns or make strategic
calculations which are inherently educational and valuable.
Key to Fairness – In a world where fiat is irrelevant then it just allows teams to just make moralistic
claims like love is good undermining nay hope for reciprocity. Fairness is critical to any education even
theirs because if debate as a forum breaks down because of their abuse then no one is educated.
Key to Check Bi-Directionality – the justification for the affirmative plan could be used on either
side of the resolution undermining diverse education
Key to Quality Ground – Even if they win that their interpetation is predictable the ground that they
allow for is bad because discourse is all contextual, “all races are equal” has a different meaning when
uttered at a NAACP rally than at a clan meeting ensuring no literature.
Undermines Aff Ground and Reciprocity – the resolution limits the affirmative to federal
government action to allow the negative otherwise moots the 1AC, undermines reciprocity and makes
being aff impossible
Undermines Politics and Normal Means Education – Because it doesn’t result in

governmental action that education is necessarily excluded.
Fiat Solves all of their Impacts – They can still read all of the criticisms just so long as they are a
consequence of their plan. Further, in order to become good activists debaters need to determine what
policies they should advocate for.
Out of Round Discussion Solves All Their Impacts – they can still change minds and the
world just do it outside of a debate round
Fiat Good - Coverstone

Turning debate into an analysis of our individual action necessitates it being a
political realm as our interpretation of debate as without personal politics shifts to
activism causes an elite colonization of debate crushing political discourse
Alan Coverstone, 1995, "An Inward Glance: A Response To Mitchell's Outward Activist Turn," DRG, URL:
http://www.wfu.edu/Student-organizations/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China.htm
Second, Mitchell's argument underestimates the risks associated with an outward turn. Individuals
trained in the art
and practice of debate are, indeed, well suited to the task of entering the political world. At some
unspecified point in one's training, the same motivation and focus that has consumed Mitchell will also consume most of
us. At that point, political action becomes a proper endeavor. However, all of the members of the academic debate
community will not reach that point together. A political outward turn threatens to corrupt the oasis in two
ways. It makes our oasis a target, and it threatens to politicize the training process.As long as
debate appears to be focused inwardly, political elites will not feel threatened. Yet one of
Mitchell's primary concerns is recognition of our oasis in the political world. In this world we face
well trained information managers. Sensing a threat from "debate," they will begin to infiltrate
our space. Ready made information will increase and debaters will eat it up. Not yet able to truly
discern the relative values of information, young debaters will eventually be influenced
dramatically by the infiltration of political elites. Retaining our present anonymity in political life
offers a better hope for reinvigorating political discourse. As perhaps the only truly non-partisan
space in American political society, academic debate holds the last real possibility for training
active political participants. Nowhere else are people allowed, let alone encouraged, to test all
manner of political ideas. This is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they believe it.
In many ways this natural evolution is made possible by the isolation of the debate community. An example should help
illustrate this idea.Like many young debaters, I learned a great deal about socialism early on. This was not crammed down
my throat. Rather, I learned about the issue in the free flow of information that is debate. The intrigue of this, and other
outmoded political arguments, was in its relative unfamiliarity. Reading socialist literature avidly, I was ready to take on
the world. Yet I only had one side of the story. I was an easy mark for the present political powers. Nevertheless, I decided
to fight City Hall. I had received a parking ticket which I felt was unfairly issued. Unable to convince the parking
department to see it my way, I went straight to the top. I wrote the Mayor a letter. In this letter, I accused the city of
exploitation of its citizens for the purpose of capital accumulation. I presented a strong Marxist critique of parking meters
in my town. The mayor's reply was simple and straightforward. He called me a communist. He said I was being silly and
should pay the ticket. I was completely embarrassed by the entire exchange. I thought I was ready to start the revolution. In
reality, I wasn't even ready to speak to the Mayor. I did learn from the experience, but I did not learn what Gordon might
have hoped. I learned to stop reading useless material and to keep my opinions to myself.Do we really want to force
students into that type of situation? I wrote the mayor on my own. Debaters will experiment with political activism on their
own. This is all part of the natural impulse for activism which debate inspires. Yet , in the absence of such
individual motivation, an outward turn threatens to short circuit the learning process. Debate
should capitalize on its isolation. We can teach our students to examine all sides of an issue and
reach individual conclusions before we force them into political exchanges. To prematurely turn
debaters out threatens to undo the positive potential of involvement in debate.
Fiat Good – Rawls

Viewing Ourselves as the government is critical to activism, politics, peace and
interpersonal understanding
John Rawls Law of the Peoples, 1999 p.56-7
To answer this question, we say that, ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were
legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of
reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact. When firm and widespread the disposition of
citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators , and to repudiate goverrnment officials and candidate fo
public office who violate public reason, forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and
is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. Thus, in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and
support the idea of public reason, while doing what they can to hold government officials to it. This duty
like other political rights and duties is an intrinsically moral . . . As for private citizens, we say, as before
than ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they wee executives and legislators and ask themselvs
what foreign policy supported by what considerations they think it most reasonable to advance. Once
again, when firm and widespread, the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal executives and
legislators, and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate the public
reason of free and equal peoples, is part of the political dn social basis of pece and understanding among
peoples.
A2 : Discourse & Kritiks Excluded / Irrelevant in You Framework

Discourse and Kritiks are Still Relevant – you can still read critical literature and do critical
debate but they need to be based on the results of plan action.
They Exclude Us – there is no place for policy in their framework. Thee is at least some space for
critical impacts in our framework but politics is meaningless in a Heidegger debate.
Racist Jokes are Irrelevant – we do not allow for racist language that is an ethics question not one
of framework that judges will reject.
A2 : Real Wold Education / Kritik Good For Activism

Fairness Outweighs– absent a fair debate setting then there is no way for good debate kritikal or
otherwise to take place and no education can occur.
Fiat is Key to Activism – Absent fiat there is no way to determine what causes activists should
support when they leave the activity. Knowing about the consequences of success of activism is the only
way to determine if we should be activists at all.
Fiat is Key to Real World Education – in order to be useful in the real world then debaters need
to speak the language and have policy making skills to affect change once they leave debate. Fiat is the
only way that can happen.
Strategic Thinking is Useful in Any Forum– which means only our standards apply and
function in both frameworks
Key to Coalition Building and Understanding Your Opponents – which is critical to out
of round activism
Be Activists Outside the Round – and you’ll be trained for it then.
A2 : Predictability is A Practice / Fiat is Arbitrary

