THEORY MAGIC

THEORY
Negative Fiat EXISTS LONG.....................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found SHORT...................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ No Rig!t to "ounter#$ans..............................................................Error: Reference source not found "onditiona$it% Good N".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR.........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Advocating &er's...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Argu'entative Irres#onsi(i$it%.....................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ )ustifies Severance &er's..............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "&s are *ifferent +or$ds and Not Args "onditiona$.................Error: Reference source not found A/ Strateg% S,e-.................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ One "& (ad inter#..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ )ustifies Infinite +or$ds.................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ *is#o .etter.....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found "onditiona$it% .ad A" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR Overvie-........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR /a$$ args0.........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 1A" c!ec,s S2................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Aff side (ias.....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 3nconditiona$ +orse......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Stic, us -it! t!e "&.......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Ti'e S,e- Inevita($e.....................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "&s $eads to o##ortunit% costs......................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ *is#o IS "onditiona$it%..................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ &er's "!ec,...................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to Neg Strat.............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Negation T!eor%.............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ No in round a(use...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ A$$ args conditiona$........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Ti'e #ressure good........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Err negative.....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ On$% one conditiona$ counter#$an.................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Leads to ad!oc t!eories..................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ To#ica$it% first.................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ &$an focus........................................................................................ Error: Reference source not found A/ A" strateg%................................................................................... Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to ,riti,s..................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .est &o$ic% O#tion..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5ore rea$ -or$d..............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ &otentia$ a(use NOT a voter.........................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Err negative.....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ A$$ ti'e tradeoffs reci#roca$..........................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ A$$ args conditiona$........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ A" strateg%...................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ On$% one conditiona$ c#.................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ No rig!t to cover.............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .readt!............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found

THEORY MAGIC

A/ 5u$ti#$e #er's................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Ti'e #ressure good........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "onditiona$ #er's c!ec,...............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Ti'e s,e- ar(itrar%.......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5ore rea$ -or$d..............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .est #o$ic% o#tion............................................................................Error: Reference source not found &I"S .A* A" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR /a$$ args0.........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to test a$$ of #$an......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Encourages s#ec #$an -riting........................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Lit c!ec,s.........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Net (enefits c!ec,s.........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .est #o$ic% o#tion............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to c!ec, e6tra to#ica$ #$an #$an,s.........................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Aff 'ust defend 1778 of #$an.......................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Encourages researc!......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Inround a(use on$%.........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ To#ica$ #ics c!ec,...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to neg strat...............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5ore rea$ -or$d..............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ &$an focus........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Re9ect t!e arg..................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ A$$ c#s are #ics................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Err negative.....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ +e get one #ic.................................................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Rea$ -or$d.......................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Encourages s#ec #$an -riting........................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Re9ect t!e arg: not t!e tea'...........................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Net (enefit/co'#etition c!ec,s......................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Aff 'ust defend 1778 of #$an.......................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Encourages researc!......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to neg ground..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found &I"S GOO* nc /Long0..............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found N" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ NO Aff ground................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Leads to vague #$an te6t................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Ot!er counter#$ans are o,a%.........................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Net (enefit a$one is enoug!............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Inifite$% regressive..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .ad advocac%..................................................................................Error: Reference source not found *is#ositiona$it% good N" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found N" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR A/ &er's don;t c!ec,..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Straig!t turns don;t c!ec,.............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ No aff side (ias................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Education........................................................................................ Error: Reference source not found

THEORY MAGIC

A/ <our c# is conditiona$....................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5u$ti#$e -or$ds...............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ No advocac%....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR Overvie-........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found *IS&OSITIONALIT< .A* A" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A" /S!ort0...........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR A/ /A$$ args0..........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Out-eig!s to#ica$it%.......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to neg strat...............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "onditiona$ #er's -orse...............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ &$an focus/neg t!eor%.....................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .est #o$ic% o#tion............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Rea$ -or$d.......................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ ac c!ooses our strateg%.................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ No in round a(use...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Ti'e s,e- ar(itrar%.......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T )ust stic, us -it! t!e counter#$an................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T No rig!t to cover............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T *iscuss 'ore issues........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Ti'e #ressure good........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Err negative....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T =+e;re not going for "&>.............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T 5u$ti#$e #er's -orse....................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T =+e;re going for "&>....................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Add;ons c!ec,................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T 3nconditiona$it% -orse..................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T On$% one dis#o c#...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T 3nconditiona$it% IS 'u$ti#$e aff -or$ds......................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Straig!t turns c!ec,......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T &er's c!ec,....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T A$$ args are dis#o...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Education........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Strat s,e- inevita($e......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Err neg............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Re9ect t!e arg.................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Ti'e tradeoff reci#roca$...............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Aff side (ias....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/T Severence/intrinsic #er's 9ustif%.................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found TEXT3AL "O5&ETITION .A* A".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to testing..................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Not infinite$% regressive.................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ )ustifies ac c$arifications..............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "X doesn;t c!ec,............................................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found TEXT3AL "O5&ETITION GOO* N".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "ross?e6 c!ec,s...............................................................................Error: Reference source not found

THEORY MAGIC

A/ Leads to se'antics ga'es..............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Not rea$ -or$d.................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Infinite$% regressive........................................................................Error: Reference source not found TO&I"AL "&s .A* A".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .est #o$ic% o#tion............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Err negative.....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Education........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to negative ground..................................................................Error: Reference source not found TO&I"AL "&s GOO* N".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found AGENT "&s .A* A" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR /A$$ args0.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5ust defend agent..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Li'it t!e to#ic.................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Literature c!ec,s a(use.................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Literature de'ands agent "&s......................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .est #o$ic% o#tion............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Encourages s#ecific #$an -riting..................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "o'#etition c!ec,s........................................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Ovevie-..................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found AGENT "&s GOO* N" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found N" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found
NR O@ER@IE+...............................................................................................Error:

Reference source not found A/ Net (enefit a$one is sufficient.........................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4i$$s to#ic s#ecific de(ate...............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Infinite$% regressive........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Forces aff to argue against se$ves..................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Encourages vague #$an -riting.....................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5oot 1ac..........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found O.)E"T FIAT .A* A".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR A/ Net (enefits c!ec, a(use................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ A$$ "&s are o(9ect fiat....................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to neg ground..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 4e% to test federa$ govt..................................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found O.)E"T FIAT GOO* N".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5oots 1ac.........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Infinite$% regressive........................................................................Error: Reference source not found ARTIFI"IALL< "O5&ETITI@E "&;s .A*...................................Error: Reference source not found ARTIFI"IALL< "O5&ETITI@E "&;s GOO*...............................Error: Reference source not found A7 state fiat good N"...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT .A* A".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR A/ *is#roves t!e reso$ution.................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Literature c!ec,s............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Agent is a ,e% reso$ution Buestion.................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOO* N" NR.........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ )udge is a us #o$ic%'a,er..............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Internationa$ orgs C 'u$ti#$e countries........................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Infinite$% regressive........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A7 STATE FIAT .A* A" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR /A$$ Args0................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Its run ever% %ear...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "o'#etition c!ec,s........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Its s!ou$d/-ou$d..............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Tests federa$....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found AO STATE FIAT GOO* N" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found N" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Its uto#ian.......................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Infinite$% regressive........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ No $iterature....................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ It isn;t reci#roca$............................................................................Error: Reference source not found Severance &er'utations .ad................................................................Error: Reference source not found Severance &er'utations Good.............................................................Error: Reference source not found Ti'e Fra'e &er'utations Good......................................................... Error: Reference source not found Intrinsicness &er'utations Good.........................................................Error: Reference source not found &er's A/ "an;t #er' a ,riti,........................................................................Error: Reference source not found "ONS3LTATION .A* A/ 5u$ti#$e #er's (ad........................................................................Error: Reference source not found NE+ N" "&s 1AR.........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found AR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ .est #o$ic% o#tion............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ A"critica$ t!in,ing.......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ It;s a constructive...........................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 5oots 1nc counter#$an va$ue.........................................................Error: Reference source not found NE+ N" "&s GOO* N" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found N" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found

THEORY MAGIC

NR Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Internsic #er's 9ustified................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Lee-a% on 1ar argu'ents.............................................................Error: Reference source not found *ELA< "&s GOO* N" /Long0.............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found N" /S!ort0............................................................................................Error: Reference source not found NR A/ &$an is done $ater............................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ )ustifies intrinsicness......................................................................Error: Reference source not found AS&E" A".........................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found 1AR A/ So$venc% deficit...............................................................................Error: Reference source not found Overvie-.................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found FIAT SHO3L* .E I55E*IATE......................................................Error: Reference source not found FIAT *OESN;T HA@E TO .E I55E*IATE..................................Error: Reference source not found 53LTI?A"TOR FIAT .A*................................................................Error: Reference source not found 53LTI?A"TOR FIAT GOO*............................................................Error: Reference source not found 4s 5ust Have a Te6t A$t 1AR Overvie-.......................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Tags/"ards C Advocac%.................................................................Error: Reference source not found &i,s (ad A".........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found F$oating &I4S *ad 1AR .......................................................................Error: Reference source not found Negative Fra'e-or, N" D FIAT .ad...............................................Error: Reference source not found A/ ='ust s#ec c# status in t!e 1nc> /S!ort0......................................Error: Reference source not found A/ =5ust s#ec c# status in 1nc> /Long0.............................................Error: Reference source not found A/ 53ST S&E" "& STAT3S NR Overvie-........................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Its '% cross?e6................................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ <ou;re stuc, -it! t!e c#................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Not s#ecif%ing isn;t fair..................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ Leads to "onditiona$it%..................................................................Error: Reference source not found 5IS" ? Negative fiat e6ists nc............................................................Error: Reference source not found 5IS" D T!eor% is not a voter...............................................................Error: Reference source not found 5IS" D Err negative on t!eor%............................................................Error: Reference source not found 5IS" D &otentia$ a(use is a voter........................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ RE@ERSE INHEREN"<.............................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ "O3NTER?&ER5S.......................................................................Error: Reference source not found A/ +HOLE REE.................................................................................Error: Reference source not found EXTRA?TO&I"ALIT< GOO*...........................................................Error: Reference source not found EXTRA?TO&I"ALIT< .A*...............................................................Error: Reference source not found EFFE"TS =T> GOO*..........................................................................Error: Reference source not found EFFE"TS =T> .A*..............................................................................Error: Reference source not found GRA55AR STAN*AR* .A*..........................................................Error: Reference source not found S&EE* GOO* SHORT...................................................................................................Error: Reference source not found S&EE* GOO* D LONG @ERSION /1/F0...................................Error: Reference source not found? GF

THEORY MAGIC

THEORY MAGIC

NEGATIVE FIAT INEVITABLE 2NC (LONG)

NEGATIVE FIAT IS INEVITABLE AND IS THE ONLY NON-SIDE BIASED STANDARD FOR THE ROUND-

1. RECIPROCITY- THE AFF HAS THE OPTION TO SUSPEND REALITY FOR DURATIONO OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, NEGATIVE GROUND IS BASED ON FIAT CUTTING BOTH WAYS.THE 1AC IS A 9 MINUTE STRAIGHT TURN TO THE SQUO. IF WE HAVE TO DEFEND
THE STRAIGHT TURNED SQUO THEN THE AFF SHOULD HAVE TO DEFEND ALL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES (INSERT L OR F SPEC) 2. REAL WORLD- POLICY MAKERS NEGATE COMPETING POLICIES ALL THE TIME. REAL WORLD EDUCATION IS CRITICAL TO CREATE EFFECTIVE ADVOCATES (IF IT S A K DEBATE, LINK TO HOW EFFECTIVE 3. BEST POLICY ! POST 1AC DEBATE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DEBATE ON HOW TO BEST SOLVE A HARM- NEGATIVE FIAT IS CRITICAL TO ENSURING FULL TESTING OF THE 1AC WHICH IS KEY TO FAIRNESS, E"CLUDING SECTIONS OF THE 1AC FROM DISCUSSION, IS E"CLUSIONARY TO THE NEGATIVE AND PROVES THE AFF HAS NOT MET THEIR PRESUMPTIVE BURDEN, VOTE NEG. 4. THERE IS NO ABUSE, PERMUTATIONS CHEC ARTIFICAL AND NON-COMPETITIVE COUNTERPLANS. !. NO AFF FIAT- THE AFF HAS TO PROVE THIS IS INTRINSIC GROUND. ANY ABUSE IS CHECKED BY PERMUATATIONS. ". GROUND- COUNTERPLANS ARE CRITICAL TO NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY, WE CANT BE E"PECTED TO #. OPPORTUNITY COST- THE COUNTERPLAN IS AN OPPORTUNITY COST TO THE PLANNEG FIAT IS #UST A WAY OF TESTING IF THE OPTIONS PRECLUDED BY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ARE PREFERABLE TO THE PLAN.

THEORY MAGIC

NEGATIVE FIAT INEVITABLE 2NC (SHORT)

ALLOWING NEGATIVE FIAT IS THE ONLY FAIR STANDARD FOR THE ROUND1. RECIPROCITY- THE AFF HAS THE OPTION TO SUSPEND REALITY FOR DURATIONO OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, NEGATIVE GROUND IS BASED ON FIAT CUTTING BOTH WAYS. 2. STATUS $UO IS NOT AN OPTION- THE 1AC IS A 9 MINUTE STRAIGHT TURN TO THE SQUO. IF WE HAVE TO DEFEND THE STRAIGHT TURNED SQUO THEN THE AFF SHOULD
HAVE TO DEFEND ALL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES

3. REAL WORLD- POLICY MAKERS NEGATE COMPETING POLICIES ALL THE TIME. REAL 4. !.
WORLD EDUCATION IS CRITICAL BECAUSE DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY TO PREPARE DEBATERS FOR REAL LIFE ADVOCACY. GROUND- COUNTERPLANS ARE CRITICAL TO NEGATIVE STRATEGY AND OUR ABILITY TO CHECK BACK AFF SIDE BIAS AND INFINITE PREP. SIDE NEGATIVE- THEY HAVE THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AND INFITE PREP. THIS ARGUMENT UNIQUELY #USTIFIES IT BECAUSE NOT ALLOWING NEGATIVE FIAT ASSURES NEGS LOSE 1$$% OF DEBATES

THEORY MAGIC

NEGATIVE FIAT INEVITABLE 2NR % AT& NO RIGHT TO COUNTERPLANS

1. COUNTERPLANS ARE KEY TO GROUND- COUNTERPLANS ARE KEY TO TEST THE BEST POLICY OPTION& '. DISADS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE- THE AFF CAN OUTWEIGH ANY DISAD AT THE IMPACT CACULUS LEVEL. (. NEGATION THEORY SUBSUMES THE AFF S ALTERNATIVE. COUNTERPLANS KEY TO TEST ALL THE PLAN MECHANISMS. ). THIS PROVES OUR FAIRNESS SIDES NEGATIVE- THEY #USTIFY A WORLD IN WHICH THE NEGATIVE CAN NEVER WIN. AND FAIRNESS IS THE INTERNAL LINK TO THE AFF S ABILITY TO ACCESS EDUCATION VOTERS. *. AND OUR INTERPRETATION IS BETTERS FOR EDUCATION- COUNTERPLANS ALLOW FOR COMPETING ALTERNATIVES TO SOLVE THE 1AC S HARMS. THIS IS KEY TO INROUND EDUCATION AND CRITICAL THINKING.

10

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NC

CONDITIONALITY IS GOOD1.
EY TO EDUCATION A. ONLY CONDITIONALITY ALLOWS IN DEPTH AND MULTI-FACETED CASE ENGAGEMENT, OTHERWISE THEY CAN FORCE THE DEBATE ONTO THE TERMINALLY UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN WITH + MINUTES OF PERMS AND STRAIGHT TURNS. B. TIME PRESSURE GOOD- FORCES THE AFF TO ENGAGE IN STRATEGIC THINKING, AND DON T HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR TIME ALLOCATION ERRORS. C. BEST ANALOGUE TO REAL WORLD POLICY DISCUSSION- POLICY MAKING SHOULD NOT BE THE SOLE FOCUS OF DEBATE, THERE IS A TRUCKLOAD OF CREDIBLE LITERATURE THAT CONTESTS THE IDEA OF STRUCTURED OR STATECENTRIC POLITICAL SOLUTIONS. EY TO FAIRNESS A. NEG FLE'- NEG STRATEGY IS BASED ON FLE"IBILITY, WE COLLAPSE TO A CONSISTENT POSITION AT THE 'NR, WHICH CHECKS ABUSE AND FORCES STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF PREP ALLOCATION B. NEGATIVE STRATEGY- WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO AD#UST OUR STRATEGY IN THE FACE OF 'AC ADD-ONS, DISALLOWING CONDO KILLS OUR ABILITY TO BALANCE ADD-ONS. C. MULTIPLE PERMUTATIONS CHEC ABUSE- THE AFF HAS MULTIPLE CONDITIONAL WORLDS, THIS TRUMPS AND CHECKS NEGATIVE CONDITIONALITY SINCE THEY GET THE LAST SPEECH AND THE LAST CHANCE TO COLLAPSE. DON T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH SAYING ,WELL WE DON T DO THAT-- WE CANT FORCE THEM TO USE ALL THE TOOLS AT THEIR DISPOSAL. MULTIPLE TE'TUALLY COMPETITIVE WORLDS BETTER A. 1AC CHEC S THE STATUS $UO- REBUTTALS CAN MAKE UP FOR 'AC UNDERCOVERAGE WITH 1AC CROSS-APPLICATIONS. B. TIME S EW IS RELATIVE- DON T TAKE THEIR DEFICIENCIES OUT ON US. C. ITS RECIPROCAL- TAKES US AS MUCH TIME AND STRATEGIC DIVERSION TO GO FOR MULTIPLE WORLDS AS IT TAKES THE AFF TO ANSWER THEM. THE 1AR E'CERSICES SELECTIVE E'TENSION- THEORETICALLY THIS IS THE SAME THING AS THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND TIME CONSTRAINTS PREVENT E"TENSION OF EVERY ARGUMENT, THEIR ELEVATION OF THE COUNTERPLAN IS ARBITRARY AND NOT RECIPROCATED IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF 1AR OBLIGATIONS. RECIPROCITY IS KEY TO THEORY DEBATES BEING RESOLVED WITHOUT UNPREDICTABLE PUNISHMENT PARADIGMS WHERE YOU DROP TEAMS FOR STEPPING ON AN INVISIBLE LANDMINE. COUNTER INTERPRETATION- THE NEGATIVE GETS ONLY 1 CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN- THIS CHECKS INFINITE REGRESSION. REASONABILITY CHEC S- EVEN IF WE LOSE OFFENSIVE VOTERS THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT CONDITIONALITY IS SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE FOR DEBATE THAN UNCONDITIONALITY. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME ON THE THEORY DEBATE TOO. THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

'.

3.

1.

2. 3. 4.

11

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR

EVEN IF WE LOSE EVERY REASON WHY CONDITIONALITY IS GOOD YOU SHOULD RE#ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAMDROPS FOR THEORETICAL ADVOCACY OPERATE FROM A DEFUNCT AND INCONSISTENT PUNISHMENT PARADIGM ANALOGOUS TO AN INVISIBLE MINEFIELD THAT VARIES FROM
#UDGE TO #UDGE AND CHILLS THEORETICAL CREATIVITY AND E"PERIMENTATION IN A LEGALISTIC ICEBO"

FIRST, OUR OFFENSE. CONDITIONALITY IS EY TO EDUCATION1. FORCES INTELLIGENT 'AC CHOICES- THEY MUST CHOOSE SELECTIVELY, PROVIDING A FOCUSED DEBATE. '. KRITIKS- CONDITIONALITY ALLOWS NEGATIVES TO TEST THE AFFIRMATIVE WITH BOTH CRITIQUES AND POLICY INDICTS. A. KRITIKS KEY TO EDUCATION- NECESSARY TO HELP US FORMULATE AN (.
ACCURATE PERCEPTION OF HOW OUR PERSONAL ACTIONS AFFECT THE STRUCTURES WE LIVE IN. BEST POLICY OPTION- MAKING US CHOOSE ONE PATH IN THE 1NC PROHIBITS MODELING REAL WORLD POLICY COMPLE"ITY- INTERACTION OF COMPETING #USTIFICATIONS FOR THE RE#ECTION OF THE PLAN IS THE BEST MODEL FOR DYNAMIC POLICY DISCUSSIONS- EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS MIGHT OPPOSE AN ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE POLICY FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS, AND DEEP ECOLOGISTS MIGHT OPPOSE THE SAME POLICY SANS RELIGIOUS #USTIFICATION. EDUCATION OUTWEIGHS AND IS A PRERE$UISITE TO FAIRNESSPERMANENCE& WE WON T REMEMBER WHETHER WE WON THIS ROUND BUT WE LL ALWAYS RETAIN THE KNOWLEDGE WE GAINED. EDUCATION ACCESSES FAIRNESS, SINCE BROAD&DEEPLY EDUCATED #UDGES AND DEBATERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT OR RE#ECT TOPIC SPECIFIC ABUSE ARGUMENTS WITH LEGITIMATE E"PERTISE.

).

CONDITIONALITY IS EY TO FAIRNESS 1. KEY TO NEGATIVE GROUND- OTHER COUNTERPLAN STATUSES ALLOW THE 'AC TO RUN + MINUTES OF STRAIGHT TURNS. SPECIFICITY OF 'AC TURNS MAKE THE BLOCK NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, DISTRACT FROM CASE DEBATE, AND LOCK US INTO A COUNTERPLAN DROWNING ANCHOR. '. CONDITIONALITY IS KEY TO BLOCK STRATEGY- WE DECIDE THE 1NC COUNTERPLAN BASED ON 1AC ADVANTAGES, 'AC ADD-ONS #USTIFY REFORMULATION OF THIS STRATEGY. (. RECIPROCITY- MULTIPLE CONDITIONAL PERMUTATIONS ALLOW THEM TO OPERATE IN MULTIPLE WORLDS, WE COLLAPSE TO A CONSISTENT ADVOCACY IN THE 'NR, THEY EVEN HAVE THE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY SPEAK LAST. ). NEGATIVE GROUND OUTWEIGHS AFFIRMATIVE GROUND- THEY HAVE INFINITE PREP, SIDE BIAS, AND THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH, WITHOUT FLE" WE ARE DEAD MEAT. NOW OUR DEFENSE

12

THEORY MAGIC

1. TIME SKEW IS INEVITABLE AND ARBITRARY- DON T PUNISH US FOR BEING FASTER OR MORE STRATEGIC. THEIR STANDARD CREATES A RACE THE THE BOTTOM WHERE THE WINNER IS DECIDED BY ABSENCE OF VALUBLE SKILL SETS. '. THE 1AC IS + MINUTES OF IMPACT TURNS TO THE STATUS QUO WHICH PROTECTS THE AFFIRMATIVE AGAINST US KICKING THE COUNTERPLAN, THAT PRESUMPTIVELY LIMITS US, WE ARE ALREADY AT A DISADVANTAGE- TOPICS AND AFFIRMATIVES ARE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF SIGNIFICANT FLAWS IN SQO. (. ALL TIME TRADEOFF ARGUMENTS ARE RECIPROCAL- WE HAVE TO SPEND TIME DEFENDING EACH WORLD VIEW #UST LIKE THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND WHEN WE COLLAPSE THEY GET PREP AND THE LAST SPEECH TO AD#UST- IF WE SURPRISE THEM, THEIR PREDICTIVE DEFICIENCIES SHOULD NOT BE ON US. ). ERR NEGATIVE ON QUESTIONS OF THEORY- THE ANALYSIS ABOUT SIDE BIAS IS ABOVE. AT WORST, RE#ECT THE ARGUMENT, RE#ECTING THE TEAM CHILLS CREATIVITY AND STRATEGIC THINKING. *. MULTIPLE COUNTERPLANS ARENT A REASON WE SHOULD LOSE- WE HAVE TO INVEST TIME IN THE COUNTERPLANS, WE HAVE TO READ EVIDENCE TO ACCESS A NET BENEFIT, PLUS THEY CAN MAKE QUICK, CITELESS ANALYTIC PERMS SO THEY ALWAYS WIN THE TIME TRADE OFF ANYWAYS.