Its Not Arbitrary – It is based in the resolution which proposes a federal government policy so they
should be able to predict it.
Yes It is a Practice – we could choose to research instead of our plan but that doesn’t mean that is fair
or beneficial.
We Should Choose Policy Debate – It is critical to education and the ability to influence
policymaking in the real world.
A2 : Resolved is On the Left Side of the Colon

‘Resolved’ is not part of the Resolution – It is just an introductory statement which makes the
USFG the agent not the debaters
Websters Guide to Grammar and Writing 2000
Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself.
Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on. If the introductory phrase preceding the colon
is very brief and the clause following the colon presents the real business of the sentence
Even their Interpretation demands a view of fiat. They need to be resolved about the
substance of the resolution which is USFG action not their own morals.
Even if they are technically correct you should default to education and fairness
which outweighs their technicality.
This Reading is unpredictable – it means we’d have to cut cards about every debater
on the circuit.
A2 : Your Ground is ____

Its not Predictable Ground – Because its not based in the resolution or the resolutional actor which
makes it functionally useless because we couldn’t cut it before the round
Its not Literature Based Ground– because there is no literature on you or your contextual
discourse
Its not Winnable Ground– because your interpretation allows negatives to advocate truism like
‘racism bad’
A2 : Encourages Racist and Sexist Language

Even in the Most Extreme View of Fiat Racist and Sexist Language is Still Punished
– speaker points would be dropped to zero and credibility in the round would be tanked
Fiat Doesn’t Exclude Discussions of Racist and Sexist Language – it is a ethics issue that
will be addressed as such
Making Debate unfair is also exclusionary – it discourages new and disadvantages entrants who
can’t spend all their time predicting your random arguments.
Your Impact is So Unlikely – the debate community is not overtly racist and won’t jump at chance
to discriminate.
A2 : Mitchell
Mitchell is Irrelevant– we can still pay attention to argumentative agency and be good activists after
the round while talking about the plan instead of you ethic
Your Reading of Mitchell is Wrong – he just argues that debaters shouldn’t be totally insular and
not care about the world at all instead we should do things like public debating or primary research as a
supplement not that we should abandon traditional debate all together
We Solve the Impact Better– We can’t be good political activists at all if we don’t know what
policy choices are there for us to support or disapprove of in the first place.
Mitchell Changed His Mind and Now Supports Fiat

Gordon Mitchell “Adri and Ross’ E-Debate, 11-9-2005
Politically I have moved quite a bit since 1998, when I wrote that debate institutions should pay
more attention to argumentative agency, i.e. the cultivation of skills that facilitate translation of
critical thinking, public speaking, and research acumen into concrete exemplars of democratic
empowerment. Back then I was highly skeptical of the “laboratory mode” of preparatory
pedagogy, “ where students were kept by fiat in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen. Now I respect
much more the value of a protected space where young people can experiment politically by
taking imaginary positions, driving the heuristic process by arguing against their convictions. In
fact, the integrity of this space could be compromised by “activist turn” initiatives designed to
bridge contest round advocacy with political activism . These days I have much more confidence
in the importance and necessity of switch-side debating and the heuristic value of debates of
arguing against their convictions. I think fashioning competitive debate contest rounds as isolated
and political protected safe spaces for communicative experimentation makes sense.
A2 : Kulynych
They Aren’t Going to Start a Movement of Participation– its disproven by every other
round they’ve been in
We’re A Performance Too – and there is performative benefit to voting for it in the same way that
voting for them would.
We Solve the Impact Better – All that it says is that we as individuals can influence politics this is
irrelevant to our fairness claims and we allow better participation by understanding how policy making
functions.
Fiat Bad
Fiat Encourage Racist and Sexist Language – their framework disallows discussions of how
debaters speak and makes debate an exclusive form which internal link turns any of their education
arguments because that education is only circulated around the elites.
Our Criticism is a Disad to Their Framework – by disallowing discussion and criticism of the
issues we’ve presented they ensure their perpetuation in debate and the world making our hypothetical
impacts real world.
Artificially Limits Education – there is no reason why philosophical justifications should be

excluded from the debate round they cut off whole swaths of the literature from consideration.
Key to Effective Policy-Making – the assumptions and discourse that goes along with and
surrounds policies significantly effects its outcome and all steps of implementation.
Key to Real World Education and Activism – we are not the USFG and rarely do we control
what we do but we do control our thinking and language making our model of education and debate the
most functional. .
Most Predictable – the resolution asks us, on the left side of the colon, to be resolved as people not as
the USFG meaning ours is the only grammatical and predictable interpretation of debate.
Fiat Standards are Infinitely Regressive and Artificial – if appeals to ground and
predictability can justify ignoring salient issues then we could maximize ground with extremely limited
debates about virtually nothing.
Even if they Win the Fiat Debate we Still Win – our criticism would apply equally well to the
folks that pass their plan as well because they would advocate the same case you should reject that
performance.
Fiat Bad - Mitchell

Traditional Fiat turns Debaters Away from political action and encourages
spectatorship in the face of disaster
Gordon Mitchell, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of Debate at the University of
Pittsburg, January 1998 , The Rostrum, p.11-2
Most mainstream conceptions of fiat contain a common structural feature the idea that fiat is a
construction which affords debaters the latitude to make assumptions about external actors. The
assumption that a specified agent will “carry out the plan” if the affirmative team proves its
desirability inscribes this externality by structurally separating the advocate from the specified
agent of change. Likewise, the idea that the negative team “has the power” to mandate an
alternative course of action by the same (or another) external actor endorses this same kind of
structural separation between debater and agent of change. Advocacy , under this view of fiat,
takes place on this plane of simulation. The power that backs a debaters’ command that “we
mandate the following…” is a mirage a phantasm allowed to masquerade as genuine for the
purpose of allowing the game of political simulation to take place. Debaters have no real authority
over the actors they employ to implement their ideas in plans and counter-plans, yet the simulation
of such authority is recognized as an essential fiction necessary to allow the game of policy debate
to unfold. One problem with such approaches to fiat which feature such a structural separation
between advocate and agent of change is that such approaches ten to instill a spectator mentality.
The function of fiat which gives debaters simulated political control over external actors coaxes
students to gloss over consideration of their concrete roles as involved agents in the controversies
they research. The construct of fiat, in this vein serves as a political crutch by alleviating the
burden of demonstrating a connection between in round advocacy and the action by external
actors defended in plan or counter-plan mandates. A second manner in which the structural
features of this sort of fiat tend to circumscribe active political involvement is through the
containment of fiat action within the spatio-temporal boundaries of the contest round. The fiction
of simulated authority evaporates when the judge issues his/her decision and the debaters disband
and head to the next round. Advocacy , resting on the ephemeral foundation of simulation is here
a causal and fleeting phenomenon that carries with it few significant future ramifications or
responsibilities. By cultivating an ethic of detachment from the actual polis this view of advocacy
introduces a politically regressive dynamic into the academic debate process.
Fiat Bad - Kulynych

Fiat relies on a theory of action, advocacy and politics that makes debaters
accessories in their own and societal oppression undermining any hope of
discovering alternative resistance strategies or real political participation
Jessica Kulynych, Associate Professor of Political Science at Winthrop University Polity Vol30 N.2,
1997
Performative resistance recognizes disciplinary power, enables action in the face of that power, enables
innovation in deliberation and thus allows us to see the world of political action differently Consequently it
is possible , and more meaningful, to conceptualized contemporary participation as a performative rather
than a representative action. The failure to conceptualize political participation as resistance furthers an
illusion of democratic control that obscures the techniques of disciplinary power and their role in global
strategies of domination, fundamentally missing the real, although much more humble opportunities for
citizens to “take part” in their own “governance”. Accepting the idea of participation as resistance has two
broad implications that fundamentally transform the participation debate. First, it widens the parameters of
participation to include a host of new actors, activities and locations for political action. A performative
concept redirects our attention away from the normal apparatus of government and economy, and therefore
from the normal apparatus of government and economy, and therefore allows us to see a much broader
range of political actions. Second, it requires that we look anew at traditional participatory activities and
evaluate their performative potential. Participation as resistance compels us to expand the category of
political participation. Whereas traditional studies of participation delimit political participation from other
“social” activities, once participation is defined as resistance this distinction is no longer tenable. Bonie
Honig suggests that performative action is an event, an agnostic disruption of the ordinary sequence of
things, a site of resistance of the irresistible , a challenge to the normalizing rules that seek to constitute,
govern and control various behaviors. And [thus] we might be in a position to identify sites of political
action in a much broader array of contestations, ranging from the self-evident truths of God, nature,
technology and capital to those of identity, of gender, race, and ethnicity. We might then be in a position to
act- in the private realm. A performative concept of participation as resistance explodes the distinction
between public and private between the political and the apolitical. As Foucault explains what was
formerly considered apolitical, or social rather than political, is revealed as the foundation of technologies
of state control. Contests over identity and everyday social life are not merely additions to the realm of the
political but actually create the very character of those things traditionally considered political. The state
itself is “super-structural in relation to a whole series of power networks that invest the body, sexuality, the
family, kinship, knowledge, technology and so forth.” Thus it is contestations at the micro level, over the
intricacies of everday life, that provide the rraw mateial for global domination and the key to disrupting
global strategies of domination. Therefore the location of political participation extends way beyond the
formal apparatus of government o the formal organization of the workplace, to the intimacy of daily
actions and iterations.
A2 : Education
Our Education is More Real World -. You aren’t the president and it is unlikely you will be but
we will all be citizens and acitvists making our education more useful.
Our Education is A Pre-Requisite To Yours -. A policy can only be effectively tested when its
assumptions and ideological underpinnings are addressed else it will produce unintended consequences.
We allow for More Education-. Only you argue that certain this, like our kitik, can’t be discussed.
A2 : Undermines Aff Ground

You Can Still Run Any Aff Without Fiat-. You just have to justify the assumptions and ideology
behind it which is a lot easier than hammering out funding and enforcement specifics.
You Can Still Run Any Aff With Fiat-. You just have to justify the ideology of USFG action
Empirically Possible - A number of critical affs and critical affirmatives have been very successful
A2 : Can’t Debate Politics

No Right to Politics-. There is no reason why this is necessary or an adequate substitute to our form of
education
Meaningless Education-. The political issues will be meaningless when we leave the activity so we
should learn about what affects our daily lives like discourse.
Can Still Debate Politics-. We can still consider the repercussions of the critics endorsement of the
plan but it has ot be a result of the plan.
A2 : Predictability / Predictable Ground

Our Framework is More Predictable -the colon is on the left side of the resolution which makes
ours the most grammatical and predictable.
Fiat Based Debate is Just as Unpredictable –advantages and disad impacts come from out of
nowhere .
This is just a please for Conservatism –just because some arguments are more common doesn’t
make them better we can change what is common. .
Decreases Education –Debates about predictability devolve to debates about as little as possible .
Undermines National Debate – Predictability is local and if we only allow what is common here
we can’t compete on a larger scale we would shrink education especially between different peoples. .
Its Your Choice –you choose to include the words arguments and assumed internal links in your 1AC
which means that you should be able to defend them.
A2 : Not In the Literature

There is Literature Its just Different Literature –there’s no reason why their literature is
better than ours
Our Kritik Proves there is Literature –all of our links indicate that there is literature on this
question
There is no Fiat Literature –none of them assume the magical passing of a policy ours discusses
the day to day actions of individuals.
A2 : Need Real World Skills

Our Framework Provides More Real World Skills –in the real world you are not the
president or a real policy maker but you are a citizen and an activist which are real world skills that you
practice every day.
Fiat is Not a Real World Skill –it is an imagined magical power pretending that anything we want
can happen which does not correspond to the real world.
In the Real World One Can’t Arbitrarily Limit Out Discussion –you have to answer
attacks from all sides so to become better real world debaters one should not limit to only what you want to
debate about.
A2 : Do It Outside The Round

This Applies To Them Just as Much –There is no reason why they can’t do policy debate outside
of the round.
Debate Is a Uniquely Beneficial Forum –it provides a captive audience of informed and political
youth that are important to our criticism.
Debate is Our Community –so we would like to create change in it. If we leave it alone then the
domination we are criticizing will continue in a community that we care about.
A2 : Undermines Clash
Non-Fiat Debate Enhances Clash – Critiques of Ideologies focus debate on the core issues and the
goals of the people that advocate your particular plans ensuing deeper and non-trivial clash.
Your Theory Undermines Clash – You are using fiat good theory arguments to avoid debate. Our
interpretation and criticism increase clash.
Our Kritik Doesn’t Side Step Issues – Our link is specific to the resolution and it directly
engages the goals of your plan.
A2 : Topic Specific Education