13

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& WE GET TO ADVOCATE PERMS

1. CONDITIONALITY DOES NOT MEAN THE NEGATIVE GETS TO ADVOCATE PERMS. PERMS ONLY TEST COMPETITION. IF THE COUNTERPLAN GOES AWAY AND THEY STILL ADVOCATE THE PERM, IT BECOMES INTRINSIC. THIS IS A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST
THEM BECAUSE THE PLAN SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE AND ALLOWING ARBITRARY SPIKEOUTS MEANS THAT THEY COULD PERM OUT OF ALL OF OUR DISAD LINKS. THIS MAKES DEBATE 1$$% UNFAIR FOR THE NEGATIVE. ALLOWING PERM ADVOCACY FEEDS OUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT SIDE BIAS- THE NEGATIVE NEEDS CONDITIONALITY TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. THEY SHOULD HAVE TO STICK WITH THE PLAN UNLESS TESTING COMPETITION. THIS ARGUMENT IS ILLOGICAL- THE AFFIRMATIVE SHOULDN T BE ENTITLED TO ANY WORLD VIEWS BEYOND THE 1AC- THEY HAVE THE RESOLUTION AND THAT S IT.

'. (.

14

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& ARGUMENTATIVE IRRESPONSIBILITY

1. OUR INTERPRETATION SOLVES THIS- WE WILL ONLY RUN ONE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN. '. THEIR OFFENSE DOESN T CHECK AFF SIDE BIAS- IRRESPONSIBILITY IS ONLY TRUE IN A WORLD WHERE WE RUN CONTRADICTORY OR MULTIPLE WORLD VIEWS. OUR (.
INTERPRETATION IS #UST TO TEST THE AFF AND ENSURE THAT THERE IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. NON-UNIQUE/ ALL ARGS ARE CONDITIONAL, EVEN IF A COUNTERPLAN IS A DIFFERENT WORLD. THIS WOULD MAKE US IRRESPONSIBLE WITH TOPICALITY, DISADS, AND CASE ARGUMENTS. THIS GIVES MORE WEIGHT TO OUR OFFENSE.

15

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& (USTIFIES SEVERANCE PERMS

). CONDITIONALITY DOESN T #USTIFY SEVERENCE PERMUTATIONS- CONDITIONALITY IS KEY TO TESTING THE PLAN. SEVERANCE PERMS MOOT THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE/ THE PLAN. THEY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE NEGATIVE. *. NEGATIVE CONDITIONALITY IS NOT A PUNISHMENT TO THE AFFIRMATIVE- IT #UST PUTS US ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH 'AC ADD-ONS AND OFFENSE AGAINST THE STATUS QUO. 0. SEVERANCE PERMS ARE AN INDEPENDENT VOTING ISSUE- EVEN IF WE WIN THAT YOU
SHOULD RE#ECT THE ARGUMENT ON CONDITIONALITY SEVERANCE PERMS ARE INFINITELY WORSE- THEY ARE FUNCTIONALLY THE MOST ABUSIVE THING THE AFF COULD DO, WAY WORSE THAN NOT READING A PLAN TE"T AT ALL BECAUSE WE LOSE EDUCATION WHEN WE FOCUS ON THE PLAN TE"T THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTIVES AND THEY PERM OUT OF ALL OR PART OF IT.

16

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& CPS ) DIFF WORLD, NOT ALL ARGS CONDITIONAL
1. #UST BECAUSE THE COUNTERPLAN IS A DIFFERENT WORLD DOESN T MEAN IT IS A CRITICAL DISTINCTION- THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE ALL PREDICATED ON STRATEGY AND TIME SKEWS. THE CONDITIONALITY OF OTHER ARGUMENTS NONUNIQUES THEIR ABUSE CLAIMS. '. THEY CAN ONLY WIN THAT CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE, BUT NOT UNIQUELY BAD. IF WE HAVE OFFENSE REASONS AS TO WHY THIS ONE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN IS CRITICAL, ERR NEGATIVE.

17

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& STRATEGY S EW

1. WE LL WIN SIDE BIAS AS AN OFFENSIVE ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT- WE CAN
PROVE THAT CONDITIONALITY IS CRITICAL TO OUR ABILITY TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AS WELL AS GOOD SOLVENCY EVIDENCE TRUMP CONDITIONALITY THIS ARGUMENT IS NON-UNIQUE- WE COULD RUN * TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS AND ) DISADS AND FORCE THE 'AC TO MAKE HARD STRATEGIC CHOICESTHEY CAN T WIN A THRESHOLD ON THIS ARGUMENT. TURN- STRATEGY SKEW ONLY LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD. SOME TEAMS ARE FASTER OR MORE TECHNICAL, THE 'AC SHOULD BE FORCED TO MAKE STRATEGIC CHOICES BASED ON THE QUALITY OF A TEAM S ARGUMENTS.

2. 3.

18

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& ONE CP BAD INTERP

ONE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN IS A FAIR INTEPRETATION/ 1. IT IS THE ONLY RECIPROCAL INTERPRETATION WHICH GUARANTEES NEGATIVE '.
COUNTERPLAN GROUND AND PREVENTS THE AFF S INFINITE REGRESSION AND STRATEGY SKEW ARGUMENTS. SIDE BIAS AND NEGATION THEORY OUTWEIGHSA. WE STILL GET TO TEST THE ENTIRETY OF THE AFF PLAN IN AN EFFECTIVE AND FAIR WAY. B. EVEN IF STATISTICS ARE UNPROVEN, THE AFF GETS THE FIRST AND THE LAST SPEECH. THE 1AR IS #UDGE BIASED TO OVERLOOK MISTAKES AND THE NEGATIVE HAS A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD TO CHECK GOOD SOLVENCY EVIDENCE.

19

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& (USTIFIES INFINITE WORLDS

1. OUR INTERPRETATION SOLVES THIS ARGUMENT- THE NEGATIVE GETS ONE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN. THIS CHECKS INFINITE REGRESSION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE.

20

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2NR % AT& DISPO IS BETTER

1. THIS IS AN IMPOSSIBLE DISTINCTION- DISPOSITIONALITY IS FUNCTIONALLY CONDITIONALITY. WE DON T NEED TO WIN THAT CONDITIONALITY IS BETTER, ONLY THAT ITS REASONABLE. THE DIFFERENCE IS SO MENIAL THAT THERE IS NO NET EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCE. '. UNCONDITIONALITY IS THE ONLY REAL ALTERNATIVE AND ITS BAD FOR DEBATE
BECAUSE IT KILLS THE NEGATIVE S STRATEGIC FLE"IBILITY AND MEANS THE AFF WILL WIN 1$$% OF DEBATES. NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY IS E"PLAINED IN THE OVERVIEW WITH BEST POLICY OPTION AND OUR FLE"IBILITY TO RUN CRITIQUES AND COUNTERPLANS TO TEST 1$$% OF THE AFFIRMATIVE. DISPOSITIONALITY ALLOWS THEM TO FORCE US INTO ONE ADVOCACY- WE HAVE OFFENSIVE REASONS WHY THIS IS BAD AND NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY IS BETTER FOR COMPETITIVE EQUITY, EDUCATION, AND FAIRNESS.

(.

21

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AC (LONG)

1. STRATEGY S EW- NOTHING WE SAY CAN MAKE THEM GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. THIS HURTS 'AC AND 1AR STRATEGY AND OFFENSE ALLOCATION. '. ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- GIVING US CONTROL VIA TURNS ENSURES COMPETITIVE EQUITY. (. EDUCATION- MULTIPLE WORLDS DESTROY IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION AND TOPIC-SPECIFIC EDUCATION. ). BAD ADVOCACY- IT PROMOTES ARGUMENTATIVE IRRESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THEY AREN T HELD TO THEIR ADVOCACY. *. (USTIFIES SEVERENCE AND INTRINSIC PERMS- THE AFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AS MUCH LEEWAY IN ADVOCACY AS THE NEGATIVE. 0. WE CAN ADVOCATE PERMS- THIS IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO CHECK NEGATIVE BIAS FROM CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. THIS CHECKS ABUSE BECAUSE THEY CAN T DECIDE IF WE GO FOR THE PERMS. 1. FAIRNESS- THIS STANDARD COMES BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. IF THE FIELD IS TILTED 1$$% TOWARDS THE NEGATIVE IT MAKES EDUCATION IRRELEVANT. +. RECIPROCITY- AFF ADVANTAGES ARE DISPOSITIONAL- IF YOU STRAIGHT TURN THEM WE LL GO FOR THEM- THIS PROVES LACK OF EQUITY. 9. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THEIR INTERPRETATION #USTIFIES )$ CONDITIONAL WORLD VIEWS THAT WE CAN T BE PREPARED TO ANSWER. 1$. VOTER FOR REASONS OF COMPETITIVE EQUITY AND EDUCATION.

22

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AC (SHORT)

1. STRATEGY S EW- NOTHING WE SAY CAN MAKE THEM GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. THIS HURTS 'AC AND 1AR STRATEGY AND OFFENSE ALLOCATION. '. ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- GIVING US CONTROL VIA TURNS ENSURES COMPETITIVE EQUITY. (. EDUCATION- MULTIPLE WORLDS DESTROY IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION AND TOPIC-SPECIFIC EDUCATION. ). (USTIFIES SEVERENCE AND INTRINSIC PERMS- THE AFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AS MUCH LEEWAY IN ADVOCACY AS THE NEGATIVE. *. WE CAN ADVOCATE PERMS- THIS IS THE ONLY FAIR WAY TO CHECK NEGATIVE BIAS FROM CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. THIS CHECKS ABUSE BECAUSE THEY CAN T DECIDE IF WE GO FOR THE PERMS. 0. VOTER FOR REASONS OF COMPETITIVE EQUITY AND EDUCATION.

23

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % OVERVIEW

CONDITIONALITY IS BAD1. IT LIMITS OUR ABILITY TO MAKE STRATEGIC CONCESSIONS WHICH STIFLES CRITICAL THINKING. THIS FORCES US TO ANSWER EVERY POSITION AS IF IT WERE UNRELATED '. (. ). *.
TO THE REST OF THE DEBATE MEANING WE CAN T ALLOCATE TIME PROPERLY IN THE 'AC TO MAKE OFFENSE. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- ALLOWING EVEN ONE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR MULTIPLE CONDITIONAL WORLD VIEWS THAT THE AFF CAN NEVER ANSWER- THIS KILLS FAIRNESS. THEY CAN T WIN ANY OFFENSIVE REASONS WHY CONDITIONALITY IS GOOD- ONE DISPO COUNTERPLAN SOLVES ALL OF IT, PRESERVES PLAN TEST, BEST POLICY OPION, AND NEGATIVE GROUND. FAIRNESS IS A PRE-REQUESITIVE TO EDUCATION- TIME INEQUITIVES MAKE EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION IMPOSSIBLE. PRIVILEGE THIS STANDARD FIRST. RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT- THEY #USTIFY A WORLD WHERE THE NEGATIVE WINS 1$$% OF DEBATES, CRUSHING COMPETITIVE EQUITY AND EDUCATION. PUNISHMENT BY BALLOT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION.

24

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR (ALL ARGS)

CONDITIONALITY IS BAD AND A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAMNEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN CONDITIONALITY IS UNIQUE ! WE CAN T E"TEND STRAIGHT TURNS ON OTHER FLOWS AS REBUTTAL OFFENSE. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- IT #USTIFIES UNLIMITED CONDITIONAL WORLDS ! WE CAN NEVER BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT. DISPOSITIONALITY SOLVES 1$$% OF THEIR OFFENSE- IT GIVES THE NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY AND LEAVES THE 'AC WITH POSSIBILITIES. WE DON T NEED TO WIN IN ROUND ABUSE- THE TRESHOLD FOR ABUSE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OB#ECTIVELY IDENTIFY. YOU SHOULD EVALUATE THEORY AS A QUESTION OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS. FAIRNESS OUTWEIGHS EDUCATION- IF THE GAME IS RIGGED, NO ONE WILL PLAY. IF THEY CAN WIN THAT EDUCATION COMES FIRST, WE STILL WIN KILLS CLASH ! CONDITIONALITY ENCOURAGES SHALLOW EASY DEBATING BY THE NEGATIVE. STRATEGIC CONCESSIONS- THE 'AC HAS TO MAKE DECISIONS AND CONSTRAINED BY THE ABILITY TO STICK THEM TO ONE POSITION. THERE ARE NO IMPACTS TO BEST POLICY OPTION- DEBATE MUST BE FAIR. THIS ISN T THE REAL WORLD- THESE CONSIDERATIONS COME FIRST. CONDITIONALITY LINK TURNS SIDE BIAS- WE CAN T MAKE ANY OFFENSE TO THE COUNTERPLAN SO WE CAN NEVER WIN. SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE USED ONLY AS A TIE BREAKER, NOT A ROUND DECIDER. PERMUTATIONS DON T CHECK- IT S A TEST OF COMPETITION, THE NEGATIVE CAN FORCE US OUT OF OFFENSE. DON T #UST STICK THEM WITH THE COUNTERPLAN- THE DAMAGE WAS DONE IN THE 'AC AND THE 1AR. RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT, TO SET A PRECEDENT FOR WHAT IS GOOD FOR DEBATE.

25

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& 1AC CHEC S S$

1. THE 1AC IS NOT A SUFFICIENT CHECK- WE STILL NEED OFFENSE ON DISADS. '. COUNTERPLANS FORCE UNDERCOVERAGE OF CASE ARGUMENTS MEANING THAT WE CAN T USE THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF THE 1AC. (. THIS IS AN IRRELEVANT POINT AND DEFENSE AT BEST- IT STILL MAKES THEIR ADVOCACY UNPREDICTABLE AND ABUSIVE.

26

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& AFF SIDE BIAS

1. NICE TRY. THE NEGATIVE GETS THE BLOCK WHICH MAKES THE 1AR THE HARDEST SPEECH IN DEBATE. '. THIS ARGUMENT IS DISPROVEN- EVERYONE FLIPS NEG IN OUTROUNDS, THE NEGATIVE WINS AT LEAST *$% OF DEBATES, AND THE CLAIM IS NONFALSIFIABLE. (. LIMITS OUTWEIGH- CONDITIONALITY SHIFTS THE DEBATE SO FAR NEGATIVE THAT ANY AFF SIDE BIAS DOESN T #USTIFY. ). THIS ARGUMENT PROVES OUR INTERPRETATION/ DISPOSITIONALITY CHECKS AFF SIDE BIAS WHILE ENSURING EQUITY. *. GOOD NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS WILL BEAT AFF SIDE BIAS, NOT ABUSE.

27

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& UNCONDITIONAL WORSE

1. THIS IS IRRELEVANT- OUR COUNTERINTERPRETATION IS THAT THEY GET ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN- THIS SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE. '. NOT TRUE- IT 1$$% CHECKS AFF SIDE BIAS WITHOUT SKEWING DEBATE TOWARDS THE NEGATIVE. (. FAIRNESS QUESTIONS SHOULD SUPERCEDE ANY OF THE BEST POLICY OPTION ARGUMENTS. ). EDUCATION IS IRRELEVANT IF THERE IS NO COMPETITIVE EQUITY- IF THE 'AC HAS TO ANSWER MULTIPLE MOVING WORLDS THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN WIN. *. UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ENSURE RECIPROCITY OF ADVOCACY FROM THE 1AC AND 1NC.

28

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& STIC WITH THE CP

US

1. THIS IS A BAD STANDARD. THIS #USTIFIES ABUSE OF 'AC STRATEGY WITHOUT LOSING. '. THIS MOOTS THE VALUE OF ALL OF OUR OFFENSE OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTERPLAN AND (.
MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO WIN THEORY TO FORCE THEM TO GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. TIME TRADEOFFS MEAN THAT WE CAN NEVER WIN THAT THE COUNTERPLAN ITSELF IS BAD AND GUARANTEES THE AFF WILL WIN- THIS IS STILL UNFAIR AND A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THEM.

29

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& TIME S EW INEVITABLE

1. OUR COUNTERINTERPRETATION SOLVES ALL OF YOUR OFFENSE ON THIS QUESTIONTIME SKEW MAY BE INEVITABLE, BUT STRATEGY SKEW ISN T. '. DISPOSITIONALITY ENSURES THAT EVEN IF TIME SKEW OCCURS IT ISN T COMPOUNDED BY STRATEGY SKEW. (. THIS IS DEFENSE AT BEST- IT DOESN T #USTIFY THEIR COUNTERPLAN BEING CONDITIONAL.

30

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& CPS ) OPPORTUNITY COSTS

WE AGREE. IF THE PLAN PRECLUDES THE PASSAGE OF THE COUNTERPLAN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO E"TEND TURNS AS OFFENSE- SINCE WE STOP THE PASSGE OF A BAD POLICY THAT FUNCTIONS AS AN ADVANTAGE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. THIS IS DEFENSE AT BEST- WE HAVE OFFENSE REASONS WHY CONDITIONALITY IS WORSE FOR DEBATE.

31

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& DISPO ) CONDITIONALITY

THIS ISN T TRUE. DISPOSITIONALITY ALLOWS THE AFFIRMATIVE TO MAKE STRATEGIC
CONCESSIONS TO POINT OUT CONTRADICTIONS AND STICK THE NEGATIVE WITH THE COUNTERPLAN. STRAIGHT TURNS ARE OUR ONLY OFFENSE SINCE PERMS ARE A TEST OF COMPETITIONWE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THEM TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE BLOCK. THEY ARE ASSUMING A POOR INTERPRETATION OF DISPOSITIONALITY- CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT, STRAIGHT TURNS SHOULD FORCE THE NEGATIVE TO ANSWER THEM AND GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. THIS IS THE SAME AS A DISAD OR CRITIQUE.

32

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& PERMS CHEC

1. NOT TRUE. PERMS DON T ENSURE THAT THE 'NR GOES FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. '. PERMS ARE DEFENSE QUESTIONS OF COMPETITION- NOT OFFENSIVE REASONS WHY THE CP IS BAD. WE CAN T GO FOR THE PERMS IF THEY DON T GO FOR THE CP ACCORDING TO THEIR INTERPRETATION. (. NET BENEFIT IS AUTOMATIC OFFENSE- SINCE PERMS HAVE TO INCLUDE THE PLAN THEY ALREADY HAVE A DISAD TO THE PERM. ). COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE THAN PERMS- THEY CHANGE THE WORLD OF UNIQUENESS. *. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE PERMS EVEN IF THEY DON T GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN- THIS IS THE ONLY FAIR CHECK ON ABUSE.

33

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& NEG STRAT

EY TO

1. DISPOSITIONALITY SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- THEY CAN PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE WORLD VIEWS WITH STRATEGIC BENEFITS FOR BOTH TEAMS. '. CONDITIONALITY DECREASES NEGATIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING ! DISPOSITIONALITY FORCES THEM TO CONSIDER THE INTERACTIONS OF ARGUMENTS AHEAD OF TIME. (. THIS STANDARD IS IMPOSSIBLE TO #UDGE- THEY MAY HAVE PLENTY OF GOOD ARGUMENTS THEY #UST CHOSE NOT TO MAKE.

34

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& NEGATION THEORY

1. DISPOSITIONALITY SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- THEY CAN PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE WORLD VIEWS WITH STRATEGIC BENEFITS FOR BOTH TEAMS. '. YES, THE NEGATIVE GETS EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE RESOLUTION, BUT THAT DOESN T #USTIFY HOW YOU RUN THOSE ARGUMENTS. (. THIS IS A NONFALSIFIABLE CLAIM- NEGATION THEORY IS A NEBULOUS ABSTRACT OF DEBATE. IT BEGS #UDGE INTERVENTION TO DECIDE WHAT IS AND IS NOT IN THE REALM OF THE NEGATIVE S GROUND. ). IF TESTING THE PLAN IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING, IT #USTIFIES RACIST CLAIMS AND STUPID STRATEGIES IN THE NAME OF NEGATION THEORY.

35

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& NO IN ROUND ABUSE

*. THE ABUSE WAS THE SKEWING OF 'AC STRATEGY. EVEN IF THEY DON T KICK THE COUNTERPLAN, IT S A REASON TO LOSE. 1AR STRATEGY IS ALSO TANKED BECAUSE WE CAN T MAKE OFFENSE EFFECTIVELY AND PREDICT 'NR STRATEGY. 0. WE DON T NEED TO WIN IN ROUND ABUSE- IT IS AN ARBITRARY DISTINCTION. YOU 1.
SHOULD DEFAULT TO COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS AND VOTE FOR THE INTERPRETATION THAT MINIMI2ES POTENTIAL ABUSE. POTENTIAL ABUSE SHOULD COME BEFORE INROUND ABUSE BECAUSE IT SETS A STANDARD FOR WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE. ,NO IN ROUND ABUSE- IS A COP OUT WAY OF SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD WIN EVEN IF WE WIN OFFENSIVE REASONS WHY CONDITIONALITY IS BAD.

36

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& ALL ARGS CONDITIONAL

1. ALL ARGUMENTS ARE DISPOSITIONAL. IF WE STRAIGHT TURN A DISAD THEY HAVE TO ANSWER THOSE TURNS. '. COUNTERPLAN CONDITIONALITY IS UNIQUELY BAD- THEY ARE A NEW WORLD, NOT LIKE A DISAD. THAT MEANS IT REQUIRES SPECIFIC OFFENSE. (. ADVOCACIES ARE NOT CONDITIONAL- CASE TURNS MAYBE, BUT NOT NEW WORLD VIEWS.

37

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& TIME PRESSURE GOOD

1. TIME PRESSURE IS BAD- PRESSURING 'AC TIME MEANS THAT WE MAKE CARELESS DECISIONS AND FORCES UNDERCOVERAGE OFYOUR WORLD VIEW- THIS MEANS LESS CRITICAL THINKING AND EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSIONS, PROVING NO VALUE IN THEIR FRAMEWORK. '. IF TIME PRESSURE IS GOOD, THEY SHOULD READ UNCONDITONAL COUNTERPLANS AND DEAL WITH 9 MINUTES OF 'AC TURNS.

38

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& ERR NEGATIVE

1. TURN/ ERR AFFIRMATIVE- THE NEGATIVE BLOCK SPREADS THE 1AR AND THEY CHOOSE THE GROUNDS FOR THE DEBATE. THEIR CLAIMS ABOUT FIRST&LAST SPEECH '. (.
ARE OVERWHELMED BY THE BLOCK AND INFINITE PREP TIME DOESN T CHECK BACK CONDITIONALITY ABUSE. CONDITIONALITY LINK TURNS SIDE BIAS- WE CAN T WIN WITH SKEWED OFFENSE ABILITY. SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS TIEBREAKERS. THERE IS NO WARRANT TO THIS CLAIM- THEY MADE THE DECISION TO CHOOSE AN ABUSIVE STATUS, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND IT THEORETICALLY.

39

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& ONLY ONE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN

1. COUNTER-INTERPRETATION/ NEGATIVE GETS ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN. DISPOSITIONALITY IS UNIQUELY BETTER THAN CONDITIONALITY. '. THIS DOESN T SOLVE FOR OUR FAIRNESS OR EDUCATION STANDARDS EVEN IF MAKES DEBATE LESS INFINTELY REGRESSIVE. (. ITS ARBITRARY- IT #USTIFIES ANSWERING PIC INFINITE REGRESSION BY SAYING ,WE ONLY GET THOSE ONE- ! ITS STILL BAD FOR OFFENSE.

40

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& ADHOC THEORIES

1. CONDITIONALITY ISN T AN AD HOC THEORY- THEY SHOULD HAVE TO DEFEND THE WAY THAT THEY RUN IT. '. THIS IS NON UNIQUE- ALL ARGUMENTS ARE AD HOC, SO THERE IS NO IMPACT. (. TURN- VOTING AFF ON CONDITIONALITY GIVES AN INCENTIVE FOR COHERENT THEORY ARGUMENTS INSTEAD OF AD HOC THEORIES. ). TURN- CONDITIONALITY #USTIFIES *$ COUNTERPLANS AND GOING FOR THE ONE WITH LESS ANSWERS WHICH IS INFINITELY MORE AD HOC. *. THIS DOESN T ANSWER OUR 'AC QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS.

41

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& TOPICALITY FIRST

1. YOU SHOULD NOT FAVOR TOPICALITY OVER CONDITIONALITY- IT FUNDAMENTALLY SKEWS OUR ABILITY TO MAKE OFFENSIVE ANSWERS. '. THE TERMINAL IMPACT TO BOTH ARGUMENTS IS THE SAME. IF THEY WIN POTENTIAL ABUSE ON T, WE CAPTURE AND MAGNIFY THAT POSSIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ALLOW FOR INFINITE CONDITIONAL WORLD VIEWS. (. THEIR ARGUMENT IS BAD FOR DEBATE- IF IT WERE TRUE THAT T CAME FIRST THEY COULD RUN *$ COUNTERPLANS AND GO FOR T SO THAT EVERY AFFIRMATIVE LOSES FOR UNDERCOVERING. ). WE LL GO FOR REASONABILITY ON TOPICALITY- BUT THEY CAN NEVER WIN THAT CONDITIONALITY IS REASONABLY GOOD, IT ALWAYS MAKES STRATEGIC AFFIRMATIVE CONCESSIONS IMPOSSIBLE.

42

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& PLAN FOCUS

PLAN FOCUS IS A BAD STANDARD FOR CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS 1. IT #USTIFIES RACISM AS LONG AS THE PLAN IS FULLY TESTED. '. DISADS SOLVE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- THEY CAN EFFECTIVELY TEST WHETHER THE PLAN IS GOOD OR BAD. (. THIS STANDARD #USTIFIES COUNTEPRLANS- WE LL CONCEDE THE NEGATIVE S RIGHT OT THOSE, #UST NOT CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. ). THEIR STANDARD IS BAD FOR DEBATE- IT #USTIFIES *$ CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS TO FULLY TEST EVERY ASPECT OF THE PLAN.

43

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& 2AC STRATEGY

CONDITIONALITY DESTROYS 'AC OFFENSE- WE CAN T MAKE STRATEGIC CONCESSIONS OR STRAIGHT TURNS EFFECTIVELY. DISPOSITIONALITY IS A BETTER STANDARD- WE CAN MAKE PERMS, THEORY ARGUMENTS OTHER THAN DISPO BAD, AND EFFECTIVELY DEPLOY OFFENSE. THIS IS BETTER IT FORCES CRITICAL THINKING BY THE NEGATIVE ABOUT STRATEGY CHOICES. IT ENCOURAGES IN DEPTH DEBATE AND CLASH WHICH IS BETTER EDUCATION FOR BOTH TEAMS AND THE #UDGE.

44

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& RITI S

EY TO

1. NO IMPACT- THEY CAN RUN KRITIK ALTERNATIVES DISPOSITIONALLY OR UNCONDITIONALLY. THIS IS A BETTER INTERPRETATION. A. IT MAKES KRITIKS PREDICTABLE FOR THE AFF AND GIVES US GROUND FOR OFFENSE. B. IT ENSURES NEGATIVE GROUND TO TEST THE PLAN WITH THEIR ALTERNATIVE. '. PROVES OUR INFINITE REGRESSION ARGUMENTS- THEY RE INTERPRETATION GUARANTEES THEM THE STATUS QUO, A CONDITIONAL KRITIK, AND A CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN- THIS MAKES ( CONDITIONAL WORLD VIEWS THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER AND PROVIDES NO BRIGHT LINE FOR WHERE NEGATIVE OPTIONS END. (. THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT CONDITOINAL KRITIKS ARE BETTER FOR DEBATE THAN SKEWING AFF STRATEGY.

45

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& BEST POLICY OPTION

1. THIS IS A BAD STANDARD ! IT #USTIFIES VOTING ON INTRINSIC PERMUTATIONS OR SEVERANCE PERMS. THOSE ARE BAD FOR BOTH TEAMS. '. DISPOSITIONALITY SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- WE CAN SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY THROUGH A PARADIGM THAT IS FAIR TO BOTH TEAMS. (. EDUCATION COMES SECOND TO FAIRNESS- A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IS A PREREQUISITE TO GOOD DEBATE. ). BEST POLICY OPTION SHOULDN T DETERMINE THEORY QUESTIONS- DEFAULT TO A
STANDARD OF FAIRNESS AS OPPOSED TO #USTIFYING ABUSIVE PERSM AND COUNTERPLANS.

46

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& MORE REAL WORLD

1. THIS IS DEBATE. IT IS A GAME. IF THE GAME IS RIGGED IN FAVOR OF ONE SIDE, IT LOSES MEANING. '. THE REAL WORLD IS A BAD STANDARD FOR DEBATE- THE ENTIRETY OF DISADS ARE BASED NOT IN THE ABSTRACT OF POLITICAL THEORY, NOT REAL LIFE. (. THIS ISN T TRUE- SOMEONE CAN ADOPT AN IDEOLOGICAL POSITION THAT THEY WILL DEFEND UNEQUIVOCALLY. ). TOPICALITY ISN T REAL WORLD, NEITHER ARE CRITIQUES WITH A PRE-FIAT ALTERNATIVE OR ASPEC AND OSPEC- THAT DOESN T MEAN THAT THEY AREN T ALLOWED IN DEBATE.

47

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 1AR % AT& POTENTIAL ABUSE )*) A VOTER

1. IRRELEVANT. THE 'AC AND 1AR STRATEGY SKEW PROVES INROUND ABUSE/ WE CAN T DEPLOY OFFENSE AGAINST MULTIPLE MOVING WORLDS. '. THIS IS A QUESTION OF #USTIFICATIONS- IF THEIR INTERPRETATION #USTIFIES A WORLD TILTED 1$$% NEGATIVE THAT S A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THEM. (. POTENTIAL ABUSE IS THE ONLY STANDARD OF PUNISHMENT- A WORLD WITHOUT
POTENTIAL ABUSE MEANS THAT THEY ALWAYS RUN THE COUNTERPLAN CONDITIONALLY EVEN IF WE PROVE THAT THAT IS BAD.

48

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % OVERVIEW

CONDITIONALITY IS A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM- A FEW OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS WE RE WINNING. 1. CONDITIONALITY DESTROYS AFF STRATEGIC TIME ALLOCATION- ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE DISPOSITIONAL- WE CAN E"TEND STRAIGHT TURNS TO DISADS. CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS HI#ACK THIS OFFENSIVE AVENUE AND MEAN THAT THE AFF CAN NEVER DEFEND AGAINST THE COUNTERPLAN. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- EVEN IF THE INTERPRETATION IS ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN IT DOESN T MATTER. THE LOGICAL END OF #USTIFYING ANY FORM OF CONDITIONALITY IS THAT )$ CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS WOULD BE GOOD. WE CAN NEVER BE PREPARED TO DEBATE THAT INTERPRETATION. THIS IS A REASON WHY THE LOGIC BEHIND THEIR OFFENSE IS FLAWED, EVEN IF WE LOSE CLAIMS ABOUT SPECIFIC IN ROUND ABUSE. RECIPROCITY- WE CAN T E"TEND TURNS ON OTHER FLOWS OR KEY PIECES OF OFFENSE TO FORCE THEM TO GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. THIS PROVES WHY OUR
INTERPRETATION OF ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE AND OURS- BECAUSE IT ENSURES NEGATIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE GROUND. THEY CAN T WIN ANY OFFENSE ON CONDITIONALITY FOR TWO REASONS A. ITS ALL PREDICATED ON EDUCATION GAIN- OUR FAIRNESS QUESTIONS COME FIRST BECAUSE EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSIONS ARE IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT A FAIR PLAYING FIELD. B. DISPOSITIONALITY SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- THEY ONLY HAVE REASONS WHY COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD. WE ALLOW THOSE WITH OUR COUNTER INTERPRETATION, PRESERVING BEST POLICY OPTIONL, PLAN TESTING, AND NEGATION THEORY WHILE AVOIDING OUR REASONS WHY CONDITIONALITY IS BAD. 'AC IN ROUND ABUSE IMPLCATIONS ARE CLEAR- IT HI#ACKS OUR STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE OF HAVING THE 1AC OR THE 'AC AS SPEECHES. EVEN IF WE LOSE THIS CLAIM, YOU SHOULD VOTE ON POTENTIAL ABUSE- ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE E"ACTLY WHAT THE THRESHOLD FOR VOTING ON ,ABUSE- IS. YOU SHOULD DEFAULT TO COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS AND IF WE WIN THAT OUR INTERPRETATION IS BETTER FOR DEBATE WE WIN THE THEORY DEBATE. RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT- WE HAVE CLEAR IMPACT CALCULUS AND WE RE INVESTING TIME. #UST RE#ECTING THE COUNTERPLAN DOESN T PUNISH THE NEGATIVE OR SEND A SIGNAL THAT CONDITIONALITY IS BAD.

'.

(.

).

*.

0.

49

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& ERR NEGATIVE

1. THERE IS NO WARRANT TO THIS ARGUMENT. EVEN IF THEY WIN REASONS WHY NEGATIVE GROUND SHOULD BE PRESERVED CONDITIONALITY TURNS AND WORSENS SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS BY MAKING IT FUNCTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE '.
AFFIRMATIVE TO EVER WIN BECAUSE WE CAN NEVER EFFECTIVELY DEPLOY OFFENSE MEANING THAT WE RE SCREWED. AFF SIDE BIAS IS A FALLACY- THE AFF ALWAYS LOSES TO SMART PICS, THE NEGATIVE BLOCK OVERWHELMS THE 1AR, AND THEY CONTROL THE ENTIRE DIRECTION OF ARGUMENTATION. THESE ARGUMENTS SUBSUME THEIR WARANTLESS CLAIMS ABOUT FIRST AND LAST SPEECH OR SEEMINGLY INFINITE PREP TIME. THEIR ,AFF WINS 0$% OF DEBATES STATISTIC- IS MADE UP. THIS ASSUMES PAST TOPICS, NOT THIS ONE. OUR SPECIFIC WARRANTS OUTWEIGH. INFINITE PREP, EVEN IF TRUE, DOESN T #USTIFY CONDITIONALITY- IT #USTIFIES COUNTERPLANS. PRE-ROUND PREP DOESN T SOLVE IN-ROUND INEQUITIES. THE 1AC ISN T THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE, THE 1NC IS, SO THE FIRST SPEECH IS A MEANINGLESS DISTINCTION.

(. ). *.

50

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& ALL TIME TRADEOFFS RECIPROCAL

1. TIME TRADE OFFS ARE NOT RECIPROCAL- THEY GET TO PREEMPT THE TRANSITION FROM MULTIPLE WORLDS TO ONE IN THE BLOCK OF THE 'NR AND THEY GET TO CHOOSE WHERE OUR OFFENSE IS WEAKEST AND THEIRS IS STRONGEST. THE ONLY '. (.
AFFIRMATIVE CHECK IS STRAIGHT TURNS ON THE NET BENEFIT BUT THEY DON T HAVE TO ANSWER THOSE UNDER THEIR INTERPRETATION. RECIPROCITY ONLY APPLIES TO STRATEGIC CONCESSIONS- CONDITIONALITY MAKES THESE IMPOSSIBLE. OUR COUNTER INTERPRETATION SOLVES THIS- IT MEANS THAT AFF TIME TRADEOFFS ON THE COUNTERPLAN GUARANTEE OFFENSIVE GROUND.

51

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& ALL ARGS CONDITIONAL

1. ALL ARGUMENTS ARE DISPOSITIONAL- IF WE STRAIGHT TURN A DISAD THEY HAVE TO ANSWER THOSE TURNS. THEY CAN T #UST IGNORE THOSE TURNS OR THEY LL LOSE THEIR DEFENSE OF THE STATUS QUO. CONDITIONALITY HI#ACKS OUR AVENUE TO STRATEGIC TURNS. '. CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ARE UNIQUELY BAD BECAUSE THEY OFFER A NEW (.
WORLD VIEW AND CHANGE QUESTIONS OF UNIQUENESS BECAUSE THEY CAN AVOID AND POTENTIALLY SOLVE DISADS. THIS CHANGES HOW WE ANSWER EVERY POSITION. OUR COUNTER INTERPRETATION IS BETTER ON THIS QUESTION- IF EVERY ARGUMENT IS CONDITIONAL THEN COUNTERPLANS SHOULD BE DISPOSITIONAL TO GIVE THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROPRIATE GROUND.

52

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& 2AC STRATEGY

1. CONDITIONALITY KILLS 'AC STRATEGIC STRATEGY- WE CAN T CONCEDE CERTAIN ARGUMENTS THAT LINK TO THE COUNTERPLAN. THESE STRATEGIC CONCESSIONS ARE THE CORE OF AFFIRMATIVE STRATEGIC THINKING. FURTHERMORE, ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE STRATEGIC CHOICES THAT WILL HELP US IN REBUTTALS SINCE WE CAN T GENERATE STRAIGHT TURN OFFENSE FOR LATER SPEECHES. '. DISPOSITIONALITY SOLVES THIS OFFENSE- IT ALLOWS THE 'AC TO MAKE STRATEGIC CHOICES TO STICK THEM WITH THE COUNTERPLAN. (. EVEN IF WE LOSE THIS ARGUMENT YOU SHOULD VOTE AFF- THE ULTIMATE IMPACT IS ).
EDUCATION AND WE HAVE THE ONLY ANALYSIS ABOUT WHY FAIRNESS CLAIMS SHOULD COME BEFORE EDUCATION. THIS PROVES INFINITE REGRESSION- THEY ARE SAYING THAT CONDITIONALITY PRESSURES THE 'AC AND THAT S GOOD. IF THAT IS TRUE, '$ CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS WOULD PRESSURE ME MORE, BUT THAT DOESN T MAKE IT LEGITIMATE.

53

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& ONLY ONE CONDITIONAL CP

1. THIS ISN T A GOOD ANSWER TO OUR COUNTER INTEPRETATION THAT THE NEGATIVE GETS ONE DISPOSITOINAL COUNTERPLAN- THIS GIVES THE NEGATIVE ALL OF THEIR COUNTERPLAN FLE"IBILITY&EDUCATION CLAIMS WHILE ALLOWING STRATEGIC 'AC CHOICES. '. THIS DOESN T SOLVE ANY REASONS WHY CONDITIONALITY IS BAD E"CEPT FOR INFINITE REGRESSION- STILL HURTS 'AC STRATEGY, DECISION MAKING, AND TIME ALLOCATION. IT IS STILL A VOTER. (. IT DOESN T MATTER- EVEN IF THEY RUN ONE UNDER THEIR INTERPRETATION OUR
INFINITE REGRESSION ARGUMENTS APPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN STILL USE THEIR OFFENSE REASONS WHY CONDITIONALITY IS GOOD TO #USTIFY INFINITE WORLDS BEING GOOD. IT IS STILL A REASON TO ON FACE RE#ECT THEIR OFFENSE. DON T ALLOW THIS ARBITRARY INTERPRETATION- IT S THE EQUIVALENT OF ,WE ONLY GET THIS ONE PIC- TO ANSWER PICS UNLIMIT OR ,WE LL ONLY CONSULT SPAIN- TO ANSWER CONSULT IS INFINITE REGRESSION. THE #USTIFICATION OF THEIR LOGIC IS THAT MULTIPLE WORLDS IS GOOD, NOT A CONSTRAINTED NUMBER. THEIR INTERPRETATION IS #UST A VEILED ATTEMPT TO ALLOW THEIR FORM OF ABUSE.

).

54

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& NO RIGHT TO COVER

1. WE SHOULD GET TO COVER- ALL 1NC POSITIONS ARE POSSIBLE 'NR STRATEGY. IF
WE DON T HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO ANSWER POSITIONS THE DEBATE IS SKEWED TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE NEGATIVE. FAIRNESS MUST BE RECIPROCAL ON POSITIONS. EVEN IF WE LOSE THAT, THEY ARE STILL LOSING THE STRATEGIC CONCESSIONS ARGUMENT- WE DON T NEED TO WIN 'AC COVERAGE TO WIN THIS THEORY DEBATE. THIS PROVES INFINITE REGRESWSION- THEY CAN #USTIFY TONS OF CONDITIONAL WORLDS BY ARGUING THE 'AC #UST NEEDS TO TRY HARDER. THIS ARGUMENT IS #UST BAD DEFENSE.

'.

55

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& DISCUSS MORE

1. THIS PRIVES INFINITE REGRESSION- MORE CONDITIONAL WORLDS LEADS TO MORE DISCUSSION BUT E"CESSIVE BREADTH KILLS DEBATE. '. NO IMPACT- DISCUSSING MORE THINGS ISN T BETTER FOR DEBATE- ITS BETTER TO DISCUSS ONE WORLD IN DEPTH. THE FACT THAT THE 'NR COLLAPSES DOWN TO THE (.
EASIEST OUT PROVES THAT DISCUSSING MORE #UST GIVES THEM A STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE. TIME CONSTRAINTS ANSWER THIS- DISCUSSING MORE IS BAD BECAUSE WE NEVER GET TRUE EDUCATION AND IT HURTS OUR TIME ALLOCATION. QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS SHOULD COME BEFORE EDUCATION- THAT S IN THE OVERVIEW.

56

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& MULTIPLE PERMS

1. MULTIPLE PERMS ARE KEY TO FAIRNESS- COUNTERPLANS ARE OFTEN MULTIPLE POLICIES, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TEST ALL PARTS. IF THEY RUN A CONSULT '. (. ).
COUNTERPLAN WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TEST THE CONSULTATION AND THE GENUINE ASPECTS OF THE CONSULTATION. MULTIPLE PERMS ARE #UST MULTIPLE NO LINK ARGUMENTS- THEY HAVE TO WIN THE NET BENEFIT TO WIN OFFENSE TO THE PERMS. IT IS #USTIFIED BY CONDITIONALITY- EVEN IF MULTIPLE PERMS ARE BAD IN THE ABSTRACT THE NATURE OF CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS MEANS THAT WE NEED AS MANY ARGUMENTS AS WE CAN. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE AT LEAST ONE PERM EVEN IF THEY KICK THE COUNTERPLAN BECAUSE IT ENSURES 'AR OFFENSE IN THE REBUTTALS.

57

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& TIME PRESSURE GOOD

1. TIME PRESSURE BECAUSE OF CONDITIONALITY IS BAD- IT FORFEITS THE 'AC S RIGHT
TO CONCEDE ARGUMENTS WHEN POSITIONS CONFLICT AND LEADS TO CARELESS DECISION MAKING AND UNDER COVERAGE- THIS DETRACTS FROM EDUCATIONAL DEBATES AND LINK TURNS THEIR EDUCATION CLAIMS. IT #USTIFIES INFINITE CONDITIONAL ADVOCACIES- IF THEIR INTERPRETATION IS ONE CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN THEN THIS ARGUMENT DOESN T APPLY TO THEM. USING TIME PRESSURE AS A STANDARD ESTABLISHES $ BRIGHTLINE FOR WHAT LEVEL OF TIME PRESSURE IS BEST. THERE IS NO REASON TIME PRESSURE HELPS FAIRNESS, ONLY EDUCATION. OUR IMPACT CALCULUS SUBSUMES THIS. IF TIME PRESSURE IS GOOD THEY SHOULD READ UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS AND DEAL WITH AFFIRMATIVE STRAIGHT TURNS.

'.

(. ).

58

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& CONDITIONAL PERMS CHEC

1. PERMS DON T CHECK ABUSE- THEY ONLY TEST COMPETITION SO THE NEGATIVE CAN FORCE US OUT OF THEM. '. COUNTERPLANS ARE HARDER TO ANSWER THAN PERMS- THE 1AC CANT PREEMPT EVERY COUNTERPLAN BUT THE CP NET BENEFIT PREEMPTS OUR PERMS- THEY TAKE WAY LESS TIME TO ANSWER. (. COUNTERPLANS CHANGE THE WORLD OF UNIQUENESS IN HOW WE ANSWER DISADSPERMS DON T, MEANING THEY ARE DIFFERENT THAN A COUNTERPLAN. ). THIS #USTIFIES US GETTING TO ADVOCATE THE PERMS EVEN IF THEY KICK THE COUNTERPLAN TO ENSURE AFF OFFENSE IN REBUTTALS.