Our Kritik is Topic Specific – our link evidence is about the resolution which proves its relevant.
Our Kritik is Critical to In-Depth Topic Education – by allowing only fiat based debate we
would leave the resolution with only a surface level understanding of it. Our framework allows for debaters
to get at its ideological and philosophical underpinnings.
Fiat Based Debate Undermines Topic Specific Education – politics disads and agent
counterr-plans undermine topic specific education even more.
A2 : Undermines Strategic/Critical Thinking

Its Still a Debate – you can still grant double turns and make strategic choices about answering the
criticism. .
It Enhances Critical Thinking – Debaters have to look beyond the surface and understand the true
philosophical and ideological context of their plan.
It Enhances Strategic Thinking – Now debaters have to be prepared to defend attacks from all
sides. . .
A2 : Allows Advocating Truisms

Also True of Fiat Debate – Affirmatives get to claim the moral high ground all of the time and make
arguments like people should stop suffering but negative teams team with it with things like counter-plans.
The same strategy could be used with our criticism, just a counter-advocacy.
Can’t Advocate Truisims – they still need to be tied to the resolution if they are affirmative and
have links and be mutually exclusive with the affirmative if they are negative.
Nothing is a Truism – one person’s truth is not another’s which means there will be competing
literature and a debate.
A2 : Allows Bi-Directionality
Also True of Fiat Debate – The same impacts can be read on both sides of the resolution and topical
affs can be read as counter-plans. .
Non-Fiat Debate Decreases Bi-Directionality – one cannot have the ideology of the resolution
and hope to attack it.
Other Factors Check –topicality checks bi-directionality there is no reason why framework has to do
it as well.
A2 : Coverstone
Fiat Debate Undermines the Protected Space – It doesn’t allow us to test all sides of the issue
only those deemed worthy by the mandates of fiat.
Fiat Makes Us More of a Target – It is unlikely that our philosophical criticism will ruffle the
feathers of the elites but politics disads are exactly their language and their issues
We Internal Link Turn this Argument – We’ll never have the incentive or training to be
activists if we use only fiat debate
Multiple Frameworks (Kritik & CP) Bad

Too many worlds – we have to defend against the counterplan, the status quo, the
alternative, or the counterplan as the alternative. Dispositionality is impossible
because we can’t stick them with both, so we will never catch up or have any
chance of strategy.
It isn’t reciprocal – even if affs can claim kritikal advantages, that is distinct from
reading a separate alternative
It begs the question of the framework – the fact that kritiks operate in a different
world proves that two realms of arguments destroy debatability. It would have
been better if they had gone purely kritikal
This is a voter for fairness, ground, and abuse. Anything less is de-facto
conditionality, which rewards the negative
Multiple Frameworks (Kritik & CP) Good

The critique and the counterplan operate in different worlds – one attacks your actions
and one attacks your justifications.
The ball is in your court – you can stick us with the counterplan and our critique goes away. You
can immediately choose which position we have to go for
Reject the argument, not the team. It isn’t de facto conditionality because you can choose which
world we should revert to
Your ground arguments are nonsensical – there are zero arguments to be made against the
critique that will hose you against the counterplan because they are so radically different. “Realism good”
wouldn’t contradict your answers to the XO counterplan.
No Text to the Alternative Bad

1. Ensures Strategy Skew – Non-textual alternatives leave nothing for the negative to default to
outside of the alternative card but every new card that they read in the black changes their advocacy
making all of our previous arguments useless.
2. Skews Time – Forces us to answer functionally new alternatives in the 1AR which pressures the
shortest speech to restart the debate and present all of the affirmatives offense.
3. Shreds Permutation Ground – absent a stable text it would be impossible for a perm to exist
and ensures a characterization of intrinscness and severance.
4. Forces Judge Intervention – absent a stable text it forces judges to divine what the text was
meant to be.
5. Undermines Reciprocity – we read a stable plan that they can specifically attack.
No Text to the Alternative Good

1. Cross-Ex and 1NC Evidence Checks – we would explain anything that is unclear and our 1NC
evidence will elaborate. New evidence read is not a shift it is simply re-explanation..
2. Doesn’t Assume a Criticism – Criticisms function on a different realm than the affirmative plan
arguments that are dependant upon a text are only meaningful and relevant in a fiat-based argumentation.
3. No Ground Loss – to engage this criticism you are still able to attack our links, implications, theory
and language ensuring affirmative strategic viability.
4. No Strategy Skew – Our advocacy has always been a negative ballot meaning there is stable
ground as much as any text would provide.
5. The Demand for Strict Alternatives Ensure Domination and Undermines

Criticism
Richard K. Ashley, Arizona State University, and R.B.J. Walker, University of Victoria,
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES QUARTERLY, v. 34, 1990, p. 395
“Why do dissident works of thought refuse to provide an “alternative” paradigm or framework?
One reason is practical. Amidst a global crisis of representation, paradigmatic conceits have become
downright impracticable for any scholarly enterprise that would expect not only to speak to something
called global politics but also to be taken seriously in anything approaching the global scope to which it
speaks. Another reason is theoretical. If international theory is to speak at all to the paradoxical problems of
sovereignty and resistance to sovereignty emerging everywhere today, then it cannot turn a blind eye to the
paradoxes of space, time, and identity whose irruptions in site after site have given proof to the instability
of onetime “resolutions.” And if international theory is not to be blind to these paradoxes, then it cannot
compose itself in the form of a paradigmatic voice whose own pretense of sovereign certitude depends
upon a supposition that a “resolution” of just these paradoxes is already given beyond doubt. There is still
another reason, an ethical reason. In terms of an ethics of freedom, an “alternative paradigm” is in fact no
alternative at all.
6. Any Shift is Reciprocal With Permutations – Affirmatives get to change their advocacy and
capture any change with a simple ‘do both’ permutation.
7. Alternative Shifts Do Not Abuse Affirmative – there is no benefit for the negative to
significantly alter their alternative because it makes the criticism useless and gives the affirmative two
speeches (the 1AR and the 2AR) to answer the alternative while the neg only has one (the 2NR) to defend
it.
Plan Inclusive Kritiks Good

Key to Check Aff Bias – The kritik would never compete if we didn’t have some way
to solve the aff advantages.
Key to Education – We can learn about more than the politics disad. It’s valuable to
discuss the critical and ideological problems associated with the plan that would
otherwise be relegated
No worse than Plan Inclusive Counter-Plans - The aff can generate offense to our
alternative by straight turning the kritik or reading disads to including the kritik.
Err neg on theory. Reject the argument and not the team.
Plan Inclusive Kritiks Bad

They moot aff ground. It’s impossible for the aff to generate offense against utopian
alternatives that functionally do the plan.
Education – It’s impossible to debate about theoretical alternative that solve the case.
We should be discussing the implementation of the plan.
They have to have a text to the alternative. Not having a text to the prevents us
from permuting which means we always lose.
It’s a voter for fairness, education and ground.
Vague Alternatives Bad

Strat skew – offensive arguments depend on explanation of their world view.
Abusive shifts – they can morph from speech to speech to avoid offense.
Kills perm ground – anything can be characterized as severance or intrinsic. Justifies

vague 2AC perms and rebuttal shifts and severance.
De facto conditionality – alternatives based upon the link debate beg 2nr shifts
No solvency – specificity of prescriptive action is crucial to building coalitions with a

skeptic public
In round abuse already occurred – the 2AC is our last chance for offense and affects
the entire debate. CX doesn’t make up for lost 1NC prep time.
Potential abuse – the fact that they could’ve shifted is enough; we shouldn’t have to run
theory to force equal ground.
Vague Alternatives Good

Specific Texts Are Worse – the would allow the negative teams to write them to spike
the best affirmative offense and make permutations impossible. .
Cross-x checks – we would gladly write down our text and explain anything that you don’t understand
There is no Abuse– Our Plan is not wildly vague and there has been good clash in this round
Using the Literature to Determine Alternatives Is Superior– it ensures that there is

evidence on our alternative and predictable research ground which checks shifty negative teams
Not a Voter– at worst we should have to clarify or lose our alternative
PART SEVEN: VOTERS

At the end of the day the point of theory is to remake debate into an activity that is fair and
education for everyone involved. However, a question has been raised as to even if a team is right that a
particular argument or practice is unfair how the judge should respond to it to ensure that fairness and
education is maintained. This chapter addresses a number of schools of thought on this question.
The first is titled, ‘reject the argument not the team’ this school of though argues that is a counter-
plan or permutation that a particular team has run is unfair then that counter-plan or permutation should be
rejected but they should still be able to run and debate the arguments that they have made that are fair so
they shouldn’t lose the round. The second, titled, ‘reject the argument not the team’ argues precisely the
opposite: that abuse and unfairness in debate is so heinous and that abusive arguments affect the round in
such a way that simply rejecting the argument would not be fair retribution.
After that issue has been resolved, however, the is still the question of how unfair a team had to be
to warrant a rejection of their argument or a vote against them. The first school of thinking presented on
this issue is titled ‘In Round Abuse Good’. This school of thought argues that in order for a team to merit
punishment then they actually had to abuse their opponents in the round in question. For example, they
would have actually had to read a conditional counter-plan and kick it skewing the affirmatives time so
they couldn’t cover the rest of the issues in the debate. The second school of though entitled here ‘Potential
Abuse Good’ argues that even if there was no abuse in the round in question abusive arguments still
warrant rejection. So again considering the conditional counter-plan. If the negative team had not kicked it
and defended it until their last speech it seems a lot like a conditional counter-plan but wasn’t it still
abusive because it was conditional and the team could have kicked it? The ‘Potential Abuse Good’ section
of this chapter agues that even the ‘potential for abuse’ warrants rejection.
The final sections of this chapter question what we often take for granted when debating theory
whether or not things like time skews, strategy skews or abuse are things that need to be dealt with via a
ballot or rejection by a judge. These arguments provide a worthy benefit to anyone debating theory because
even if they have lost the substance of the theory debate they can still win that the voter that their
opponents have forwarded is illegitimate.
Reject the Team Not the Argument

Skewed Time and Strategy – in order to overcome the nature of the argument we had to forgo
arguments we otherwise would have made and spend more time on it than they otherwise would meaning
the abuse has already occurred. To reject just the argument and not the team would leave the affirmative
hobbled.
Making the Issue ‘No Lose’ for the Negative is Unfair – it encourages them to just run
abusive arguments, get all of their benefits and forces the affirmative to do theory work and spend time on
theory in order to get rid of their shots in the dark.
Gives Total Control of Round Strategy to Them and Benefits them Unfairly – by
allowing the argument to simply be rejected then you have now made their argument abusive and
conditional and they get to choose when to kick it simply by conceding or not conceding theory.
Key to Set a Precedent – how you vote in this round affects the community sentiment and
encourages teams not to run it again for fear of getting dropped.
Reject the Argument Not the Team

Rejecting the Argument Checks Any Time or Strategy Skew – because it hobbles our
entire strategy and puts us behind from the moment of rejection.
Encourages Theory at the Cost of Substance – it creates a situation in debate wherein doing
research and reading solvency presses cannot win the round but theory can undermining real world
education.
Rejecting the Team Discourages Innovation and Creativity in Debate – if teams come
up with a new argument or counter-plan type that they want to try out the voting issue precedent will skew
them away from running it discouraging creativity.
Don’t Punish Us For Their Choices – they shouldn’t have spend so much time on argument if it
was clearly abusive than theory was all they needed to read anyway. Rejecting just the argument
discourages strategic 2ACs.
Potential Abuse Good

1. There is No Difference Between Real and Potential Abuse – the abuse occurred because
we were unable to read a better strategy and the cards that we had to leave in our tubs.
2. Thinking in Terms of Potential Abuse Enhances Critical Thinking – It forces thinking

about how the debate community will function in response to a interpretation. This is what allows debaters
to consider what would happen if a law were to pass.
3. There is Spillover– Voting on theory sets a precedent for the rest of the community and establishes
it as a legitimate threat.
4. Only Objective Standard – Only by debating theory as a disad game can debaters avoid debates
about what judges consider abuse or intervention by debaters to call one thing about and not another
differing from round to round.
5. Waiting for In Round Abuse is Like Waiting for The Smoking Gun – Encourages
teams not to think on their feet or strategically and searches for abuse.
In-Round Abuse Good

1. Potential Abuse Is Impossible to Assess – there is no way to determine how much ground a
particular team could have in a future round creating an impossible and artificial burden.
2. Potential Abuse Is Arbitrary and Artificial – it will be over-estimated by the negative

developing their worst scenario and under-estimated by the affirmative to suit their best interests
3. In Round Abuse is Only Objective Determiner – in-round abuse is the only claim that can
be actually assessed because it actually happened.
4. Only Way to Ensure Punishment Fits the Crime – If no actual in round abuse has occurred
then a team shouldn’t lose the debate for something they haven’t done. That’s like voting for a potential
disad.
Time Skew is a Voter