59

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& TIME S EW ARBITRARY

1. IRRELEVANT- IT DOESN T ANSWER OUR STRATEGY SKEW OR INFINITE REGRESSION ARGUMENTS. '. THIS DOESN T ANSWER OUR ARGUMENTS- EVEN IF ITS ARBITRARY TO WHINE THAT
COUNTERPLANS TAKE MORE TIME IT ISN T ARBITRARY TO ARGUE THAT THEY MOOT 'AC OFFENSIVE ROUTES- ITS NOT THAT THE COUNTERPLAN TAKES LONGER BUT THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO E"TEND STRAIGHT TURNS AS OFFENSE LIKE ON DISADS. THIS IS BAD DEFENSE- WE CAN T GIVE A NUMBER TO STRATEGY SKEW BUT WE CAN PROVE THAT OUR STANDARD IS TRUE ON SOME LEVEL SO IT STILL STANDS AS AN OFFENSIVE VOTER.

(.

60

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& MORE REAL WORLD

1. REAL WORLD IS A BAD STANDARD FOR DEBATE- FIAT ISN T REAL BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO AVOID SHOULD&WOULD QUESTIONS IN DEBATE. INTRINSIC AND SEVERANCE PERMS
ARE REAL WORLD THEY #UST REPRESENT AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN BUT THEY ARE STILL THEORETICALLY BAD. FAIRNESS IS A BETTER MODEL THAN REAL WORLD POLICY MAKING. CONDITIONALITY ISN T REAL WORLD- POLITICIANS DETERMINE THEIR POLITICAL POSTURING BASED ON BELIEFS NOT ON WHAT THEIR OPPONENTS CAN T EFFECTIVELY COVER OR ANSWER. THIS IS DEFENSE- NOT A REASON THAT CONDITIONALITY IS GOOD, #UST A CHANCE IT ISN T BAD. IF WE WIN ANY OFFENSE IT S A REASON TO DISREGARD THIS ARGUMENT.

'. (.

61

THEORY MAGIC

CONDITIONALITY BAD 2AR % AT& BEST POLICY OPTION

1. BEST POLICY OPTION SHOULDN T BE YOUR DEFAULT STANDARD FOR THEORY- THIS
#USTIFIES INTRINSICNESS PERMS AS THE BEST POLICY TO AVOID THE DISADS BUT THEY ARE BAD FOR FAIRNESS. FAIRNESS PRECEDES EDUCATION CLAIMS BECAUSE NO ONE WILL PLAY A RIGGED GAME. THIS PROVES OUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT INFINITE REGRESSION- E"AMINING '$ POLICIES INCREASES THE POSSIBILITY WE LL FIND THE BEST ONE. DISPOSITIONALITY SOLVES THIS- THEY CAN HAVE THEIR COUNTERPLAN AND TEST 1$$% OF OUR PLAN WHILE PRESERVING STRATEGIC AFF GROUND.

'. (.

62

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AC (LONG)

1. GROUND AND STRATEGY S EW- THEY MOOT THE VALUE OF THE 1AC AND FORCE THE AFF TO START THE DEBATE IN THE 'AC. 2. ENCOURAGE VAGUE PLAN WRITING- THAT HURTS THE NEGATIVE S ABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE AND IS UNIQUELY WORSE FOR THEM. 3. EDUCATION ! PICS REDUCE DEBATE TO SUPERFICIAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE PLAN AND COUNTERPLAN- THIS MOOTS BREADTH OF EDUCATION IN THE ACTIVITY. 4. AFFIRMATIVE CONTRADICTION ! IT FORCES US TO ARGUE AGAINST OURSELVES WHICH MAKES DEBATE ABUSIVE AND UNFAIR ! THIS SUPERCEDES EDUCATION. !. ITS INIFINTELY REGRESSIVE- #USTIFYING ANY SINGLE PIC OPENS UP THE FLOODGATES FOR MENIAL ONE WORD PICS. ". LITERATURE CHEC S- IF THEY DON T HAVE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE SPECIFICALLY #.
ADVOCATING THE ACTION OF THE COUNTERPLAN IT MEANS DEBATE IS IMPOSSILE FOR THE AFF TO PREDICT. THIS IS A VOTER FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND GROUND! RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT.

63

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AC (SHORT)

1. GROUND AND STRATEGY S EW- THEY MOOT THE VALUE OF THE 1AC AND FORCE THE AFF TO START THE DEBATE IN THE 'AC. 2. ENCOURAGE VAGUE PLAN WRITING- THAT HURTS THE NEGATIVE S ABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE AND IS UNIQUELY WORSE FOR THEM. 3. AFFIRMATIVE CONTRADICTION ! IT FORCES US TO ARGUE AGAINST OURSELVES WHICH MAKES DEBATE ABUSIVE AND UNFAIR ! THIS SUPERCEDES EDUCATION. 4. ITS INIFINTELY REGRESSIVE- #USTIFYING ANY SINGLE PIC OPENS UP THE FLOODGATES FOR MENIAL ONE WORD PICS. !. THIS IS A VOTER FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND GROUND! RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT.

64

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR (SHORT)

PICS ARE BAD 1. THEY OVERINFLATE THE VALUE OF SMALL DISADS BY MOOTING MOST OF THE CASE. '. THEY ENCOURAGE VAGUE PLAN WRITING TO PROTECT FOR CLARIFICATIONS- THIS IS UNIQUELY BAD FOR NEGATIVE GROUND AND TURNS THEIR OFFENSE. (. ITS INFINITE REGRESSIVE- THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PICS SO WE CAN NEVER BE PREPARED. ). VOTER FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION. *. THEY HAVE NO OFFENSE ON WHY PICS ARE KEY TO FAIRNESS- ONLY EDUCATION. FAIRNESS OUTWEIGHS EDUCATION BECAUSE IT IS A PREREQUISITE TO EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION. WITHOUT SUFFICIENT 'AC OFFENSE AGAINST DISADS, EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION IS IMPOSSIBLE.

65

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR (ALL ARGS) % IF YOU WANT TO MAYBE GO FOR IT

PICS ARE BAD AND A VOTER FOR FAIRNESS. 1. THE NET BENEFIT ALONE SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE BUT PICS ARE STILL UNFAIR- THEY CAN TEST ALL OF THE PLAN WITHOUT ARTIFICALLY INFLATING DISAD IMPACTS AGAINST THE CASE. '. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- IT #USTIFIES MILLIONS OF COUNTERPLANS THAT WE CAN T PREPARE FOR. (. WE DON T NEED TO WIN IN ROUND ABUSE- THERE IS NO THRESHOLD FOR THAT STANDARD. #UDGE THEORY LIKE TOPICALITY- A QUESTION OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS. ). FAIRNESS OUTWEIGHS EDUCATION- IF THE GAME IS RIGGED, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF EDUCAITON DISCUSSIONS. *. EVEN IF THEY WIN THEIR STANDARD EDUCATION CLAISM, WE HAVE EDUCATION
OFFENSE A. PROVINCIAL FOCUS- PICS FORECLOSE E"PLORATION OF THE MA#ORITY OF THE 1AC, DESTROYING ARGUMENT DIVERSITY. B. VAGUE PLANS- AFFIRMATIVE S WILL WRITE THEIR PLAN SPECIFICALLY VAGUE TO AVOID PICS WHICH MAKES DEBATE USELESS FOR BOTH SIDES. NOT ALL COUNTERPLANS ARE PICS AND THERE IS NO RIGHT TO COUNTERPLANS ANYWAYS- THEY CAN GO FOR THE NET BENEFIT&CASE ARGUMENTS. CONDITIONAL&DISPOSITIONAL PICS FORCE A DOUBLE BIND- IF WE MAKE OFFENSE THEY CAN KICK THE COUNTERPLAN AND USE OUR OFFENSE AS A DISAD AGAINST US. THIS IS A VOTER E"TERNAL TO ANY QUESTION OF THEORY. THERE IS NO IMPACT TO THE SEARCH FOR BEST POLICY OPTION- DEBATES MUST BE FAIR BEFORE WE CAN TRY TO MODEL REAL LIFE. BESIDES, THIS IS A GAME- FIAT PROVES. PIC S LINK TURN QUESTIONS OF AFF SIDE BIAS ! WE CAN NEVER WIN IF THEY SKEW IT SO WE DON T GET OFFENSE. SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A TIEBREAKER. RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT- WE SHOULDN T HAVE TO WIN A THEORY DEBATE #UST TO RETURN TO SQUARE ONE.

0. 1. +. 9. 1$.

66

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& EY TO TEST ALL OF PLAN

1. NO IMPACT ! NO REASON THEY NEED TO TEST ALL OF THE PLAN. THEY CAN #UST PROVE THAT PART OF IT IS A BAD IDEA. THIS SOLVES OUR CLAIMS ABOUT FAIRNESS WHICH OUTWEIGH THIS UNWARRANTED ARGUMENT. '. PICS LEAD TO BAD PLAN TESTING- THEY DON T TEST THE ENTIRE PLAN, #UST SOME INSUBSTANTIAL PART OF IT. THIS IS WORSE FOR EDUCATION. (. THE NET BENEFIT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT- THEY CAN TEST THE SAME PORTIONS OF THE PLAN BUT THE AFFIRMATIVE STILL GETS THE 1AC TO COMPARE TO DISADS.

67

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& ENCOURAGES SPEC PLAN WRITING

1. THIS ARGUMENT IS DISPROVEN BY EVERY DEBATE EVER. A MORE SPECIFIC PLAN DOESN T DECREASE PIC GROUND ! THEY COULD STILL PIC OUT OF ONE WORD OR ACTOR. INSTEAD, AFFIRMATIVE S WILL MAKE THE PLAN BROAD ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO CLARIFY. '. THAT ISN T A REASON TO #USTIFY AN ABUSIVE PIC- THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO GET (. ).
TO MORE SPECIFIC PLAN WRITING SUCH AS RUNNING A DISAD WITH AN ARTIFICALLY CREATED GENERIC LINK. NO IMPACT ! THE AFFIRMATIVE SHOULDN T LOSE FOR THE PLAN HAVING ONE TINY FLAW. THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PICS THAT WE CAN NEVER PREDICT- THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID THEM IS TO MAKE OUR PLAN VAGUE. THAT PROVES OUR ARGUMENT.

68

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& LIT CHEC S

1. LITERATURE DOES NOT ANSWER OUR OFFENSE- EVEN IF THE NET BENEFIT IS '. (.
PREDICTBLE AND BASED IN THE LITERATURE THEY MOOT A LARGE PORTION OF THE 1AC, SO THEY SHOULDN T GET TO FIAT THAT. IT DOESN T ANSWER INFINITE REGRESSION- TONS OF IDIOTS WRITE STUPID CRAP ON THE INTERNET. THAT DOESN T MAKE IT PREDICTABLE. THEY COULD QUOTE BEN FRANKLINS ,A PENNY SAVED IS A PENNY EARNED- AND WRONG A ONE CENT COUNTERPLAN- THAT MAKES FOR BAD DEBATE. #UST LOOK AT THE VETO-CHEATO COUNTERPLAN. TONS OF IDIOTS WRITE ABOUT THAT BUT IT DOESN T MAKE IT A GOOD ARGUMENT. BLOGS SOLVE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE.

).

69

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& NET BENEFIT*COMPETITION CHEC S

1. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE ! THEY CAN STILL RUN ANY MINUTE PIC OUT OF A SINGLE LITTLE PART OF OUR PLAN. THERE ARE TONS OF DISADS TO MINISCULE ASPECTS OF '. (. ).
THE PLAN THAT THE CASE WOULD USUALLY OUTWEIGH SO WE OVERLOOK THEM IN OUR RESEARCH. THIS INFLATES BAD DISADS ! MAKES THE IMPACT SEEM HUGE BECAUSE THE COUNTERPLAN CAPTURES ALMOST ALL OF THE CASE. THAT ANALYSIS IS ABOVE. THE AFFIRMATIVE SHOULD ONLY HAVE TO WIN SOLVENCY DEFICITS- NOT BEAT BACK THE CRAPPY NET BENEFIT. IT DOESN T #USTIFY THE STRATEGY SKEW- WE GET LITERALLY $% OFFENSE FROM THE 1AC WHICH MAKES DEBATE 1$$% SKEWED NEGATIVE.

70

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& BEST POLICY OPTION

1. THIS DOESN T #USTIFY PICS ! YOU CAN RUN COUNTERPLANS THAT AREN T PICS, OR KRITIKS, OR DISADS AND CASE TURNS AND #UST ADVOCATE THE STATUS QUO. '. THIS ARGUMENT #USTIFIES MULTIPLE CONTRADICTORY CONDITIONAL POSITIONS, INTRINSICNESS PERMS, SEVERANCE, AND NEW 'AC PLAN CLARIFICATIONS- ALL OF WHICH ARE BAD FOR DEBATE. (. PICS DESTROY THE SEARCH FOR BEST POLICY OPTION- REGARDLESS OF PLAN MERITS WE CAN T WIN THAT IT S THE BEST POLICY WHEN WE CAN T PREDIC THE PIC AND MAKE OFFENSE. RESEARCH TENDS TO OVERWHELM TRUTH CLAIMS IN DEBATE- #UST LOOK AT POLITICS DISADS. PREDICTABLE OFFENSE IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE BEST POLICY OPTION. ). YOU RE NEGATIVE- YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO A BEST POLICY OPTION. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE IS A BAD IDEA NOT #UST SUBSUME PART OF OUR PLAN AND CLAIM YOU CAN DO IT BEST.

71

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& EY TO CHEC TOPICAL PLAN PLAN S

1. '. (. ).

E'TRA

THIS ISN T THE REASON YOU RAN THIS PIC. PLUS, WE AREN T E"TRA TOPICAL TOPICALITY SOLVES ALL OF OUR OFFENSE- MAKE US LOSE THE DEBATE THERE. THE #UDGE CAN CHOOSE NOT TO EVALUATE THOSE PLAN PLANKS. E"TRA TOPICALITY IS GOOD- IT GIVES YOU MORE GROUND FOR DISADS AND CRITIQUES.

72

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& AFF MUST DEFEND 1++, OF PLAN

1. IT LEADS TO TRIVIAL DISTINCTIONS VIA PICS WHICH DESTROY WHOLE PLAN FOCUS. '. OUR INTERPRETATION IS FAIR- YOU COULD STILL RUN OTHER COUNTERPLANS OR DISADS AND CASE ARGUMENTS AND WE D DEFEND ALL OF OUR PLAN. (. WE CAN DEFEND 1$$% OF OUR PLAN BUT YOUR TRIVIAL PIC DISTINCTIONS STILL MEAN THAT WE GET NO OFFENSE. ). THERE IS NO REASON WE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY TINY DETAIL OF IMPLIMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT, ETC UNLESS THERE IS A REASON THAT CONCERN CAN OUTWEIGH THE REST OF THE PLAN. THEY LITERALLY FORCE US TO HAVE OFFENSE TO THESE MINUTIA OF ISSUES.

73

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& ENCOURAGES RESEARCH

1. RESEARCH HAS NO IMPACT. IT IS #UST A POOR DEFENSE OF PICS. DON T DO THE WORK FOR THEM, WE RE THE ONLY ONES IMPACTING FAIRNESS CLAIMS. '. PICS DISCOURAGE RESEARCH- THE NEGATIVE WILL KNOW THAT THEY ONLY NEED THE PIC TO BEAT THE CASE, SO THEY WON T RESEARCH SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS. RESEARCHING PICS BECOMES A SUBSTITUTE TO BETTER ARGUMENTS. (. THEY COULD RESEARCH THE NET BENEFIT WITHOUT THE PIC. THEY D STILL HAVE INCENTIVE TO WORK SO THAT THEY HAVE UNPREDICTABLE DISADS.

74

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& IN ROUND ABUSE ONLY

YOU SHOULD RE#ECT THE TEAM EVEN IF WE CAN T WIN CLEAR IN ROUND ABUSE 1. IT SENDS A SIGNAL THAT PICS ARE A BAD MODEL FOR DEBATE. '. THEORY IS A QUESTION OF WHAT YOU #USTIFY, NOT WHAT YOU DO. EVALUATE IT LIKE YOU EVALUATE TOPICALITY- IF THEIR WORLD IS UNFAIR FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEY SHOULD LOSE. (. WE HAVE IN ROUND ABUSE- WE CAN T USE OUR 1AC AS OFFENSE AGAINST THE COUNTERPLAN, THEY CAN CLAIM ALL OF IT WHILE STILL GETTING THEIR ARTIFICALLY INFLATED NET BENEFIT.

75

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& TOPICAL PICS CHEC

1. NO THEY DON T. THEY ONLY PROVE THAT PICS ARE BAD- WE CAN T USE PREDICTABLE AFF GROUND BASED IN THE RESOULTION TO OUTWEIGH THE NET BENEFIT. THEY CAN STILL RUN VETO COUNTERPLANS, POLITICIAN COUNTERPLANS, ETC. '. IT S STILL INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- FUNDING THE IMPLIMENTATION OF A TOPICAL POLICY STILL PROVIDES E"CESSIVE PIC GROUND. (. TOPICAL PICS ARE ACTUALLY WORSE- WE CAN T USE OUR PREDICTABLE AFF GROUND
BASED IN THE RESOLUTION TO OUTWEIGH THE NET BENEFIT SINCE THEY INFRINGE ON RESOLUTIONAL TERRITORY.

76

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT&

EY TO NEG STRAT

1. THE NEGATIVE CAN HAVE OTHER COUNTERPLANS- AGENT COUNTERPLANS, PLANPLAN S, AND INVENTIVE COUNTERPLANS (WHICH ARE A DIME-A-DO2EN ON THIS TOPIC) SOLVE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE. '. EVEN IF OUR INTERPRETATION IS MORE LIMITING IT IS BETTER FOR DEBATE BECAUSE IT ALLOWS BOTH SIDES TO GENERATE OFFENSE- AGAIN, FAIRNESS FOR BOTH SIDES SHOULD OUTWEIGH FAIRNESS CLAIMS OF ONE. (. THIS #USTIFIES OUR GROUND CLAIMS ! THE 1AC IS KEY TO AFFIRMATIVE STRATEGY, AND THEY ENTIRELY MOOT ITS OFFENSIVE VALUE. ). THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE GOOD FOR THE NEGATIVE IS BECAUSE THEY SCREW THE AFFIRMATIVE- THEY HAVE NO OTHER OFFENSE. THEY ARE #UST GOOD BECAUSE WE GET NO OFFENSE. OUR INTERPRETATION STILL ALLOWS THEM TO RUN OTHER COUNTERPLANS OR THEIR NET BENEFIT AS LONG AS THEY MAKE A FEW IN-ROADS ON THE CASE.

77

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& MORE REAL WORLD

1. IRRELEVANT- THIS ISN T THE REAL WORLD, IT S A GAME, FIAT PROVES. THIS #USTIFIES INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS AS CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENTS. '. THEIR STANDARD MEANS YOU VOTE AFF- AFTER AMENDMENTS THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR STILL GETS CREDIT. (. THIS IS DEBATE. IT IS A GAME. IF THE GAME IS RIGGED IN FAVOR OF ONE SIDE, IT LOSES MEANING. ). THE REAL WORLD IS A BAD STANDARD FOR DEBATE- THE ENTIRETY OF DISADS ARE BASED NOT IN THE ABSTRACT OF POLITICAL THEORY, NOT REAL LIFE. *. TOPICALITY ISN T REAL WORLD, NEITHER ARE CRITIQUES WITH A PRE-FIAT ALTERNATIVE OR ASPEC AND OSPEC- THAT DOESN T MEAN THAT THEY AREN T ALLOWED IN DEBATE.

78

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& PLAN FOCUS

1. IRRELEVANT- WE HAVE TO DEFEND 1$$% OF OUR PLAN. YOU SHOULDN T GET TO DEFEND IT TOO. YOU RE NEGATIVE. '. THE COUNTERPLAN DEFACTO #USTIFIES THE RESOLUTION S INTENTS SO ITS STILL A REASON TO VOTE AFF. (. THIS ISN T TRUE. THE TRIVIAL NET BENEFIT TAKES FOCUS AWAY FROM THE PLAN ANYWAY. ). YOU CAN FOCUS ON THE PLAN BY INDICTING OUR SOLVENCY ACTOR, WHICH IS A MORE EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO PICS. *. PLAN FOCUS DOESN T OUTWEIGH QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS- EVEN IF IT IS BETTER FOR EDUCATION.

79

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& RE(ECT THE ARG

1. THIS IS ANTILOGICAL. THEORY IS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS- IF WE WIN THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION ISN T FAIR, YOU SHOULD LOSE THE ROUND. '. THAT S LIKE SAYING THAT QUESTIONS OF TOPICALITY SHOULD RE#ECT THE PLAN BUT VOTE FOR THE ADVOCACY- ITS BAD FOR DEBATE. (. RE#ECTING THE ARGUMENT DOESN T PUNISH THE NEGATIVE TEAM WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO SEND A SIGNAL- IT IS A DEFACTO WAY OF SAYING THAT DISPO IS GOOD REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN #USTIFY THAT CLAIM. ). THIS #USTIFIES *$ E"TRA TOPICAL PLAN PLANKS THAT SPREAD THE NEGATIVE OUT OF THE DEBATE BUT OUR #USTIFICATION IS ,RE#ECT THE PLANK, NOT THE TEAM-. *. TIME CONSTRAINTS- RE#ECTING THE COUNTERPLAN ASSUMES WE WIN ON THEORY
WHICH REQUIRES SUCH A TIME INVESTMENT THAT WE RE SURE TO LOSE OFFENSE ON OTHER FLOWS.

80

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& ALL CPS ) PICS

1. NOT TRUE- THERE ARE PLENTY OF MECHANISMS FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF THE STATUS QUO. SANCTIONS, ENGAGEMENT, THREATS, AND INCENTIVES ARE ALL UNIQUE '. (.
MECHANISMS OF SOLVING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROBLEMS THAT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT BEING A PIC. IF THIS ARGUMENT IS TRUE, IT IS ONLY A REASON TO RE#ECT COUNTERPLANS- PICS ARE SUFFICIENTLY BAD FOR DEBATE THAT THE NEGATIVE SHOULD BE LIMITED ONLY TO GOOD DISADS AND CASE ARGUMENTS IF THIS IS TRUE. THEY CAN RUN COUNTERPLANS THAT SOLVE ALL OF OUR CASE WITHOUT USING ANY OF OUR PLAN, FOR E"AMPLE

3INSERT E"AMPLE4

81

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& ERR NEGATIVE*SIDE BIAS

1. THIS IS SO UNWARRANTED. EVEN IF THEY WIN WARRANTS FOR WHY NEGATIVE GROUND SHOULD BE PRESERVED PICS FLIP AND WORSEN ALL SIDE BIASES AGAINST THE AFFIRMATIVE- IF WE CAN T GENERATE OFFENSE, WE RE IN TROUBLE. SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE TIEBREAKERS, NOT ROUND-DECIDING. '. #UDGE BIAS GOES NEGATIVE ! CRITIQUES PROVE, AS WELL AS THE FLE"IBILITY OF NEGATIVE FIAT. WE CAN ONLY FIAT WITHIN THIS TERRIBLE RESOLUTION WHILE THEY GET EVERYTHING ELSE. (. THE BLOCK SOLVES 1$$% OF THIS ARGUMENT- THE 1AR IS THE HARDEST SPEECH IN DEBATE. WE HAVE TO FIGHT AN UPHILL BATTLE TO BEAT BACK THE 1* MINUTE BLOCK. ). WE DON T HAVE INFINITE PREP- WE HAVE TO RESEARCH FOR THE NEGATIVE TOO. EVEN IF WE DO GET MORE PREP FOR OUR AFF, THAT DOESN T #USTIFY ABUSE. PLUS, THEY HAVE ,INFINITE- PREP TO CUT THEIR GENERIC DISADS AND CASE ARGUMENTS. *. THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH DON T MATTER- MORE FOCUS IS PLACED ON THE 1NC, THE 'AR IS SPENT MAKING UP FOR 1AR BLOCKS, AND THE NEGATIVE BLOCK SUBSUMES ALL OF THIS ARGUMENT.

82

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 1AR % AT& WE GET ONE PIC

1. THEORY IS A QUESTION OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS. IF YOU #USTIFY ONE PIC THAT MEANS THAT YOU #USTIFY ANY ONE PIC WHICH LEADS TO ONE WORD PICS. '. PICS ARE BAD FLAT OUT. THERE IS NO REASON THAT ONLY ALLOWING ONE IS OKAY. THIS ISN T A CONDITIONALITY ARGUMENT. (. COUNTER INTERPRETATION/ THE NEGATIVE GETS ONE COUNTERPLAN THAT IS WHOLLY
OUTSIDE OF THE RESOULTION AND THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN WHICH DOESN T COMPETE THROUGH ARTIFICIAL NET BENEFITS.

83

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % OVERVIEW

PIC S DEGRADE DEBATE AND ARE A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THE NEGATIVE- WE RE WINNING A COUPLE OF KEY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS. 1. PIC S DESTROY ALL AFF GROUND- THEY ALLOW THE NEGATIVE TO OVERINFLATE DISADS THAT WE COULD USUALLY OUTWEIGH. THAT MEANS WE DON T GET TO USE THE CASE AS OFFENSE AGAINST ANY ARGUMENTS. THIS CRUSHES COMPETITIVE EQUITY AND CHECKS BACK ALL OF THEIR ARGUMENTS ABOUT AFF SIDE BIAS. PIC S ARE INFINITELY REGRESSIVE. THEY CAN PIC OUT OF SPECIFIC POLITICIANS, MEANINGLESS QUESTIONS OF FUNDING, CERTAIN LOCALITIES, ETC. AND CREATE A MEANIAL NET BENEFIT BASED ON INDIVIDUAL ACTION, ONE COUNTY, ETC. THIS
DESTROYS DEBATE BY GIVING THE NEGATIVE INFINITELY MANY WAYS TO USURP THE CASE WITH SOME LAME NET BENEFIT. ALLOWING PIC S WILL ULTIMATELY HURT THE NEGATIVE AS WELL ! IT ENCOURAGES VAGUE PLAN WRITING TO MAKE DESPERATE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PIC S AND PROTECT GROUND. VAGUENESS WILL NOT ONLY DENY PIC S BUT EFFECTIVE DISAD, CASE, AND KRITIK GROUND- THIS SUBSUMES ALL OF THEIR REASONS WHY PIC S ARE GOOD SINCE IT PROVES THAT ALLOWING PIC S WILL #UST MAKE DEBATE WORSE IN THE LONG RUN. IT ALSO MAKES THE LOSS OF PIC S INEVITABLE. THESE ARGUMENTS OUTWEIGH ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE ! THE ,ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY- CRAP IS PREDICATED ON AN EDUCATIONAL GAIN- THIS IS A MOOT POINT IF FAIRNESS ISN T ESTABLISHED AS A PREREQUISITE BECAUSE NO ONE WILL DEBATE IF IT ISN T FAIR. NONE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE REASONS WHY PIC S ARE GOOD, #UST REASONS WHY THE NEED THE NET BENEFIT. THEY CAN RUN AGENT COUNTERPLANS, PLANPLAN S, OR CREATIVE OTHER MECHANISMS TO SOLVE OUR CASE WHILE ANSWERING THE ADVANTAGES AND GOING FOR THE SAME NET BENEFIT- THIS IS BETTER FOR DEBATE BECAUSE THEY CAN TEST 1$$% OF THE PLAN WITHOUT MOOTING OUR ABILITY TO COMPARE THE CASE TO THE DISAD. WE SHOULDN T HAVE TO WIN IN-ROUND ABUSE FOR YOU TO VOTE HERE. ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT IS SUFFICIENT 5ABUSE TO VOTE ON THEORY. WE SHOULD #UST HAVE TO WIN THAT OUR INTERPRETATION IS BETTER FOR DEBATE. IF WE WIN THAT PICS ARE ON-BALANCE BAD FOR DEBATE THEY SHOULD LOSE. WE RE THE ONLY ONES WITH IMPACT CALCULUS AND A CLEAR FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING THEORY.

'.

(.

).

*.

0.

84

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % AT& REAL WORLD

1. REAL WORLD #USTIFICATIONS ARE A BAD MODEL FOR DEBATE- FIAT ISN T REAL BUT WE USE IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEBATE. INTRINSIC PERMS ARE MORE REAL WORLD BUT THEY ARE STILL BAD FOR THE NEGATIVE- THERE IS NO REASON TO DEFAULT TO THIS STANDARD. PICS ARE UNREALISTIC- POLICY OPTIONS AREN T RE#ECTED BASED ON ONE MINOR FLAW BUT RATHER ON QUESTIONS OF OVERALL DESIRABILITY.

'.

85

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % AT& ENCOURAGES SPEC PLAN WRITING

1. '. (. VAGUE PLAN WRITING OFFENSE LINK TURNS ANY IMPACTS TO GOOD PLAN WRITINGWE RE AHEAD ON THIS PART OF THE DEBATE. THERE IS NO REASON THIS SHOULD COME BEFORE OUR FAIRNESS CLAIMS- THE AFF SHOULD NOT LOSE DEBATES BECAUSE OF ONE TINY PLAN FLAW. WE RE THE ONLY ONES WITH IMPACT CALCULUS AND COMPARISONS OF THE OFFENSE IN THE ROUND. PROVES INFINITE REGRESSION/ WE CAN T POSSIBLY WRITE A PLAN GOOD ENOUGH TO AVOID EVERY PIC UNLESS WE WRITE IT PURPOSELY VAGUE- THIS PROVES OUR ARGUMENT.

86

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % AT& RE(ECT THE ARG, NOT THE TEAM
1. '. RE#ECT THE TEAM. THIS IS A BAD STANDARD AND WOULD #USTIFY NUMEROUS E"TRA TOPICAL PLAN PLANKS BUT ONLY RE#ECTING THE PLAN, NOT THE TEAM. THAT ALONE IS BAD FOR DEBATE. TIME CONSTRAINTS NECESSITATE RE#ECTING THE TEAM. WE HAVE TO WIN A
THEORY DEBATE AND THAT TIME TRADEOFF MEANS THAT WE CAN T WIN OFFENSE ON OTHER FLOWS- WE GO FOR THEORY TO PUNISH THE TEAM FOR ABUSE. WE SHOULDN T HAVE TO WIN THEORY #UST TO RETURN TO SQUARE ONE. DEBATING THEORY IS GOOD- IT SHAPES THE INTERPRETATIONS THAT APPLY TO A BROADER LEVEL OF DEBATE. RE#ECTION OF A FLAWED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK HELPS SHAPE DEBATE AS A WHOLE. DON T LET THEM TRY TO CLAIM EDUCAITON STANDARDS OFF OF GOING FOR THEORY- IF WE DON T HAMMER OUT THEORETICAL ISSUES FIRST IT MAKES ANY EDUCATION MEANINGLESS BECAUSE THE GAME IS ALREADY RIGGED.

(.

87

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % AT& NET BENEFIT*COMPETITION CHEC S

1. RESEARCHING THE NET BENEFIT DOESN T SOLVE OUR OFFENSE- ONLY THEIRS. IT ALLOWS THEM TO TEST ALL OF THE PLAN BUT THE CORRESPONDING PIC DESTROYS
AFFIRMATIVE GROUND BY GIVING US NO WEIGH TO LEVERAGE THE CASE AGAINST THE DISAD. THIS MOOTS THE VALUE TO ANY POSSIBLE RESEARCH WE VE DONE FOR OFFENSE AGAINST THE NET BENEFIT THE NET BENEFIT DOESN T CHECK INFINITE REGRESSION- TONS OF DISADS E"IST TO MINISCULE ASPECTS OF THE PLAN. WE CAN USUALLY OVERLOOK THE E"PLOSIVE NUMBER OF DISADS UNLESS WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR BAD PIC DEBATES. THIS TURNS AND MAGNIFIES RESEARCH BURDEN AND EDUCATION ARGUMENTS.

'.

88

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % AFF MUST DEFEND 1++, OF PLAN

1. WE WILL- BUT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAN '. (. ).
AGAINST DISADS OR KRITIKS OTHERWISE THEY CAN OVERINFLATE THE IMPACTS AND WE LL ALWAYS LOSE. THERE IS NO REASON WE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TINY DETAILS OF IMPLIMENTATION- THAT PROVES OUR INFINITE REGRESSION ARGUMENT. THEY FORCE US TO LITERALLY HAVE OFFENSE AGAINST EVERY POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE IN FUNDING AND AGENCY- THESE FAIRNESS CONCERNS SHOULD OUTWEIGH THEIR EDUCATION DEFENSE. NOT ALLOWING US TO LEVERAGE THE CASE AGAINST DISADS TURNS EDUCATION BECAUSE IT DOESN T ALLOW US TO USE IT AS DEFENSE AGAINST POORLY CONSTRUCTED DISADS.

89

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % AT& ENCOURAGES RESEARCH

1. RESEARCH IS A DEFENSE STANDARD FOR PICS WITHOUT A COMPARATIVE IMPACTDON T DO THE WORK FOR THEM, WE RE THE ONLY ONES IMPACTING FAIRNESS CLAIMS SINCE THE 1AR. '. TURN/ PICS DISCOURAGE RESEARCH. EVEN THOUGH THE NEGATIVE MAY BE ENCOURAGED TO RESEARCH A TRIVIAL PIC, THEY WONT GO BEYOND BECAUSE THEY LL KNOW THAT S ALL THAT THEY NEED TO WIN. RESEARCHING TERRIBLE TINY COUNTERPLANS WILL SUBSUME RESEARCH ON DEVELOPED CASE ARGUMENTS, DISADS, ETC. (. OUR COUNTERINTERPRETATION SOLVES/ THEY COULD RUN THE NET BENEFIT WITHOUT THE PIC AND STILL GET ALL OF THE RESEARCH&EDUCATION OFFENSE WITHOUT ANY OF THE ABUSE.

90

THEORY MAGIC

PICS BAD 2AR % AT&

EY TO NEG GROUND

1. THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN WIN PICS ARE GOOD FOR THE NEGATIVE IS BECAUSE OF ABUSE THEY CAUSE. IT IS NATURALLY GOOD FOR THE NEGATIVE TO PRODUCE A COUNTERPLAN THAT WE CAN T PREDICT OR GENERATE OFFENSE AGAINST- BUT THIS BEGS THE QUESTION OF FAIRNESS. OUR INTERPRETATION ALLOWS THEM TO RUN THE
NET BENEFIT WHICH SUFFICIENTLY ENSURES AFF TESTING AND NEGATIVE GROUND AND MEANS THAT THEY ONLY NEED TO WIN SOME SOLVENCY DEFICIT ARGUMENTS TO BEAT BACK THE AFF. THEY CAN RUN OTHER COUNTERPLANS- THE OVERVIEW IS CLEAR ON THE POINT THAT THEY CAN RUN UNIQUE AND BETTER COUNTERPLANS TO SOLVE THE AFF CASE AND PRESERVE FAIR GROUND FOR BOTH TEAMS.

'.

91

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NC (LONG)

1. SIDE BIAS (USTIFIES- THE AFFIRMATIVE PICKS THEIR OWN GROUND, THEY HAVE THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH, AND THEY GET REPEATED DEBATES TO PERFECT THEIR 'AC BLOCKS. 2. EDUCATION DEMANDS PICS A. THE COUNTERPLAN COULD BE A LEGIT ARGUMENT IN THE LITERATURE OR POLICY-MAKING CIRCLES. E"CLUDING IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND DESTROY TOPIC EDUCATION. B. TOPIC LITERATURE DEMANDS PICS- WE HAVE SPECIFIC SOLVENCY ADVOCATES THAT TREAT IT AS A LEGITIMATE POLICY OPTION. 3. EDUCATION AND ACTIVISM OUTWEIGH THEIR NARROW FAIRNESS CONCERNS4. !. ". #. -. ..
LEARNING ABOUT HOW POLICIES FUNCTION DETERMINES OUR REAL WORLD ADVOCACY SKILLS WHICH E"TEND BEYOND THE DEBATE. LITERATURE CHEC S- IT ENSURES PREDICTABILITY OF THE COUNTERPLAN. PICS ARE CRITICAL TO CHEC ING E'TRATOPICAL ADVANTAGES- THEY ENSURE AFFIRMATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY. NO INFINITE REGRESSION- THE PLAN PROVIDES AFFIRMATIVE PREDICTABILITY. THEY VE HAD TONS OF TIME TO PLAN ON DEFENDING THE WAY THEY E"PLAIN IT. ALL COUNTERPLANS ARE PLAN-INCLUSIVE- THEY ALL USE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THEY INVOLVE ALTERNATE AGENTS TO DO THE PLAN ACTION. ADDON ADVANTAGES CHEC ABUSE- THEY CAN RUN ADDONS TO THE PARTS OF THE PLAN WE E"CLUDE. THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DEFEND. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM- FOR THE REASONS ABOVE.

92

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NC (SHORT)

1. SIDE BIAS (USTIFIES- THE AFFIRMATIVE PICKS THEIR OWN GROUND, THEY HAVE THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH, AND THEY GET REPEATED DEBATES TO PERFECT THEIR 'AC BLOCKS. 2. EDUCATION DEMANDS PICS C. THE COUNTERPLAN COULD BE A LEGIT ARGUMENT IN THE LITERATURE OR POLICY-MAKING CIRCLES. E"CLUDING IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY AND DESTROY TOPIC EDUCATION. D. TOPIC LITERATURE DEMANDS PICS- WE HAVE SPECIFIC SOLVENCY ADVOCATES THAT TREAT IT AS A LEGITIMATE POLICY OPTION. 3. EDUCATION AND ACTIVISM OUTWEIGH THEIR NARROW FAIRNESS CONCERNS4. !. ". #.
LEARNING ABOUT HOW POLICIES FUNCTION DETERMINES OUR REAL WORLD ADVOCACY SKILLS WHICH E"TEND BEYOND THE DEBATE. LITERATURE CHEC S- IT ENSURES PREDICTABILITY OF THE COUNTERPLAN. NO INFINITE REGRESSION- THE PLAN PROVIDES AFFIRMATIVE PREDICTABILITY. THEY VE HAD TONS OF TIME TO PLAN ON DEFENDING THE WAY THEY E"PLAIN IT. ALL COUNTERPLANS ARE PLAN-INCLUSIVE- THEY ALL USE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THEY INVOLVE ALTERNATE AGENTS TO DO THE PLAN ACTION. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM- FOR THE REASONS ABOVE.

93

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NR % OVERVIEW

W6 77 89: ;<=; PIC> =?6 @6A ;B N6C=;9D6 C?BE:F =:F G?EG9=7 ;B ;6>; ;<69? H7=:. NB:6 BI ;<69? =?CEJ6:;> =:>86? ;<=; PIC> =?6 9:6D9;=K76 ! ;<=; =77 GBE:;6?H7=:> =?6 ;6G<:9G=77A PIC>, 8<9G< J6=:> ;<=; ;<69? 9:;6?H?6;=;9B: 9> F6D=>;=;9:C IB? ;<6 N6C=;9D6. W6 GBE7F :6D6? ?E: = GBE:;6?H7=: E:F6? ;<69? 9:;6?H?6;=;9B:, 8<9G< IB?G6> E> ;B F6I6:F ?=G9>J CBBF, B? ;B :6D6? ;6>; ;<6 AII H7=: ;<6 8=A 86 ><BE7F. II 86 89: ;<6 E:9LE6:6>> ;B ;<9> =?CEJ6:;, =:A ?9>@ ;<=; BE? 9:;6?H?6;=;9B: 9> CBBF IB? F6K=;6 ><BE7F K6 H?6I6??6F. NB8, ;<6 79:6-KA-79:6/

94

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NR % AT& NO AFF GROUND

1. THE AFF ALWAYS HAS GROUND- THEY COULD STRAIGHT TURN THE NET BENEFIT. '. THEY DON T LOSE 1AC GROUND PER SE THEY #UST CHOSE A POOR 1AC THAT DOESN T HAVE GOOD DEFENSE AGAINST PICS- THAT MEANS THEY HAVE NO UNIQUE RIGHT TO THEIR ENTIRE 1AC.

95

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NR % AT& LEADS TO VAGUE PLAN TE'T

1. THIS IS A LIE- THEY WILL WRITE THEIR PLAN MORE SPECIFICALLY TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE LESS GROUND. '. NOT A REASON TO RE#ECT PICS- THEY SHOULD DEFEND THEIR ASSUMPTIONS. IF THAT CAUSES BAD PLAN TE"T CHOICES, WE LL BEAT THEM ON OTHER ARGUMENTS. (. NO IMPACT- VAGUE PLAN TE"T GIVES MORE LINKS TO DISADS AND CRITIQUES WHICH LEADS TO MORE EDUCATIONAL DEBATE. THEY HAVE TO PROVE WHY THIS IS A BAD STANDARD.

96

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NR % OTHER COUNTERPLANS ARE O AY

1. THIS IS AN UNFAIR DISTINCTION FOR THE AFF TO MAKE- IF WE CAN WIN THAT COUNTERPLANS ARE CRITICAL TO NEGATIVE STRATEGY, PICS ARE #UST ONE MORE WEAPON. WE ARE ENTITLED TO ANY METHOD OF AFFIRMATIVE TESTING. '. THERE IS NO THRESHOLD- ALL ARGUMENTS ARE PICS. THEY EITHER USE THE (.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR SOME OTHER ACTOR TO DO THE PLAN WITH SMALL CHANGES. THIS PROVES OUR SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS- ALLOWING THE AFF TO CHOOSE THE DIRECTION OF NEGATIVE STRATEGY ANY FURTHER ENSURES THAT THEY WIN 1$$% OF DEBATES. IT MAKES BEING NEGATIVE AN IMPOSSIBLE POSITION.

97

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NR % AT& NET BENEFIT ALONE IS ENOUGH

). THIS IS IRRELEVANT- PICS ARE CRITICAL TO HIGHLIGHTING THE IMPORTANCE OFT EH NET BENEFITS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE MENIAL IN THE 'AC DECISION MAKING. PICS INCREASE THE RELEVANCE OF ISSUES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PUSHED TO THE SIDE FOR MORE IMPORTANT DISADS. *. PICS ARE CRITICAL TO ENSURING THE UNIQUENESS OF OUR NET BENEFIT WHICH MEANS THAT WE LL GET INDEPTH DISCUSSION ON THE IMPACT ISSUES. 0. THE AFF DOESN T GET TO PICK NEGATIVE STRATEGY- WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE NET BENEFIT TO TEST THE AFF IN WHATEVER WAY WE WANT. THAT S OUR #OB, WE RE NEGATIVE.

98

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NR % AT& INIFITELY REGRESSIVE

1. NO IMPACT- WHILE THE NUMBER OF PICS MAY BE HIGH, EACH IS BASED AROUND THE PLAN AND THUS FULLY PREDICTABLE AND EASY TO DEFEND AGAINST. '. EDUCATION OUTWEIGHS- THEY CAN SPIN LAME STORIES OF RIDICULOUS STUPID (.
COUNTERPLANS BUT NO ONE WOULD RUN THOSE BECAUSE THEY D LOSE ON A SOLVENCY DEFICIT. EDUCATION DEMANDS UNIQUE AND GOOD PICS. LITERATURE CHECKS- IF WE CAN PROVIDE A SINGLE CARD ADVOCATING THE COUNTERPLAN IT CHECKS THE ABILITY OF INFINITE ONE-WORD REGRESSION.

99

THEORY MAGIC

PICS GOOD 2NR % AT& BAD ADVOCACY

1. TURN- ADVOCACY AND ACTIVISM DEMAND PICS BECAUSE THEY FORCE THE +.
AFFIRMATIVE TO DEFEND ALL OF THE ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE PLAN AND CHART THE DIRECTION FOR MOVEMENTS OF CHANCE. THIS ISN T TRUE- WE LL FULLY ADVOCATE OUR PIC AND ITS EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS AS A UNIQUE ISSUE IN THIS ROUND WORTHY OF FULL CONSIDERATION.

100

THEORY MAGIC

DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD 2NC (LONG)

1. COUNTER INTERPRETATION- THE NEGATIVE GETS ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAND THE STATUS QUO. THIS IS UNIQUELY BETTER THAN CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. 2. STRATEGY S EW IS INEVITABLE- THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO DEPLOY THEIR BEST ANSWERS ON THE COUNTERPLAN ANYWAY. 3. WE TURN TIME S EW- THEY CAN ALLOCATE THEIR TIME TO FORCE US TO SPEND MORE TIME ON THE COUNTERPLAN. 4. WE TURN STRATEGY S EW- WE RE LIMITED MORE BY HOW THEY CHOOSE TO ANSWER THE COUNTERPLAN. !. BEST POLICY OPTION #USTIFIES THE DISPO COUNTERPLAN- WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY TEST ALL OF THE AFFIRMATIVE AND AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE TOPIC. ". STRAIGHT TURNS CHEC ABUSE- ANY OFFENSE GUARANTEES THAT WE LL GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. #. PERMS CHEC ABUSE- THEY CAN TEST THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE COUNTERPLAN AND WE WONT GO FOR IT. PERMS TAKE ' SECONDS TO MAKE AND ' MINUTES TO ANSWER. -. ERR NEGATIVE ON $UESTIONS OF THEORY- THEY GET THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AS
WELL AS INFINITE PREP TIME

.. DON/T RE(ECT THE TEAM, RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT- WE RE #UST LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD.