Time is a Pre-Requisite to All other Voters – it is the only way that ground can be exploited
and strategy prepared
Time if Finite and Irreplaceable – Time has already been used and the judge can’t give it back at
the time the abuse occurs the only hope of preserving fairness is to vote against another team
Undermines the Educational Value of Debate – by disallowing in depth analysis and

discussion.
Key to Set a Precedent For Fairness – If time skews are allowed and taken lightly then they will
quickly become a part of a teams strategy.
Time Skew is Not a Voter

Answering Theory Checks – we had to spend an equal amount of time answering their time skew
arguments which balances the time over the whole round
Other Factors Check – like being more efficient or becoming faster
Its Impossible to Measure – because debaters individual talents at efficiency or speed make time
skew subjective and encourages sloppiness to prove abuse
Other Punishments Check – like disregarding the argument re-balancing time or giving more
leeway to new arguments functionally giving more constructive time.
Time Skew Forces Strategic Thinking– the 2AC had to make smart arguments and maximize
time allocation
Time Skew Improves 2AC Prioritization and Block Writing Skills – time skews force
affirmative to put their best arguments on top and cut out the useless portions of their old blocks.
Strategy Skew is a Voter

It Undermines the Educational Value of the Debate– because it fostered shallow education
unless a community consensus is established against it amongst judges then the entire activity will suffer.
Only Objective Means of Evaluating the Round– otherwise judges would have to divine what
better strategies could have been read and re-imagine the round which is impossible
No Way to Get it Back– the judge can’t go back in time and allow us to read a better strategy means
the only possibility is a ballot.
Strategy Skew is Not a Voter

Impossible to Determine– there is no way to know what strategy they could have run because, if a
better strategy did exist, they’ve hidden it in their tubs
Their Fault– they simply should have researched an applicable strategy which means our skew actually
encourages research
Other Factors Check – like allowing more leeway for new arguments later in the debate allowing
them to re-adjust their strategy
Abuse is A Voter
Undermines the Educational Value of Debate – because it encourages teams to simply cheat
the rules so that the round benefits them instead of clashing with opponents arguments and learning from
them.
Undermines Reciprocity – it ensures that one team has an advantage making the search for the best
arguments and the best team impossible and creates inequality.
Turns Debate into a Sick Activity – encouraging team to learn how to abuse makes debate a
training ground for future oppressors.
Most Real World Model – When abuse otherwise occurs higher authorities, like the judge, step in.
To learn otherwise does not mimic the real functioning of argumentation.
Abuse is A Voter
Abuse is Not A Voter

Voting on Abuse Creates Perverse Incentives – they give debaters a reason to drop undercover
and mishandle arguments intentionally so that they might complain about them undermining education and
skill building as a whole.
Voting on Abuse Undermines Skill Building and Rewards Incompetence – there are
plenty of debaters that could have answered this augment voting on abuse tells them that they have no
reason to work or improve.
Most Real World – Life doesn’t always ensure strict side based reciprocity and debaters need to adapt
to that. .
To vote for the team that was abused as if it were a virtue undermines the strongest
and most free parts of humanity which is the only meaningful part of living and the
only way to ensure real education while at the same time engendering resentment
and violence
Friedrich Nietzsche “On the Genealogy of Morals” 1887
That lambs dislike great birds of prey does not seem strange: only it gives no grounds for
reproaching these birds of prey for bearing off little lambs. And if the lambs say among
themselves “these birds of prey are evil: and whoever is least like a bird of prey, but rather its
opposite, a lmab would he not be good?” there is no reason to find fault with this institution of an
ideal except perhaps that the birds of prey might view it a little ironically and say: “ we don’t’
dislike them at all, these good little lambs: we even love them: nothing is more tasty than a tender
lamb To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength , that it should not be a
desire to overcome, a desire to throw down, a desire ot become master, a thirst for enemies and
resistance and triumphs is just as absurd to demand of weakness that it should express itself as
strength. A quantum of force is equivalent to a quantum of drive, will, effect—more, it is nothing
other than precisely this very driving, willing, effecting , and only owing ot the seduction of
language ( and of the fundamental errors of reason that petrified in it) which conceives and
misconceives all effects as conditioned by something that causes effects, by a “subject” can it
appear otherwise. For just as the popular mind separates the lightning from its flash and takes the
latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also
separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum behind the
strong man, which was free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum;
there is no “being” behind doing, effecting, becoming; “the doer” is merely a fiction added to the
deed—the deed is everything. The popular mind in fact doubles the deed; when it sees the
lightning flash, it is the deed of a deed: it posits the same event fist as cause and then a second
time as its effect. Scientists do no better when they say “force moves”, “force causes” and the
likeall its coolness, its freedom from emotion notwithstanding, our entire science still likes under
the misleading influence of language and ahs no disposed of that little changeling the subject, no
wonder if the submerged darkly glowering emotions of vengefulness and hatred exploit this belief
for their own ends and in face maintain no belief more ardently than the belief that the strong man
is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb for thus they gain the right to make the bird of
prey accountable for being a bird of prey. When the oppressed, downtrodden, outraged exhort one
another with the vengeful cunning of impotence: “let us be different from the evil, namely good!
…as if the weakness of the weak…were a voluntary achievement.
PART EIGHT: META-DEBATE & MISC

There are some arguments in theory that are so broad and encompassing of all arguments in a
debate that it is difficult to classify them, these are the arguments that are included in this section. Because
they are so all encompassing, however, many teams are unlikely to run them and are so uncommon that
they may require some explanation.
The ‘Speed Good/Bad’ section of this discussion addresses the question of whether or not teams
should ‘spread’ (speak very quickly) when making arguments or if they should speak at a normal ever-day
pace. The ‘Author Advocate’ section addresses the argument that debaters should only make arguments
that are advocated in the literature or not. The final section the ‘ Modifying Evidence Section’ addresses
the common practice of removing questionable language from evidence read in the round. The ‘Modifying
Evidence Bad’ section argues that to remove the language from a card is undermining the intent of the
author and tantamount to fabricating evidence. The ‘Modifying Evidence Good’ section present the
opposite view that no matter the context dangerous language should be stricken.
Speed Good (1/2)