101

THEORY MAGIC

DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD 2NC (SHORT)

1. COUNTER INTERPRETATION- THE NEGATIVE GETS ONE DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAND THE STATUS QUO. THIS IS UNIQUELY BETTER THAN CONDITIONAL AND UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. 2. STRATEGY S EW IS INEVITABLE- THEY HAVE TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO DEPLOY THEIR BEST ANSWERS ON THE COUNTERPLAN ANYWAY. 3. BEST POLICY OPTION #USTIFIES THE DISPO COUNTERPLAN- WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY TEST ALL OF THE AFFIRMATIVE AND AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE TOPIC. 4. STRAIGHT TURNS CHEC ABUSE- ANY OFFENSE GUARANTEES THAT WE LL GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN. !. ERR NEGATIVE ON $UESTIONS OF THEORY- THEY GET THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AS
WELL AS INFINITE PREP TIME

". DON/T RE(ECT THE TEAM, RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT- WE RE #UST LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD.

102

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO 2NR % AT& PERMS DON/T CHEC

1. THIS IS ASININE- THEY STILL GET THEIR PERMS BUT ONLY AS A TEST OF COMPETITION'. (.
IF THEY CAN PROVE THE COUNTERPLAN ISN T COMPETITIVE THAT #USTIFIES OUR NOT GOING FOR IT. IT IS INEVITABLE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN WILL DICTATE THE DIRECTION OF THE PERMS OTHERWISE THEY D BE INTRINSIC WHICH KILLS NEGATIVE STRATEGY. PERMS ARE WORSE FOR NEGATIVE STRATEGY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SPEND A DISPROPORTIONAL AMOUNT OF TIME ANSWERING THEM IF WE WANT TO GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN.

103

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO GOOD 2NR % AT& STRAIGHT TURNS DON/T CHEC

1. YES THEY DO- IF YOU HAVE AN OFFENSIVE REASON WHY THE COUNTERPLAN IS BAD THEN WE LL GO FOR IT, THAT S UNIQUELY BETTER FOR THE AFF. '. A WORLD WHERE THEY DON T HAVE OFFENSE MEANS THAT IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT WE LL GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN ANYWAY. (. IT ENSURES THAT YOU #UST NEED TO DO A BIT OF RESEARCH AND WE LL LOSE THE COUNTERPLAN DEBATE EVERY TIME. ). STRAIGHT TURNS ARE A FAR CRY FROM STRATEGY SKEW FOR THE AFF- STRAIGHT TURNS ARE BETTER THAN PERMS ANYWAY, AND IF YOU WANT TO MAKE BOTH, MAKE BOTH.

104

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO GOOD 2NR % AT& NO AFF SIDE BIAS

1. YES THERE IS- THEY GET THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AS WELL AS INFINITE PREP TIME. '. THE 1AR IS NOT NEARLY AS HARD AS THEY SAY- YOU #UST DEVELOP MORE CREDIBLE REASONS TO PREFER 'AC ARGUMENTATION. (. THE BLOCK DOESN T #USTIFY THE 'AR WHICH IS A SPEECH SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO SWAY #UDGES TO PREFER THE AFF. ). EVEN IF THERE ISN T A SPECIFIC AFF SIDE ,BIAS- IN THE MINDS OF #UDGES, A WORLD
WITHOUT DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ENSURES AN AFF SIDE BIAS ON EVERY COUNTERPLAN DEBATE.

105

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO GOOD 2NR % AT& EDUCATION

1. GOING FOR THEORY IS WORSE FOR EDUCATION THAN ANY CLAIMS ABOUT DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. '. DISPO COUNTERPLANS ARE BETTER FOR EDUCATION- THEY ALLOW THE AFFIRMATIVE TO E"PLORE MORE WAYS TO UNIQUELY ATTACK THE COUNTERPLAN. (. UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE- THEY CRUSH OUR SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY OPTION WHICH SHOULD BE A PARADIGM FOR EVALUATING DEBATE. ). CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE- THEY BREED ARTIFICAL ADVOCACY AND MAKE COUNTERPLAN DEBATES SUPERFLUOUS.

106

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO GOOD 2NR % AT& YOUR CP IS CONDITIONAL

9. SHUT UP. CONDITIONAL MEANS THAT WE CAN KICK IT ANY TIME- WE VE OUTLINED THAT IF YOU STRAIGHT TURN IT, WE CANT. 1$. #UST BECAUSE WE CAN KICK WHEN YOU PERM DOESN T MAKE IT CONDITIONAL- YOU RE SIMPLY QUESTIONING THE COMPETITION OF THE COUNTERPLAN. 11. THIS UNIQUELY PROVES WHY DISPOSITIONALITY IS BETTER- PRECISELY BECAUSE IT ISN T CONDITIONALITY. 1'. THEIR INTERPRETATION OF CONDITIONALITY MAKES DEBATE UNWINNABLE FOR THE
NEGATIVE AND MEANS THAT UNLESS WE CHOOSE TO RUN THE CP UNCONDITIONALLY WE LL ALWAYS LOSE TO A THEORY DEBATE.

107

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO GOOD 2NR % AT& MULTIPLE WORLDS

1. THIS IS NOT A DISPO BAD ARGUMENT THIS IS A COUNTERPLANS BAD ARGUMENT ! ALL COUNTERPLANS CREATE MULTIPLE WORLDS. '. THEY DON T HAVE TO GENERATE OFFENSE AGAINST ANY WORLD E"CEPT THE COUNTERPLAN. THEIR WHOLE 1AC IS OFFENSE AGAINST THE STATUS QUO. THEY #UST NEED TO DEFEND THAT. (. CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE- THEY CREATE MULTIPLE WORLDS WITH NO STABLE ADVOCACY. EVEN IF THE AFF DOESN T NEED SPECIFIC OFFENSE IT IS STILL #USTIFIES A WORLD WITH MORE ABUSE.

108

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO GOOD 2NR % AT& NO ADVOCACY

1. THIS CLAIM IS UNWARRANTED- WE RE NEGATIVEM WE WILL ADVOCATE EITHER THE STATUS QUO OR A COMPETITIVE COUNTERPLAN. ONLY THE AFFIRMATIVE IS OBLIGATED TO ONE STABLE ADVOCACY. '. THIS HAS NO IMPLICATIONS ON IN ROUND EDUCATION- WE LL ADVOCATE THE COUNTERPLAN UNTIL IT IS NOT EDUCATIONALLY BENEFICIAL OR DOESN T AID IN THE BEST POLICY OPTION- WE STILL LEARN ABOUT IT WHILE WE TALK ABOUT IT. (. OUR ADVOCACY IS SIMPLE/ AFF BAD. ). CONDITIONALITY IS WORSE ! IT CREATES A WORLD OF LITERALLY NO ADVOCACY AT ALL.

109

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO GOOD 2NR OVERVIEW

GOING FOR THEORY IN THE 'AR IS WORSE FOR EDUCATION IN DEBATE THAN OUR DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN ANY DAY. THERE ARE A FEW REASONS THAT YOU SHOULDN T PULL THE TRIGGER ON THEORY/ 1. RE#ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WHILE THEY MAY BE ABLE TO WIN REASONS WHY OUR FRAMEWORK STOLE 1$ SECONDS OF 'AC SPEECH TIME, THAT
DOESN T ANSWER REASONS WHY THE NEGATIVE SHOULD HAVE ULTIMATE FLE"IBILITY IN DEFENDING THE BASTION OF PREPARATION THAT IS THE AFF. VOTE AGAINST THE COUNTERPLAN AND STILL WEIGH OUR DISADS AND CASE ARGUMENTS. DISPOSITIONALITY IS NOT BAD FOR DEBATE. WE LL ADVOCATE THE COUNTERPLAN AS A WAY OF DISPROVING THE AFFIRMATIVE UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE THAT COUNTERPLAN NONCOMPETITIVE OR WE FEEL WE D LIKE TO ADVOCATE THE STATUS QUO. ALL THEY NEED IS SOME GOOD OFFENSE AND WE RE SCREWED. DISPOSITIONALITY IS THE LESSER OF ALL EVILS/ CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE FOR DEBATE BECAUSE THEY MEAN THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE HAS NO LEEWAY IN CONTROLLING NEGATIVE STRATEGY. UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE NEGATIVE- DISPO IS THE ONLY FAIR MIDDLE GROUND. BEST POLICY OPTION SHOULD SUPERCEDE ALL OTHER CLAIMS- DEBATE IS A GAME ABOUT WHAT WOULD BEST SOLVE A PROBLEM AND DISPOSITIONALITY IS THE ONLY WAY TO ADEQUETLY TEST THE WATERS OF AVAILABLE SOLUTIONS.

'.

(.

).

110

THEORY MAGIC

DISPOSITIONALITY BAD 2AC (LONG)

1. STRATEGY S EW- WE HAVE TO CHOOSE HOW TO ATTACK THE COUNTERPLAN AND GENERATE OFFENSE AGAINST THE CP AND THS STATUS QUO. DISPO PICS MAKE THIS UNIQUELY WORSE BECAUSE THEY CAN SUCK UP ANY ADD-ONS. 2. ONE UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- IT ENSURES FAIR CLASH, EDUCATION, AND THE SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY OPTION. IT ALSO ENSURES RECIPROCITY. 3. EDUCATION- THEY KILL IN DEPTH EDUCATION ON ADVOCACY ISSUES WHICH IS THE GROUNDS FOR ALL LEARNING IN DEBATE. 4. FAIRNESS- THEY TILT THE DEBATE 1$$% IN THE FAVOR OF THE NEGATIVE- WE CAN NEVER PREPARE TO ADEQUATELY ANSWER THE CP WITHOUT LOSING EVERY OTHER POSITION. !. IT CREATES BAD ADVOCACY- THEY CAN DECIDE MIDWAY THROUGH THE ROUND WHAT THEY SUPPORT. ". IT (USTIFIES AFF CONDITIONALITY- IT MAKES INTRINSIC AND SEVERANCE PERMS LEGITIMATE. #. THIS IS A VOTER FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND PREDICTABILITY- EVEN IF THEY GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN YOU SHOULD VOTE AFF BECAUSE OF 'AC STRATEGY SKEW.

111

THEORY MAGIC

DISPOSITIONALITY BAD 2AC (SHORT)

1. STRATEGY S EW- WE HAVE TO CHOOSE HOW TO ATTACK THE COUNTERPLAN AND GENERATE OFFENSE AGAINST THE CP AND THS STATUS QUO. DISPO PICS MAKE THIS UNIQUELY WORSE BECAUSE THEY CAN SUCK UP ANY ADD-ONS. 2. ONE UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- IT ENSURES FAIR CLASH, EDUCATION, AND THE SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY OPTION. IT ALSO ENSURES RECIPROCITY. 3. EDUCATION- THEY KILL IN DEPTH EDUCATION ON ADVOCACY ISSUES WHICH IS THE GROUNDS FOR ALL LEARNING IN DEBATE. 4. FAIRNESS- THEY TILT THE DEBATE 1$$% IN THE FAVOR OF THE NEGATIVE- WE CAN NEVER PREPARE TO ADEQUATELY ANSWER THE CP WITHOUT LOSING EVERY OTHER POSITION. !. THIS IS A VOTER FOR REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND PREDICTABILITY- EVEN IF THEY GO FOR THE COUNTERPLAN YOU SHOULD VOTE AFF BECAUSE OF 'AC STRATEGY SKEW.

112

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR (ALL ARGS) % IF YOU MAYBE WANT TO GO FOR IT

DISPOSITIONALITY IS BAD AND A VOTER FOR FAIRNESS- A COUPLE OF ARGUMENT SUBSUME ALL OF THEIR BLOCK ANSWERS. 1. NEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN DISPOSITIONALITY IS UNIQUE- WE CAN T E"TEND STRAIGHT TURNS ON OTHER FLOWS AS OFFENSE. IT IS A NEW WORLD. '. DISPO IS CONDITIONALITY IN DRAG A. STRATEGIC NEGATIVES WILL ADD E"TRANEOUS PLANKS TO THE COUNTERPLAN TO FORCE AFF PERMS. B. COMPETITION HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS- ANSWERING THE NET BENEFIT PROVES A COUNTERPLAN NON-COMPETITIVE SO THEY COULD KICK IT. (. UNCONDITIONALITY SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- IT GIVES NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY BUT PRESERVES CRITICAL 'AC STRATEGY GROUND. ). DON T NEED IN ROUND ABUSE- THE THRESHOLD IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURECOMPETING INTERPRETATIONS IS THE ONLY OB#ECTIVE WAY TO EVALUATE THEORY. *. FAIRNESS OUTWEIGHS EDUCATION- UNFAIR DEBATES DESTROY THE POSSIBILITY OF IN DEPTH DISCUSSION. 0. IF THEY WIN THAT EDUCATION OUTWEIGHS, WE LL STILL CAPTURE THATCONDITIONALITY KILLS EDUCATION, ENCOURAGES EASY SHALLOW DEBATES BY THE NEGATIVE. 1. NO IMPACT TO BEST POLICY- DEBATE IS NOT THE REAL WORLD, IT MUST BE FAIR. FIAT PROVES THIS IS A GAME. +. DISPO LINK TURNS AND MAGNIFIES SIDE BIAS- WE CAN T WIN WITHOUT OFFENSE. SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD ONLY BE A TIE BREAKER. 9. DAMAGE WAS DONE TO 'AC STRATEGY- VOTE AGAINST THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT.

113

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % OVERVIEW

1. DISPOSITIONALITY IS CONDITIONALITY IN DRAG A. STRATEGIC NEGATIVES WILL ADD E"TRANEOUS PLANKS TO THE COUNTERPLAN TO FORCE AFF PERMS. B. COMPETITION HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS- ANSWERING THE NET BENEFIT PROVES A COUNTERPLAN NON-COMPETITIVE SO THEY COULD KICK IT. '. THIS LIMITS OUR OPTIONS TO MAKE STRATEGIC CONCESSIONS, STIFLING CRITICAL THINKING AND FORCING ANSWERING OF NEGATIVE POSITIONS IN A VACUUM. THIS DESTROYS 'AC TIME ALLOCATION AND STRATEGY- VOTERS FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION. (. FAIRNESS CLAIMS OUTWEIGH EDUCATION BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY A RIGGED GAME.

114

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % OUTWEIGHS TOPICALITY

DISPOSITIONALITY OUTWEIGHS TOPICALITY 1. 'AC STRATEGY AND TIME SKEW MEANS WE CAN T EFFECTIVELY ANSWER TOPICALITY. PROVES OUR REASONABILITY STANDARDS. '. ITS INFINITE REGRESSIVE- IT #USTIFIES E"TENDING *$ CONTRADICTARY COUNTERPLANS IN THE BLOCK AND GOING FOR T IN THE 'NR. (. DISPO S POTENTIAL ABUSE OUTWEIGHS- T IS ONLY THAT YEAR, DISPO IS RELEVANT TO THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY OF DEBATE. ). IN ROUND ABUSE OUTWEIGHS- STRATEGY SKEW OUTWEIGHS THEIR FAIRNESS CLAIMS BECAUSE THE ULTIME IMPACT OF 'AC STRATEGY SKEW IS A LARGER FAIRNESS PROBLEM WHERE THE NEG WILL ALWAYS WIN. *. WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT OUR EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS IMPACTS CANCEL OUT THE VOTERS ON T AND BOTH ARGUMENTS GO AWAY. RISK OF THE CASE WARRANTS AN AFF BALLOT.

115

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& EY TO NEG STRAT

1. DISPOSITIONALITY DECREASES STRATEGIC THINKING- THE OPTION TO KICK THE COUNTERPLAN UNDERMINES ARGUMENT INTERACTIONS. '. UNCONDITIONALITY SOLVES- THEY STILL HAVE THE STRATEGIC OPTION OF COUNTERPLANS RUN FAIRLY. (. PROVES ABUSE- IT IS KEY TO THE STRATEGY ONLY BECAUSE IT HI#ACKS AFF GROUND FOR MAKING ANSWERS.

116

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& CONDITIONAL PERMS WORSE

CONDITIONAL PERMS ARE BETTER THAN DISPO COUNTERPLANS 1. THE NET BENEFIT IS AUTOMATIC OFFENSE- PERMS INCLUDE THE PLAN WHICH THE NET BENEFIT IS A DISAD TO. '. ONLY A TEST ! IF THEY KICK THE COUNTERPLANS, THE PERM GOES AWAY, SO ITS ALWAYS STILL IN THEIR HANDS. (. COUNTERPLANS CHANGE THE WORLD OF UNIQUENESS WHICH CHANGES THE ANSWERING OF EVERY POSITION.

117

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& PLAN FOCUS*NEG THEORY

1. THIS #USTIFIES RACISM BECAUSE ONLY TESTING THE PLAN MATTERS. '. OUR REASONS THAT DISPO IS BAD PROVE THAT THEIR STANDARD IS BAD FOR DEBATE. NEGATION THEORY SHOULD ONLY BE UPHELD WHEN IT IS A FAIR PARADIGM. (. COUNTERINTERPRETATION SOLVES ! THEY CAN STILL FOCUS ON THE PLAN USING COUNTERPLANS UNCONDITIONALLY.

118

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& BEST POLICY OPTION

1. NO IMPACT ! THIS IS DEBATE, NOT THE REAL WORLD. '. BAD STANDARD ! THIS #USTIFIES VOTING ON INTRINSIC PERMS SINCE THEY D BE THE ONLY POLICY WITHOUT A DISAD.

119

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& REAL WORLD

1. DEBATE IS A GAME, NOT THE REAL WORLD. THEY SHOULDN T BE ALLOWED TO USE THIS STANDARD ONLY NOW AND DISREGARD IT EVERYWHERE ELSE. '. FIAT PROVES THAT WE CAN SUSPEND REALITY TO MAKE THINGS FAIR FOR ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.

120

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& DISPO ) 2AC CHOOSES OUR STRATEGY

1. DISPOSITIONALITY DESTROYS 'AC OFFENSE. WE CAN T MAKE STRATEGIC
CONCESSIONS OR STRAIGHT TURNS SINCE IT IS EFFECTIVELY CONDITIONAL. '. UNCONDITIONALITY SOLVES- DISPOSITIONALITY ROBS US OF CRITICAL STRATEGIC OPTIONS SUCH AS PERMS AND DEFENSE.

121

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& NO IN ROUND ABUSE

THE SKEW OF 'AC STRATEGY WAS IN ROUND ABUSE. WE DON T NEED TO WIN THIS STANDARD, #UST PROVE THAT DISPO IS BAD- THERE IS NO OB#ECTIVE WAY TO MEASURE ABUSE, #UDGES SHOULD DEFAULT TO COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS.

122

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& TIME S EW ARBITRARY

1. WE AREN T GOING FOR TIME SKEW- WE RE GOING FOR STRATEGY SKEW. DISPO SPLITS AFF OFFENSIVE OUTS FOR THE REBUTTALS WITHOUT EVEN A DEBATE. THIS STRUCTURAL TIME SKEW IS DISTINCTINCT IN ITS OB#ECTIVITY.

123

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& (UST STIC US WITH THE COUNTERPLAN

1. THIS #USTIFIES 'AC ABUSE IN EVERY INSTANCE- THEY SHOULD LOSE FOR STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS. '. THIS #USTIFIES ANY ABUSIVE POSITION SO LONG AS THEY GO FOR IT- IT ISN T THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COUNTERPLAN, IT S THE IMPLIMENTATION.

124

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& NO RIGHT TO COVER

1. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO COVER- ALL 1NC POSITIONS ARE 'NR OPTIONS AND THE 'AC SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME FOR THE 'AR. '. WE AREN T ARGUING RIGHT TO COVER- WE RE ARGUING FOR THE RIGHT FOR
STRATEGIC OPTIONS GAURANTEED TO THE AFFIRMATIVE TO CHECK AGAINST THE POWER OF THE NEGATIVE BLOCK AND DIFFICULTY OF THE 1AR.

125

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& DISCUSS MORE ISSUES

1. MORE IS NOT THE SAME AS BETTER ! MULTIPLE WORLDS KILLS EDUCATION BECAUSE WE GET SUPERFICIAL KNOWLEDGE ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES. '. THE NEGATIVE #UST COLLAPSES TO THE ARGUMENT WITH THE LEAST CLASH WHICH GUARANTEES SHALLOW E"PLORATION. (. DEPTH OF EDUCATION ALWAYS WINS THIS DEBATE- LEARNING MORE ABOUT ONE THING IS BETTER FOR CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND RESEARCH.

126

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& TIME PRESSURE GOOD

1. TIME PRESSURE IS BAD- PRESSURING THE AFF CAUSES CARELESS DECISION MAKING AND FORCES UNDER-COVERAGE OF A WORLD VIEW. THIS IS UNIQUELY WORST FOR EDUCATION. '. IF TIME PRESSURE IS GOOD, THEY SHOULD READ UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS AND DEAL WITH 9 MINUTES OF STRAIGHT TURNS.

127

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& ERR NEGATIVE

1. TURN ! ERR AFF. THE NEGATIVE BLOCK SPREADS 1ARS AND THE 1NC CHOOSES THE GROUNDS FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE. SIDE BIAS IS A MYTH. '. DISPO LINK TURNS SIDE BIAS- WE CAN T WIN WITH SKEWED OFFENSE. SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD ONLY BE TIE BREAKERS.

128

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& 0WE/RE NOT GOING FOR CP1

1. IRRELEVANT- THE 'AC FRAMES THE DEBATE AND SHOULD BE FAIR FOR THE AFF, WHICH IT WASN T. OUR OFFENSE STILL LINKS. '. PROVES OUR STRATEGY SKEW ABUSE ARGUMENTS- THEY #UST MOOTED ALL OF THE 'AC ARGUMENTS.

129

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& MULTIPLE PERMS WORSE

1. MULTIPLE PERMS ARE DERIVED FROM THE COUNTERPLAN SO THEY AREN T RECIPROCAL UNIQUE VIEWS. '. THEY RE TESTS OF COMPETITION, NOT ADVOCATED. THAT MEANS THEY CONTROL WHEN WE CAN GO FOR THEM. (. PERMS TAKE TWO SECONDS TO ANSWER, COUNTERPLANS TAKE TWO MINUTES. ). OUR STRATEGY SKEW ARGUMENTS ARE STILL VOTERS THAT OUTWEIGH THE POSSIBILITY OF BAD TEAMS GOING FOR BAD PERMS.

130

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& 0WE/RE GOING FOR CP1

1. IRRELEVANT- THE 'AC FRAMES THE DEBATE AND SHOULD BE FAIR FOR THE AFF, WHICH IT WASN T. OUR OFFENSE STILL LINKS. '. IF THIS IS TRUE, THEY HAVE NO REASON WHY THE COUNTERPLAN COULDN T HAVE BEEN UNCONDITIONAL.

131

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& ADDONS CHEC

1. THE NEG CAN PICK ANOTHER WORLD AND RENDER OUR ADDON USELESS OR STRAIGHT TURN THE ADDON FOR 1( MINUTES, PROVING NO CHECK ON ABUSE. '. IF WE WIN STRATEGY SKEW IT PROVES THAT WE DON T HAVE THE TIME TO READ ADDONS WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR MULTIPLE CONTRADICTORY WORLDS.

132

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& UNCONDITIONALITY WORSE

1. ALL OF OUR OFFENSE ON DISPO PROVES IT IS WORSE- EVEN IF THEY WIN A RISK OF THIS ARGUMENT, VOTE AFF. '. THE BLOCK IS 1* MINUTES LONG- THEY CAN ANSWER ANY NUMBER OF 'AC ARGUMENTS WITH THAT SORT OF TIME.

133

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& ONLY ONE DISPO CP

1. THIS IS ARBITRARY- THEY SAID THAT ONLY BECAUSE THEY DIDN T HAVE TEN. IF THEY DID, THEY D SAY TEN. POTENTIAL ABUSE IS THE KEY HERE. '. THIS STILL KILLS EDUCATION AND STRATEGY SO OUR OFFENSE LINKS. (. ITS STILL NOT RECIPROCAL- THEY GET TWO MOVING WORLDS, WE GET ONE SOLID WORLD.

134

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& UNCONDITIONALITY ) MULTIPLE AFF WORLDS

1. PERMS HAVE TO BE UNCONDITIONAL AGAINST UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. THAT SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE. '. EVEN IF THAT ISN T TRUE, PERMS AREN T AS TIME INTENSIVE- THEY CAN COVER THEM IN SECONDS SINCE THE NET BENEFIT IS ALREADY OFFENSE. (. COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE- THEY CHANGE THE WORLD OF UNIQUENESS AND HOW EVERY ARGUMENT IS ANSWERED.

135

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& STRAIGHT TURNS CHEC

1. THIS PROVES OUR IN-ROUND ABUSE CLAIMS ABOUT STRATEGY SKEW/ IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF GENERATING OFFENSE AGAINST TWO WORLDS. '. NOT TRUE- STRAIGHT TURNS ARE STILL AN E"AMPLE OF OUR STRATEGY BEING DICTATED BY THE COUNTERPLAN. (. EVEN IF THIS CLAIM IS TRUE, IT DOESN T #USTIFY THEIR ABUSIVE ADVOCACY. ). THIS MEANS THAT THE NEGATIVE WINS 1$$% OF DEBATES BECAUSE THEY CREATE UNPREDICTABLE COUNTERPLANS AND RUN THEM DISPOSITIONALLY.

136

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& PERMS CHEC

1. THIS IS A LIE. PERMS SHOULD ALLOW US TO CAPTURE AND ADVOCATE THE NET BENEFITS- NOT #UST TEST COMPETITION. '. PERMS ARE STILL ALL DICTATED BY THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE COUNTERPLAN WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO AFF FLE"IBILITY. (. PERMS PROVE STRATEGY SKEW- THE COMPETITION OF THE COUNTERPLAN IS ALWAYS ). *.
IN QUESTION BUT DISPOSITIONALITY FORCES US TO CHOOSE BETWEEN PERMS AND OUR OFFENSE. PERMS ARE DEFENSE, NOT OFFENSE, SO THE COUNTERPLAN IS STILL FUNCTIONALLY CONDITIONAL. DON T LET THIS ARGUMENT FLY WITHOUT THE 'NR PROVING SPECIFICALLY WHY THIS IS TRUE.

137

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& ALL ARGS ARE DISPO

1. MAYBE SO. BUT NOT EVERY ARGUMENT IS A COUNTERPLAN. COUNTERPLANS CREATE A NEW WORLD, UNLIKE A DISAD OR TOPICALITY. '. ALLOWING THIS ARGUMENT TO #USTIFY ABUSE IS A BAD FRAMEWORK FOR DEBATE- IT MEANS THAT MY SAYING ,ALL EMORY CASES ARE NOT TOPICAL- #USTIFIES OUR SINGLE CASE NOT BEING TOPICAL. (. DISADS AREN T DISPOSITIONAL- IF WE STRAIGHT LINK OR IMPACT TURN THEM YOU HAVE TO GO FOR THEM. UNLESS YOU RE AN IDIOT. ). COUNTERPLANS CHANGE THE WORLD OF UNIQUENESS SO THEY AFFECT HOW EVERY POSITION IS ANSWERED.

138

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& EDUCATION

1. DISPO IS UNIQUELY WORSE FOR EDUCATION. IT CREATES ARTIFICIAL DEBATES ABOUT MOVING TARGET COUNTERPLANS. '. DEPTH SHOULD ALWAYS OUTWEIGH BREADTH- ANY IDIOT CAN MAKE A BUNCH OF POORLY E"PLAINED ARGUMENTS, ONLY TRULY GOOD DEBATERS CAN CRAFT A CREDIBLE E"PLANATION. (. EDUCATION ISN T AN OFFENSIVE REASON TO PREFER DISPO COUNTERPLANS).
QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS SHOULD SUPERCEDE EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY ARE THE GATEWAY TO RECIPROCAL DEBATE. THIS STANDARD #USTIFIES HORRIBLE 1-ITEM PICS BECAUSE WE LEARN ABOUT THAT ASININE ISSUE.

139

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& STRAT S EW INEVITABLE

1. NO IT ISN T. UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS MEAN THAT WE AREN T LOCKED INTO A QUESTION OF HOW AND WHEN TO DEPLOY OFFENSE. '. THERE IS ONLY A RISK THAT UNCONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS ARE BETTER FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE- THIS ARGUMENT ISN T OFFENSE. (. TIME SKEW IS INEVITABLE- NOT STRATEGY SKEW. THE PERM&STRAIGHT TURN DISTINCTION SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR AFF CHOICE.

140

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& ERR NEG

1. THIS IS THE MOST UNWARRANTED CLAIM EVER. THEORY DEBATES ARE THE AFFIRMATIVE S ATTEMPT TO RECTIFY NEGATIVE ABUSE. '. THERE IS NO AFF SIDE BIAS- ALL TOPICS ARE BIASED NEG, THAT S WHY EVERYONE FLIPS THAT WAY IN OUTROUNDS. YOU GET THE TOOL OF SURPRISE AND THE NEGATIVE BLOCK WHICH SOLVES ALL OF YOUR OFFENSE ABOUT FAIRNESS. (. THIS ARGUMENT IS AKIN TO WHINING- NO NEGATIVE TEAM ENDS A TOPICALITY SHELL WITH ,ERR AFFIRMATIVE ON QUESTIONS OF TOPICALITY- ! THIS IS A PETTY WAY OF SAYING PLEASE DON T PUNISH US.

141

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& RE(ECT THE ARG

THIS IS ANTILOGICAL. THEORY IS A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS- IF WE WIN THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION ISN T FAIR, YOU SHOULD LOSE THE ROUND. THAT S LIKE SAYING THAT QUESTIONS OF TOPICALITY SHOULD RE#ECT THE PLAN BUT VOTE FOR THE ADVOCACY- ITS BAD FOR DEBATE. RE#ECTING THE ARGUMENT DOESN T PUNISH THE NEGATIVE TEAM WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO SEND A SIGNAL- IT IS A DEFACTO WAY OF SAYING THAT DISPO IS GOOD REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN #USTIFY THAT CLAIM. THIS #USTIFIES *$ E"TRA TOPICAL PLAN PLANKS THAT SPREAD THE NEGATIVE OUT OF THE DEBATE BUT OUR #USTIFICATION IS ,RE#ECT THE PLANK, NOT THE TEAM-. TIME CONSTRAINTS- RE#ECTING THE COUNTERPLAN ASSUMES WE WIN ON THEORY WHICH
REQUIRES SUCH A TIME INVESTMENT THAT WE RE SURE TO LOSE OFFENSE ON OTHER FLOWS.

142

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& TIME TRADEOFF RECIPROCAL

1. STRATEGY SKEW ISN T- ALL TEAMS WILL BE FASTER OR MORE TECHNICAL BUT THE 'AC CAN MAKE STRATEGIC CHOICES. '. THE NEG CHOOSES THE FINAL WORLD FOR DICUSSION MEANING THEY LL ALWAYS CHOOSE THE POSITION WITH THE LEAST OFFENSE. WE GET THE WORSE END OF THE DEAL.

143

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& AFF SIDE BIAS

1. THIS IS TOTALLY MADE UP. THE NEGATIVE TEAM GETS THE BLOCK AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THE 1AR WHICH IS THE HARDEST SPEECH IN DEBATE. '. THIS IS A NONQUANTIFIABLE CLAIM- EVERY DEBATE IS DIFFERENT IN WHICH WAY IT IS SKEWED. THEY HAVE TO WIN AN AFFIRMATIVE SIDE BIAS IN THIS ROUND. (. EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE, IT ONLY #USTIFIES COUNTERPLANS, NOT DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. ). DISPOSITIONALITY IS UNIQUELY WORSE- IT SKEWS THE DEBATE 1$$% TOWARDS THE NEGATIVE- EVEN IF THERE IS AN AFF SIDE BIAS THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT US WITH GOOD CASE ARGUMENTS OR DISADS.

144

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 1AR % AT& SEVERENCE*INTRINSIC PERMS (USTIFY

1. THIS ARGUMENT WASN T PART OF THEIR 1NC #USTIFICATION- WE HADN T MADE PERMS YET. THIS PROVES UNIQUE 'AC STRATEGY SKEW. '. THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY NOT TRUE- PERMS ARE ONLY A TEST OF COMPETITION IN THE WORLD OF DISPOSITIONALITY SO WE RE NOT CREATING A NEW UNIQUE WORLD- THAT MEANS THAT DISPO IS STILL WORSE. (. EVEN IF THIS ARGUMENT IS GIVEN A SINGLE OUNCE OF CREDIBILITY IT #USTIFIES COUNTERPLANS BUT NOT DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLANS. THEY CAN EASILY BEAT A PERM BY SAYING IT IS SEVERANCE AND MOVING ON- WE DON T GET THAT LU"URY.

145

THEORY MAGIC

DISPO BAD 2AR OVERVIEW

DIPOSITINALITY IS A VOTER- RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT. 1. DISPOSITIONALITY CREATES A FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR STRATEGY SKEW FOR THE 'AC AND THE 1AR THAT MOOT THE VALUE OF THOSE SPEECHES AS AFFIRMATIVE OFFENSE. IT MEANS THAT WE RE FORCED INTO A LIMBO ABOUT GENERATING OFFENSE AGAINST BOTH THE STATUS QUO AND THE COUNTERPLAN. THIS CHECKS BACK ANY OF '.
THEIR CLAIMS ABOUT AFF SIDE BIAS OR WHY YOU SHOULD ERR NEG ON QUESTIONS OF THEORY. FAIRNESS CLAIMS SUPERCEDE EDUCATION, INCLUSION, OR PROVEN IN ROUND ABUSEIF WE CAN WIN THAT THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEORY CREATES AN UNFAIR WORLD FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE YOU SHOULD RE#ECT THEIR FRAMEWORK ! EDUCATION IS MEANINGLESS IN A WORLD WHERE THE DEBATE IS PURPOSELY SKEWED TOWARDS ONE SIDE 1$$%. THE ONLY OFFENSE THEY HAVE GOING FOR THEM IS THE IDEA THAT STRAIGHT TURNS AND PERMS CHECK ABUSE- THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. A. STRAIGHT TURNS PROVE STRATEGY SKEW- THE NEGATIVE IS DICTATING AFFIRMATIVE STRATEGY. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE PERMS AS VIABLE OFFENSE. B. PERMS CHECK ABUSE IS UNWARRANTED NEGATIVE RHETORIC- PERMS ARE DEFENSE WHEN THE COUNTERPLAN IS DISPOSITIONAL AND PROVIDE AN AVENUE FOR THE NEGATIVE TO KICK OUT. WHETHER OR NOT THEY WENT FOR THE COUNTERPLAN IN THE 'NR IS A MOOT POINTTHIS, LIKE TOPICALITY, IS A QUESTION OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS- THE DAMAGE WAS DONE AS OF THE 1NC, NOW THAT FRAMEWORK HAS TO BE #USTIFIED. EVALUATE THEORY LIKE TOPICALITY USING A PARADIGM OF COMPETING INTERPRETAITONS- WE SHOULDN T HAVE TO WIN IN-ROUND ABUSE, IT IS AN ARBITRARY STANDARD THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE. ONLY COMPETING INTERPRETAITONS ALLOWS EVALUATION OF OUR OFFENSE IN A VACUUM.

(.

). *.

146

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION BAD 2AC

TE"T"UAL COMPETITION IS A BAD STANDARD 1. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT CLARIFICATIONS THE PLAN WOULD BE FORCED TO MAKE. 2. MOOTS THE VALUE OF CROSS-E'- COMPETITION SHOULD BE BASED OFF C" CLARIFICATION. 3. EDUCATION- IT REDUCES DEBATE TO SEMANTIC GAMES ! #USTIFYING COUNTERPLANS THAT SPELL WORDS CORRECTLY OR ADDING COMMAS TO MY BAD WRITING. 4. ITS VAGUE AND (USTIFIES WEA E'PLANATIONS- TE"TUAL COMPETITION LEADS TO VAGUE PLAN TE"TS TO GET OUT OF SEMANTIC PICS THAT HURT GROUND. !. ITS NOT REAL WORLD- THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF WORDS, CONGRESS WOULD NEVER FIGHT OVER THE WORDS OF A BILL, BUT RATHER THE CONTENT. ". FUNCTION COMPETITION CHEC S- IF ITS SUBSTANTIVELY COMPETITIVE BY FUNCTION #. -.
THEN ITS GOOD BECAUSE IT PROVES SOMETHING IS NECESSARILY WRONG WITH THE PLAN. DESTROYS ALL E'CLUSIONARY CPS- YOU WOULDN T BE ABLE TO E"CLUDE CERTAIN ACTORS WHICH IS KEY TO TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION. VOTER- FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION.

147

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION BAD 1AR % AT& EY TO TESTING

1. NON-UNIQUE- FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION ALLOWS FOR FULL AFFIRMATIVE TESTING. '. CROSS-E" CHECKS THIS AND ENSURES THAT THE 1AC IS FULLY TESTED. (. EDUCATION TRUMPS THIS- THE INFINITE REGRESSION OF THEIR INTERPRETATION
GUARANTEES SHALLOW MEANINGLESS DEBATES ABOUT THE SEMANTICS OF THE PLAN.

148

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION BAD 1AR % AT& NOT INFINITELY REGRESSIVE

1. NO WARRANT- PLAN TE"TS WILL #UST BECOME INCREASINGLY DETAILED AND COMPLE" '. (.
TO PREVENT TE"TUALLY COMPETITIVE COUNTERPLANS WITH NO FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION. RESOLUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS ARE NON-E"ISTENT- IT ONLY NECESSITATES BROAD CATEGORIES FOR PLAN ACTION. THIS INFINITE REGRESSION TRUMPS ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- BOTH EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS.

149

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION BAD 1AR % AT& (USTIFIES 2AC CLARIFICATIONS

1. NON-UNIQUE- THE 'AC IS FULL OF CLARIFICATIONS. '. CROSS-E" CHECKS- 'AC CLARIFICATIONS CAN BE PREVENTED BY ASKING IN CROSSE" SPEECHES. (. NO IMPACT- THEY CAN T WIN OFFENSE ON WHY THIS IS WORSE THAN THE INFINITE REGRESSION OF THEIR INTERPRETATION.

150

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION BAD 1AR % AT& C' DOESN/T CHEC

1. CROSS E" DOES CHECK- THEY CAN ASK US FOR SPECIFICS AND GET FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION THAT WAY. '. CROSS-E" IS BINDING SO WE WILL GIVE THEM ANSWERS THAT PREVENT 'AC CLARIFICATIONS, SUBSUMING ALL OF THEIR POSSIBLE ABUSE CLAIMS. (. CROSS-E" PROVIDES TE"TUAL AND FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION BECAUSE THEY CAN ASK ABOUT WORDS OF THE PLAN TE"T.

151

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION BAD 2AR % OVERVIEW

TE"TUAL COMPETITION IS A BAD STANDARD FOR DEBATE AND A VOTING ISSUE- A FEW KEY ARGUMENTS. 1. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THEIR INTERPRETATION WILL #UST NECESSITATE INCREASINGLY DETAILED AND SEMANTICALLY-DRIVEN PLAN TE"TS TO TRY TO AVOID TE"TUAL COMPETITION. THIS HAS TWO IMPLICAITONS. A. GROUND- THIS KILLS NEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN GROUND BECAUSE IT DOESN T ALLOW THEM TO ASSERT LINKS TO SPECIFIC POSITIONS. B. EDUCATION- THIS TYPE OF PLAN TE"T WRITING DISCOURAGES BOTH IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF TOPIC-SPECIFIC ISSUES AND CRITICAL THINKING BY REDUCING THE DEBATE TO QUESTIONS OF LANGUAGE. '. CROSS-E" CHECKS ALL ABUSE- IT IS A BINDING CHANCE FOR THEM TO SOLIDIFY LINKS TO POSITIONS AND FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION. IF THE COUNTEPLAN IS A VIABLE POLICY IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND WITH FUNCTIONAL COMPETITION. (. THEY CAN ONLY WIN OFFENSE ON 'AC CLARIFICATIONS BUT THAT ARGUMENT HAS NO THRESHOLD BECAUSE 'AC CLARIFICATIONS ARE ALREADY ABUNDANT- IT S A CONSTRUCTIVE TO E"PLAIN AND UTILI2E THE 1AC. IT IS WORSE FOR THE NEGATIVE IF THEY LOSE GROUND BECAUSE OF PLAN TE"T SPECIFICATIONS. ). DON T ERR NEGATIVE AND VOTE ON POTENTIAL ABUSE- EVEN IF THEY DID NOTHING WRONG, THEY #USTIFY A WORLD IN WHICH THE AFFIRMATIVE WILL GO TO ALL ENDS TO BO" THE NEGATIVE OUT OF THE DEBATE. THIS FRAMEWORK IS UNIQUELY WORSE THAN THE AFF FRAMEWORK AND A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THE NEGATIVE.

152

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION GOOD 2NC

TE"TUAL COMPETITION IS A GOOD STANDARD 1. GROUND- ITS KEY TO TEST SPECIFIC CLAIMS OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ! CLARIFICATION ISN T ENOUGH. 2. EY TO DA LIN S- BUDGET TRADEOFF AND POLITICS LINK EVIDENCE ARE DEPENDANT ON 1AC ADVOCACY. 3. (USTIFIES ABUSE- WITHOUT SPECIFICITY IN THE PLAN TE"T, THE 'AC HAS THE OPTION TO MAKE ABUSIVE CLARIFICATIONS. 4. ITS NOT INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- ALL WE ASK FOR IS NOT A VAGUE PLAN TE"T, RESOLUTION CONSTRAINTS CHECK BACK THEIR ARGUMENT. !. (USTIFIES VAGUE PLAN TE'TS- THEIR INTERPRETATIONS ALLOWS FOR AFF AMBIGUITY THROUGHOUT THE 1AC ! THIS DESTROYS DEBATE AND EDUCATION. ". C' CANT CHEC - THEIR INTERPRETATION HAS SKEWED THE 1NC STRATEGY AND CP GROUND ! CLARIFICATION ONLY #USTIFIES MORE AFFIRMATIVE CONDITIONALITY. #. VOTER- FOR COMPETITIVE EQUITY, FAIRNESS, AND EDUCATION.

153

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION GOOD 2NR % OVERVIEW

TE"TUAL COMPETITION IS A GOOD STANDARD FOR DEBATE AND NOT A VOTING ISSUE 1. IT NECESSITATES SPECIFICITY IN 1AC PLAN TE"T- IT PREVENTS OVERLY VAGUE PLAN TE"T WRITING. THIS HAS A FEW IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS. A. CRITICAL THINKING- IT FORCES THE AFF TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT AND DEFEND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY PRESENT THE PLAN. B. GROUND- ONLY SPECIFICITY ENSURES FAIR NEGATIVE GROUND FOR DISADS, COUNTERPLANS, AND KRITIKS. OTHERWISE THE 'AC CAN MAKE GROSS CLARIFICATIONS AND BO" OUT 1NC POSITIONS. C. IT ISN T INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- OTHER STANDARDS, SUCH AS THE RESOLUTION, CHECK THIS POSSIBILITY. RIDICULOUS PLAN TE"TS WILL BE SHUNNED ANYWAY. '. THEY HAVE NO OFFENSE- ONLY DEFENSE, AND THE ONLY COMPELLING ANSWER IS THAT CROSS-E" CHECKS. THIS IS A POOR STANDARD BECAUSE IT #USTIFIES 'AC CLARIFICATIONS OF ANY POSITION OR FACET OF THE 1AC AS OPPOSED TO A LEVEL OF ASSUMED DETAIL IN THE 1AC. (. EDUCATION FLOWS NEGATIVE- TE"TUAL COMPETITION CREATES THE ONLY VIABLE
SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY OPTION BY E"PLORING SUBTLE DIFFERENCES IN POLICY POSSIBILITIES. BEST POLICY OPTION OVERWHELMS AFFIRMATIVE OFFENSE BECAUSE IT IS THE ESSENCE OF DEBATE. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY- THE AFF IS TRYING TO FIND AN EASY OUT ON A COMPETITIVE COUNTERPLAN INSTEAD OF ENGAGING THE DEBATE. WE SHOULDN T LOSE THE DEBATE #UST FOR TRYING TO GET BACK TO SQUARE ONE. WE VE INVESTED TIME IN THIS THEORY DEBATE AND THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

).

154

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION GOOD 2NR % AT& CROSS-E' CHEC S

1. THIS IS A POOR STANDARD- IT #USTIFIES LA2Y SHODDY PLAN TE"T WRITING IN FAVOR OF WASTED CROSS-E" TIME. '. CROSS-E" DOESN T CHECK ABUSE- THEY CAN MAKE 'AC CLARIFICATIONS ON SUBTELTIES IN THE CROSS-E". (. NOT OFFENSE- ALLOWING C&" CLARIFICATIONS IS A BLANKET #USTIFICATION FOR INCREASED AFFIRMATIVE CONDITIONALITY. ). NO BRIGHTLINE- THIS ASSUMES THAT CROSS-E" AFTER THE 'AC IS ALSO FAIR GAME FOR NEW CLARIFICATIONS. THIS LINK TURNS AND MAGNIFIES ANY POTENTIAL ABUSE CLAIMS.