1.Speed Enhances Breadth and Depth of Education – speed allows debaters speak about
more issues and at a more in depth level than speaking at a normal pace.
2. Spreading Enhances Short Term Memory and Everyday and Academy Education
Psychology Today October 1992 Results of the Raine et al Study
Speech rate is strong index of short term memory span…Therefore the faster you can talk the
greater your short term memory says Adrian Raine, PhD, a University of Southern California
pyschologist. The link has been established in adults for some time. Raine reports in Child
Development. Now, he and his colleagues find the correlation holds for kids as well, a finding
that promises short term payoff in the classroom and long term payoff in life. Short term memory
is the power behind recall of phone numbers, directions, and other everyday tasks: It si also the
foundation of arithmetic and reading skills. That raises the possibility that speech training may be
a short cut to achievement
3.No Brightline – How fast is too fast, my coach thinks I’m going to slow right now to cover
everything.
4.Spreading Enhances Short Long Term Memory, Literacy and Math Skills
Hulme, Charles & MacKenzie Susie 1992 Working Memory and Severe Learning
Difficulties: Hilsdale, USA: Lawrence, USA, Lawence Erlbaum Associates: Pg 45.
These results are striking in that the same linear function relating recall to speech rate fits the
results for all age groups. Subjects of different ages in this study recalled, on average as much as
they could say in roughly 1.5 seconds. Increases in memory span with age are seen to be very
closely related to changes in speech rate with age. Thus the results of these different studies are
remarkably clear and consistent. The dramatic improvements in serial recall performance with
increasing age are closely and quantitatively related to changes in speech rate. In terms of the
articulatory loop theory which gave impetus to these studies, the length of the loop appears to
remain constant across different ages, more material is stored in this system because it can be
spoken as so rehearsed more rapidly. These results , relating developmental increases in speech
rate to increases in short term memory efficiency, lead quite directly to a simply causal theory.
That increases in memory span with age depend upon speech rate … In its broadest sense working
memory refers to the use of temporary storage mechanisms in the performance of more complex
tasks. So, for example, in order to read and understand prose, we must be able to hold incoming
information in memory. This is necessary in order to compute the semantic and syntactic
relationships among successive words, phrases, and sentences and so construct a coherent and
meaningful representation of the meaning of the text. This temporary storage of information
during reading is said to depend on working memory. In this view the ability to understand prose
will depend on among other things the capacity of a person’s working memory system. Such
temporary storage of information is obviously necessary for the performance of a wide variety of
other tasks apart from reading, such as mental arithmetic (Hitch, 1978) and verbal reasoning
(Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)
5. Speed Solves Elitism – You can come from any background and spread any literature a be a better
debater for it. Absent speed then debate is only for the elites who can access the most complex literature.
6.Exclusion Cuts Both Ways – Your model excludes those that prefer to debate fast and because it
adds such a new level of depth and ceativity to debate I’d probably quit if I couldn’t go fast.
Speed Good (2/2)

7.Speed Rewards In Depth Research – Why would one cut a ton of cards if we couldn’t ever
read them. Forcing slow speed encourages lazy research work.
8.Speed is Not Exclusive – the human mind can comprehend 300 words per munite
Austin J. Freeley, Emeritus Professor of Communication at John Carroll University, ARGUMENTATION
AND DEBATE: CRITICAL THINKING FOR REASONED DECISION MAKING, 1990, p. 280.
Experienced varsity NDT debaters operating in tournament situations on the national circuit are
under great pressure to pack as much evidence and argument as possible into the time limits. Their
delivery may often exceed 300 words per minute. Their opponents will strain to follow every
word; the judge, usually an argumentation professor who may well have “been there,” understands
the situation and is often willing to concentrate on the speech and record the arguments accurately
on a flow sheet. The human mind is easily capable of absorbing far more than 300 words a minute,
provided the listener is willing to concentrate and provided the delivery is intelligible.
9.Speed Solves Your Impacts – and still makes us better communicators

Kent R. Colbert, University of the Pacific, CEDA YEARBOOK, 1991, p. 92
One could also speculate if competitive debating is an appropriate laboratory to hone certain
public speaking skills. Competitive aspects, proof burdens, time constraints, and other competing
argumentative skill requirements may make debating the wrong form for the development of
speaking eloquence. However, this does not suggest it is counterproductive to other formats that
do. No serious scholarly and objective data shows debating is counterproductive to speaking style.
All serious research suggest that debaters are generally considered better communicators than
those who do not debate.
Speed Bad
1. Makes Debate Exclusive – speed forces debaters to become highly specialized in an arbitrary skill
that excludes novices and those from many regions of the United States short circuiting any education that
they might gain from spreading because it only circulates amongst the elite.
2. Undermines Clash – Fast debates encourage and are resolved not around which argument is better
but which arguments are dropped rewarding those that overwhelm their opponents with quantity and not
quality debate. .
3. Undermines Real World Education – Speed has no other meaningful venue which ensures
that when debaters do attempt to communicate in the real wold they will be anti-educated.
4. Undermines Participation in Debate – Debate has slowly been losing participants

speed makes the learning curve to enter so steep that it undermines the viability of
debate continuing.
Pamela Steep and Beth Gardner “Ten Years of Demographics: Who Debates In America”, Argumentation
and Advocacy, 38(2) 2001
Nintey-seven schools responded to a survey that explored why novices leave debate (Steep, 1994).
The three most frequently cited reasons included other activities, too much research, and the rapid
speaking delivery of junior and varsity debaters (Steep, 1994) Other significant reasons were
emphasis on the game of debate competitiveness concerns about social life, excessive coaching
time, a lack of fun or rewards from debate, and perception of racism.
5. Undermines Evidence Understanding and Analysis – with so little prep time cards read to
quickly ensures that no one can get a meaning read of the evidence and instead encourages tag-line based
debating.
6. Undermines Administrative and Public Support for Debate – The administrative

authorities that fund debate usually feel excluded and alienated by rapid debates. This has undercut the
funding of more than one debate program in the past. You should favor the format that maximizes the
durability of the debate process itself.
7. Our Arguments are Empirically Proven

Michelle Boorstein “Falwell’s Fast Talkers for Christ”, The Washington Post, A1, February 16, 2004
The traditional form of college debate in this country-policy style, the style in which liberty
competes – is inaccessible to the public, specialized, expensive and focused solely on winning.
Worst, they fear that it creates cynics who believe in nothing. Policy debate today looks almost
nothing like it did when it took root in the United States about a century ago with the aim of
informing audiences about civic issues. Since the 1950s – regarded as debate’s heyday in this
country- it has become increasingly irrelevant to the university community, and the number of
debates has nos-dived. Because the debates are impossible to understand, the events aren’t
publicized on campuses, and students don’t go.
Author Advocate Good

1. Key To Predictability – absent an author advocate then there is no way that we could be prepared
to debate this argument as it is nothing more than a random amalgamation of cards.
2. Key To Real World and Literature Based Education – the literature is centered around
authors advocating a particular policy that has the possibility of being passed, debate should mirror that
literature base.
3. Rewards Squirreling over Solid Strategy – absent an author advocate then teams are
encouraged to come up with something teams have never heard before to beat then instead of researching
as much as they can.
4. Encourages Taking Authors Out of Context – absent a clear advocacy by the author it
encourages debaters to take authors from entirely different schools of thinking and hobble them together.
Author Advocate Bad

1. Discourages Creativity in Strategy and Debate – if debaters only mirror augments that have
been previously made then debate doesn’t not encourage real engagement with the literature only parroting
it.
2. Other Arguments Check – if they know that two authors are talking about two different issues
then they will win a one hundred percent take-out.
3. Discourages Broad Views of the Literature – an author advocate stand discourages debaters
from looking at all facets of the literature based and instead only their particular author and those that
respond to him/her.
4. Ensures Unbeatable Arguments and Encourages Squirreliness – it would create an

incentive to fund an out of the way unpredictable author that no one takes seriously enough to respond to.
Modifying Evidence Good

It’s better than uttering harmful language. Altering evidence avoids exclusion
Zero abuse – they have no right to bad critiques of word choice. We agree the words are bad; that’s why
we choose not to say them.
It’s impossible to know an authors’ true intention. Authors who preferred to use non-
gendered pronouns have their writing altered in the editing process. Even if our authors
were enlightened, we might never know
Editing is inevitable and is ethical without authorial misrepresentation

Carol Winkler, Chair of the Communication Department at Georgia State University, et al., LINES OF
ARGUMENT: CORE VOLUME, 1993, p. 211.
The act of copying down a portion of an article or book is itself an act of editing; the act of
selecting inevitably reshapes meaning. The ethical question for debaters is to determine when
an edit is justifiable and when it misrepresents what an author is trying to say.
Relevance of the exclusionary language is a fair litmus test - If the argument we present is
implicated by the sexist manner in which it is framed, modification should be disallowed. However, if the
author argues that a nuclear war would kill all of “mankind,” modification demonstrates we understand the
problematic phrasing, but still agree with the way the author concludes.
Modifying Evidence Bad

Infinite regression – It justifies changing evidence make it more powerful or more conclusive. We
must hold to a strict standard of relaying what the author argues to avoid endless abuse
It’s a voting issue because of time and ground skew for the same reason extra-topicality is a
voter. It forces us to go for a theory argument just to get back to ground zero.
Skews Author and Evidentiary Intent – which undermines the literature-base and real world
applicability of debate
Not verbally marking is uniquely abusive - It forces us to waste time wading through their
evidence to discover the context for changed words. Because debate is an oratorical activity, teams should
be held to a standard of verbal notation. It is the only way to assure our ability to evaluate the worthiness of
each piece of evidence without prohibitive time loss.

theory5-new

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

theory5-new

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

West Coast Theory Handbook 5, Page 1

WEST COAST DEBATE

Edited by Jim Hanson

Written and Researched by

WEST COAST DEBATE

THEORY HANDBOOK VOLUME 5

Edited by Jim Hanson

Finding Arguments in this Handbook

Using the arguments in this Handbook

Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning

Copying West Coast Evidence

Ordering West Coast Materials

Visit our web page! www.wcdebate.com

WHAT’S NEW & HOW TO USE THIS BOOK.............................................................................................8

PART ONE : ARGUMENT STATUS............................................................................. 9

PART TWO: TOPICALITY AND SPECIFICATION ARGUMENTS.....................39

Field Context Good........................................................................................................................................53

PART THREE: COUNTER-PLANS.............................................................................89

Consultation Counter-Plan Good 2AC..........................................................................................................98

PART FOUR: PERMUTATIONS...............................................................................145

Intrinsic Permutations Good 2AC................................................................................................................146

PART FIVE : DISADVANTAGES..............................................................................166

Politics Disads Bad.......................................................................................................................................167

PART SIX: KRITIKS................................................................................................... 171

Kritik/No Fiat Framework

PART SEVEN: VOTERS............................................................................................. 207

Reject the Team Not the Argument..............................................................................................................208

PART EIGHT: META-DEBATE & MISC................................................................ 218

Speed Good (1/2)..........................................................................................................................................219

WHAT’S NEW & HOW TO USE THIS BOOK

New Additions to West Coast Theory

How to Use This Book

PART ONE : ARGUMENT STATUS

Conditionality Bad 2AC

Undermines In-Depth Education – Conditionality encourages debaters to avoid rich round-long

Encourages Contradictions and lack of Coherency in Negative Strategy– Inhibits affs

Conditionality is a Voting Issue, anything else is de-facto Conditionality – To simply

Conditionality Bad 2AR/1AR Overview

1st- Conditionality Undermines 2AC Fairness

3rd – Conditionality Undermines Education

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Negation Theory

We advocate “affirmation theory” – the inverse of “negation theory”

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Best Policy Option / Rational

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Different Than Disadvantages

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Different Than Topicality

Topicality is not an abusive form of conditionality because it is not an advocacy.

Topicality is in a class of its own. It is a procedural prior to policy comparison unlike

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Most Real World

The fairness demanded by conditionality is also more real world each

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Time Skew Inevitable

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (1AC Checks)

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : 2NR Will Be Consistent / Pick One

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (Answer Theory

Doesn’t check the strategy skew or conditionality justifying contradictions – there

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Reject the Argument Not the Team

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : No Time Skew (Permutations Check)

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Conditionality Key to PICs

Conditionality Bad 1AR – A2 : Increases Strategic Thinking

Decreases strategic thinking – in fact it encourages negative teams not to come up

Conditionality Good 2NC

Conditionality Good 2NC – A2: 2AC Time Skew

Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : 2AC Strategy Skew / Contradictions

Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : Not Reciprocal

Conditionality Good 2NC - A2 : Infinitely Regressive