155

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION GOOD 2NR % AT& LEADS TO SEMANTICS GAMES

1. NON-UNIQUE- DEBATE IS RIFE WITH SEMANTICS- DISPOSITIONALITY&CONDITIONALITY PROVE. '. TURN/ SEMANTICS ARE GOOD FOR DEBATE BECAUSE THEY TEACH THE VALUE OF GOOD LANGUAGE SKILLS AND SHARPEN CRITICAL THINKING. THEY FORCE TEAMS TO DEFEND THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR ASSUMPTIONS- INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE. (. NO IMPACT- THEY CAN T WIN ANY OFFENSE ON WHY SEMANTICS GAMES ARE WORSE THAN WORLD IN WHICH THE AFF CAN MAKE NEW 'AC CLARIFICATIONS- THIS IS UNIQUELY WORSE FOR BOTH TEAMS.

156

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION GOOD 2NR % AT& NOT REAL WORLD

1. DEBATE ISN T REAL WORLD- FIAT PROVES. THIS IS A BAD STANDARD TO USE. '. TE"TUAL COMPETITION IS REAL WORLD- IF THE WORDS OF A BLL ARE WRITTEN WRONG
OR VAGUELY PEOPLE WILL ASK THEM TO CHANGE IT TO ENSURE THAT IT ISN T MISINTERPRETED LATER DOWN THE LINE. SEMANTICS ARE A FACT OF LIFE.

157

THEORY MAGIC

TE'TUAL COMPETITION GOOD 2NR % AT& INFINITELY REGRESSIVE

1. NO WARRANT- OTHER CONSTRAINTS WITHIN DEBATE, SUCH AS THE RESOLUTION, WILL CHECK THE POSSIBILITY OF INFINITE REGRESSION. '. TURN/ THIS IS BETTER THAN THE ALTERNATIVE- A WORLD IN WHICH THE AFFIRMATIVE (.
WRITES PURPOSELY NEBULOUS PLAN TE"TS GUARARNTEES THAT THE NEGATIVE CAN NEVER GENERATE LINKS OR COMPETITION. AN OVERSPECIFITY IS BETTER. THIS IS OVERBLOWN- WE LL CONCEDE THAT OUR INTERPRETATION MANDATES MORE SPECIFICITY, BUT IT DOESN T MANDATE INFINITE SPECIFICITY.

158

THEORY MAGIC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS ARE BAD AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. THEY (USTIFY THE RESOLUTION- THIS PROVES A UNIQUE REASON TO VOTE AFF. 2. GROUND- THEY GET ALL OF THE GROUND OUTSIDE OF THE RESOLUTION. TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS DOUBLE THEIR GROUND AND MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TOW IN. 3. TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS ARE ONLY O AY ON A BI-DIRECTIONAL TOPIC- THE NEGATIVE CAN COUNTERPLAN TO BAN THE PLAN. THIS SOLVES 1$$% OF THEIR OFFENSE. 4. THEY CAN/T WIN OFFENSE ON FAIRNESS, ONLY EDUCATION- FAIRNESS CLAIMS !.
SHOULD BE A PRECURSOR TO EDUCATION BECAUSE WE CAN T HAVE MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION OF THE GAME IS RIGGED. SIDE BIAS- TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS LINK TURN AND MAGNIFY SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS BY ROBBING THE 1AC OF THE ONLY PREDICTABLE GROUND.

159

THEORY MAGIC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR OVERVIEW

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS ARE A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM- A FEW PIECES OF OFFENSE. 1. AFFIRMATIVE GROUND- WE CAN T CHECK BACK THE DOUBLING OF THEIR GROUND WITH THE GROUND OF ONLY THE PLAN. THIS MEANS WE LL NEVER EFFECTIVELY GENERATE OFFENSE AGAINST THEIR COUNTERPLAN. THESE QUESITONS OF FAIRNES SHOULD SUBSUME EDUCATION IN YOUR IMPACT CALCULUS. '. OUR COUNTER INTERPRETATION SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE ABOUT EDUCATION/ (. ).
THEY CAN STLIL RUN COUNTERPLANS OR THE NET BENEFIT AS LONG AS THEY TEST AN OPTION OUTSIDE THE RESOLUTION. WE RE THE ONLY ONES WINNING BEST POLICY OPTION OFFENSE- THEY CAN TEST THE PLAN EFFECTIVELY IF WE E"PLORE AREAS THAT AREN T GERMAINE TO THE RESOLUTION. ERR AFFIRMATIVE ON THIS- THE RESOLUTION IS OUR ONLY STABLE AND ASSURED GROUND AND CRITICAL TO HEGING AGAINST THE POWER OF THE NEGATIVE BLOCK.

160

THEORY MAGIC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& BEST POLICY OPTION

1. BEST POLICY DOESN T #USTIFY TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS- THIS IS ONLY EDUCATIONAL OFFENSE, WE HAVE ANALYSIS ABOUT WHY FAIRNESS SHOULD COME FIRST- NO ONE PLAYS A RIGGED GAME. '. BEST POLICY OPTION DOESN T #USTIFY ABUSE- IT UNIQUELY NECESSITATES CLEVER NEGATIVE STRATEGIES THAT PLAY BY FAIR RULES. THIS MEANS THAT WE RE THE ONLY ONES WITH AN INTERPRETATION THAT CAN ACCESS CRITICAL THINKING. (. TURN/ TESTING THE RESOLUTION WITH A NONTOPICAL ACTION ENSURES THE BEST POLICY.

161

THEORY MAGIC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& ERR NEGATIVE

1. TURN/ ERR AFFIRMATIVE. THE RESOLUTION IS AFF GROUND AND IN QUESTIONS OF THEORY WE SHOULD HAVE THE ONLY RIGHT TO DEFEND IT. '. THIS HAS NO WARRANT- THE 1AR IS THE HARDEST SPEECH IN DEBATE AND THE BLOCK CHECKS FIRST&LAST SPEECH DISTINCTIONS. (. COUNTER INTERPRETATION/ ERR FOR THE WINNER. THEORY DEBATES SHOULD BE QUESTIONS OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS AND FAIRNESS/ DEFAULT TO THE SIDE THAT IS MOST FAIR.

162

THEORY MAGIC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& EDUCATION

1. TURN- WE GET BETTER EDUCATION BY E"PLORING NON-RESOLUTIONAL GROUND. '. EDUCATION SHOULD BE A TIE BREAKER ARGUMENT, NOT OFFENSE. EVALUATE (.
QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS FIRST AS IT IS A PREREQUISITE TO EDUCAITONAL DISCUSSION. WE CAPTURE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE HERE- THEY CAN RUN COUNTERPLANS OR THE TOPICAL NET BENEFIT WHICH SOLVES QUESTIONS OF RESEARCH AND CRITICAL THINKING.

163

THEORY MAGIC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& EY TO NEGATIVE GROUND

1. TURN/ TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS HI#ACK AFF GROUND. THIS IS UNIQUELY WORSE BECAUSE WE RE CONSTRAINED BY THE RESOLUTION- THE NEGATIVE GETS EVERYTHING ELSE. '. THIS DOUBLES NEGATIVE GROUND AND EFFECTIVELY DESTROYS OUR ABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE. (. OUR COUNTER INTERPRETATION SOLVES/ THEY GET COUNTERPLANS IN EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE RESOLUTION, ALONG WITH DISADS, CRITIQUES, AND CASE ARGUMENTS.

164

THEORY MAGIC

TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NC

1. NO ABUSE- THEY DON T DEFEND THE WHOLE RESOLUTION. IF WE READ CASE TURNS TO A DIFFERENT AFF THEY WOULD SAY NO LINK. THERE IS NO REASON WE SHOULDN T GET THE REST OF THE RESOLUTION AS ADVOCACY. 2. COMPETITION CHEC S- NET BENEFITS ENSURE THE COUNTERPLAN IS MUTUALLY E"CLUSIVE WITH THE PLAN. 3. TOPICALITY IS AN AFF $UESTION ONLY- IF WE AGREE THAT THEY ARE TOPICAL IT BECOMES A NON-ISSUE IN COUNTERPLAN DEBATE. 4. NEGATION THEORY- THE 1AC CHOSE THEIR GROUND AND THE NEGATIVE GETS EVERYTHING ELSE. !. NO RESEARCH DISTORTION- TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS ARE MORE PREDICTABLE BECAUSE THEY COME FROM A SET OF ALREADY DEFINED RESEARCH GROUND. ". THE PLAN IS THE FOCUS OF DEBATE, NOT THE RESOLUTION- THIS PREVENTS COUNTER WARRANTS AND HYPO-TESTING. #. ERR NEGATIVE- THEY GET THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AS WELL AS INFINITE PREP TIME- WE RE #UST LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD. -. EDUCATION- WE TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT SOLVENCY MECHANISMS WITHIN THE RESOLUTION, THIS INCREASES BOTH NEGATIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE CRITICAL THINKING. .. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM- THEY CAN T WIN CREDIBLE IN-ROUND ABUSE, RE#ECT THE COUNTERPLAN IF WE LOSE THIS THEORY DEBATE.

165

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AC (LONG)

1. GROUND AND STRATEGY S EW ! AGENT COUNTERPLANS MAKE THE 1AC FUNCTIONALLY IRRELEVANT. THE AFF NEEDS THE 1AC AS OFFENSE AGAINST THE BLOCK. 2. ENCOURAGES VAGUE PLAN WRITING- THE AFF IS ENCOURAGED NOT TO SPECIFY THE AGENT WHICH IS WORSE FOR EDUCATION BECAUSE IT KILLS IN DEPTH DEBATE. 3. FORCES THE AFF TO ARGUE AGAINST THEMSELVES- ARGUEMTNS NOT RELATED TO THE AGENT CAN STILL BE USED AGAINST US. 4. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THERE S NO LIMIT TO THE POSSIBLE NUMBER OF AGENT COUNTERPLANS. THIS MEANS THERE IS NO PREDICTABILITY. !. THEY NEED LITERATURE TO SUPPORT THE COUNTERPLAN- A PIECE OF EVIDENCE ". #. -. ..
ADVOCATING THE COUNTERPLAN IS KEY TO CHECK THE E"PLOSIVE NUMBER OF AGENT COUNTERPLANS. ILLS TOPIC SPECIFIC DEBATE- GENERIC DEBATES ABOUT THE AGENT PREVENT MORE INDEPTH TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION. EDUCATION- THEY DISCOURAGE CASE DEBATES. AND, SINCE THE COUNTERPLANS APPLY TO EVERY TOPIC THEY HURT YEAR-TO-YEAR DIVERSITY. THE DISAD NET BENEFITS ALONE SOLVE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- THE NEGATIVE STILL HAS POLITICAL PROCESS DISADS BUT IS FORCED TO ENGAGE THE DIVERSE CLAIMS OF THE 1AC. VOTER FOR EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS.

166

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AC (SHORT)

1. GROUND AND STRATEGY S EW ! AGENT COUNTERPLANS MAKE THE 1AC FUNCTIONALLY IRRELEVANT. THE AFF NEEDS THE 1AC AS OFFENSE AGAINST THE BLOCK. 2. ENCOURAGES VAGUE PLAN WRITING- THE AFF IS ENCOURAGED NOT TO SPECIFY THE AGENT WHICH IS WORSE FOR EDUCATION BECAUSE IT KILLS IN DEPTH DEBATE. 3. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THERE S NO LIMIT TO THE POSSIBLE NUMBER OF AGENT COUNTERPLANS. THIS MEANS THERE IS NO PREDICTABILITY. 4. EDUCATION- THEY DISCOURAGE CASE DEBATES. AND, SINCE THE COUNTERPLANS APPLY TO EVERY TOPIC THEY HURT YEAR-TO-YEAR DIVERSITY. !. THE DISAD NET BENEFITS ALONE SOLVE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- THE NEGATIVE STILL ".
HAS POLITICAL PROCESS DISADS BUT IS FORCED TO ENGAGE THE DIVERSE CLAIMS OF THE 1AC. VOTER FOR EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS.

167

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR (ALL ARGS)

AGENT COUNTERPLANS ARE BAD AND A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM. A FEW KEY DISTINCTIONS ANSWER ALL OF THE BLOCK S ARGUMENTS/ 1. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- LITERATURE E"ISTS FOR ACTIONS BY TONS OF E"ECUTIVE AGENCIES, BUREAUS, DEPARTMENTS, ETC. '. DESTROYS FAIRNESS- IT MOOTS NEARLY ALL OF THE 1AC BY MAKING ONLY THE AGENT RELEVANT- TIME CONSTRAINTS MAKE THIS 1AC SKEW FATAL TO THE AFFIRMATIVE. (. DISADS WITHTOUT THE AGENT CP SOLVE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- WE CAN STILL HAVE ).
ALL OF THE EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION WHILE FORCING THEM TO ENGAGE THE SPECIFICS OF CASE AND ALLOWING US TO USE THE 1AC AS OFFENSE. AGENT COUNTERPLANS KILL EDUCATION A. ARGUMENT DIVERSITY- GENERIC COUNTERPLANS DISCOURAGE ENGAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC CASES. THIS IS UNIQUELY BAD BECAUSE THEY CAN RUN THIS ON EVERY TOPIC SO THERE IS NO YEAR-TO-YEAR DIVERSITY. B. PROVINCIAL FOCUS- AGENT COUNTERPLANS FORECLOSE E"PLORATION OF THE MA#ORITY OF THE 1AC. WE DON T NEED TO WIN IN ROUND ABUSE- THE THRESHOLD IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OB#ECTIVELY IDENTIFY. DEFAULT TO A FRAMEWORK OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS FOR FRAMEWORK. NO IMPACT TO BEST POLICY OPTION- DEBATES MUST BE FAIR. THIS IS A GAME, IF THE GAME IS RIGGED, NO ONE WILL PLAY. AGENT COUNTERPLANS LINK TURN SIDE BIAS- WE CAN T WIN WITH SKEWED OFFENSESIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A TIEBREAKER. RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT- WE SHOULDN T HAVE TO WIN THEORY #UST TO RETURN TO SQUARE ONE. NOT PUNISHING THE TEAM DOESN T SET A PRECEDENT. AGENT COUNTERPLANS AREN T KEY TO NEGATIVE GROUND-

*. 0. 1. +. 9.

168

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& MUST DEFEND AGENT

1. COUNTER INTERPRETATION- THE AFFIRMATE SHOULD DEFEND ITS AGENT AS FAR AS THE LITERATURE. '. WE LL DEFEND 1$$% OF OUR AGENT BUT THAT DOESN T GIVE YOU GROUND FOR AGENT COUNTERPLANS, #UST AGENT DISADS. (. AGENT DISTINCTIONS ARE TRIVIAL- THEY DISCOURAGE IN DEPTH DISCUSSIONS OF THE MERITOUS ACTIONS OF A POLICY AS OPPOSED TO THE LAME DISTINCTIONS IN METHODOLOGY.

169

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& LIMIT THE TOPIC

1. THIS MAKES NO SENSE- THEY CAN RUN COUNTLESS OTHER COUNTERPLANS TO CHECK THE AFFIRMATIVE. '. TOPICALITY SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- INTERPRET THE TOPIC IN A MORE (.
LIMITING WAY AND THAT LL PRESERVE FAIR NEGATIVE GROUND AGAINST A SMALLER NUMBER OF CASES. THE NEGATIVE HAS COUNTLESS OTHER GENERIC STRATEGIES WITHOUT AGENT COUNTERPLANS- THEY CAN RUN PROCESS COUNTERPLANS, CONSULTATION COUNTERPLANS, STATES COUNTERPLANS, ETC.

170

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& LITERATURE CHEC S ABUSE

1. THIS IS A BAD STANDARD- IDIOT PEOPLE WRITE ABOUT EVERYTHING BUT THAT DOESN T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR IT. '. LITERATURE ON THIS COUNTERPLAN DOESN T #USTIFY AN INTERPRETATION THAT ALLOWS FOR ANY MENIAL DISTINCTION- LITERATURE MAY NOT E"IST ON THE COUNTERPLANS THAT THEY #USTIFY.

171

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& LITERATURE DEMANDS AGENT CPS

1. THE LITERATURE WRITES ABOUT A LOT OF STUPID CRAP THAT SHOULDN T BE IN DEBATE ROUNDS. '. REAL LIFE POLICY MAKERS DEBATE AGENT QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR REAL POLICIES- DEBATE IS A GAME AND IT IS ONLY EDUCATIONAL IF WE FOCUS ON THE ASPECTS OF IT THAT ARE EDUCATIONAL, NOT THE MINUTIA. (. THIS DOESN T TRUMP OUR FAIRNESS CLAIMS- IT #USTIFIES NONTOPICAL OR E"TRA TOPICAL AFFIRMATIVES BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE LITERATURE.

172

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& BEST POLICY OPTION

1. THIS IS A BAD STANDARD FOR DEBATE- IT #USTIFIES *$ CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLANS IN THE SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY. '. THEY CAN RUN THE NET BENEFIT ALONE AS A DISAD AND IT TESTS THE PLAN #UST AS WELL. (. THIS DOESN T SUBSUME OUR REASONS WHY MOOTING THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF THE 1AC IS NOTICABLY WORSE. ). THIS PROVES OUR CLAIMS ABOUT INFINITE REGRESSION-THEY COULD RUN
COUNTERPLANS TO TEST ANY MENIAL DETAIL OF THE IMPLIMENTATION AND CLAIM BEST POLICY CONCERNS.

173

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& ENCOURAGES SPECIFIC PLAN WRITING

1. IT DOESN T ENCOURAGE SPECIFIC PLAN WRITING- THAT S ILLOGICAL. SPECIFYING AN AGENT GIVES THE NEGATIVE 1$$% GROUND FOR THESE COUNTERPLANS'.
AFFIRMATIVES WILL DEFAULT TO A VAGUE PLAN TE"T IN ORDER TO AVOID LOSING TO THESE. WE D ALL RATHER DEBATE ASPEC THAN AN AGENT COUNTERPLAN- THE AFF IS MORE LIKELY TO WIN THAT DEBATE.

174

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR % AT& COMPETITION CHEC S

1. THIS IS A BAD STANDARD. COMPETITION IS IRRELEVANT AND HAS NO IMPACT- THEY CAN STILL RUN THE NET BENEFITS AS DISADS TO THE CASE. '. THIS #USTIFIES ANY ARTIFICIAL PIC WITH A MENIAL DISTINCTION. (. FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION CLAIMS SHOULD OUTWEIGH- THEY SUPERCEDE QUESTIONS OF COMPETITION.

175

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AR % OVERVIEW

AGENT COUNTERPLANS ARE BAD FOR DEBATE 1. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A PLAN THAT THEY CAN PIC OUT OF. THIS DESTROYS COMPETITIVE EQUITY AND MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE AFFIRMATIVE. '. EDUCATION- IT INFLATES THE IMPORTANCE OF TRIVIAL NET BENEFITS AND KILLS INDEPTH EDUCATION ABOUT POLICY ISSUES. IT REDUCES DEBATE TO TRIVIAL COURTS&CONGRESS DISTINCTIONS. (. FAIRNESS- IT MOOTS ANY STRATEGIC VALUE TO THE 1AC BY RENDERING ONLY THE AGENT RELEVANT. THIS TURNS ALL OF THEIR SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS BECAUSE IT ). *.
MEANS THAT WE GET NONE OF OUR ADVANTAGES AS OFFENSE AGAINST THE COUNTERPLAN. THE NET BENEFIT ALONE SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE- THEY COULD RUN AN AGENT COUNTERPLAN AND PRESERVE AFF AND NEGATIVE GROUND- THIS IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE. AGENT COUNTERPLANS ARE ULTIMATELY WORSE FOR THE NEGATIVE- IT WILL FORCE PEOPLE TO WRITE E"TREMELY VAGUE PLAN TE"TS SO THAT THEY CAN CLARIFY THE AGENT IN THE 'AC AND DESTROY COUNTERPLAN COMPETITIVENESS. THIS DISCOURAGES CRITICAL AFF AND NEGATIVE THINKING AND MAKES IT HARDER TO BE NEGATIVE- PROVING NO VALUE IN THEIR INTERPRETATION. THIS IS A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM NOT THE ARGUMENT- THEY #USTIFY A WORLD OF ANY AGENT IN ORDER TO QUASH PREDICTABILITY IN DEBATE. ONLY RE#ECTING THE TEAM SENDS A SIGNAL ABOUT ABUSE. EVEN IF WE LOSE ACTUAL ABUSE YOU SHOULD DEFAULT TO COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS- IN ROUND ABUSE IS ARBITRARY AND IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE SO WEIGH EACH FRAMEWORK IN A VACUUM.

0. 1.

176

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NC (LONG)

1. COMPETITION CHEC S- THE FACT THAT THE CP IS NET BENEFICIAL PROVES THAT THE AGENT OF ENACTMENT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PLAN. 2. BEST POLICY OPTION- MANY TIMES THE BEST POLICY OPTION COMES FROM A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE GOVERNMENT ENACTING PLAN. FINDING BEST POLICY IS KEY TO EDUCATION. 3. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS AGENT- THE AFF HAS LOTS OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT EVERY PART OF THEIR PLAN ! THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PICKING THE BEST AGENT POSSIBLE. 4. AGENT CPS ARE EY TO LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD- THE AFFIRMATIVE IS ABLE TO !. ".
CLAIM ADVANTAGES FROM WHATEVER AGENT THEY CHOOSE SO THE NEGATIVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TEST THAT AGENT WITH A COUNTERPLAN. AGENT CPS ARE A EY LIMIT ON THE TOPIC- ON A TOPIC THIS BIG, AGENT CPS ARE NECESSARY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF VIABLE AFFIRMATIVES AND TO GIVE THE NEGATIVE GENERIC STRATEGIES TO COMBAT THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASES. LITERATURE DEMANDS AND CHEC S A. IF ITS DISCUSSED AND DEBATED IN THE LITERATURE, THEN IT SHOULD BE IN THE DEBATE ROUND. B. IF IT IS IN THE LITERATURE, THEY SHOULD HAVE ANSWERS. SIDE BIAS (USTIFIES- THE AFF GETS THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH, THEY CHOOSE THEIR GROUND AND HAVE NEAR-INFINITE PREP TIME. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME ON THIS THEORY QUESTION, THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME. AGENT CPS ARE CRITICAL TO EDUCATION AND SOLVENCY-STODDARD .#
NT<BJ=> B.. P?BI6>> BI L=8 =; NYU. 1991. U:9D6?>9;A L=8 R6D968. NBD6JK6?O E.M FORSTER APPENDED TO THE TITLE PAGE OF HIS NOVEL HOWARD S END THE ENIGMATIC APHORISM/ ,ONLY

#. -. ..

IF WE LAWYER-ACTIVISTS TRULY SEEK DEEP, LASTING CHANGE, WE HAVE TO ,CONNECT- WITH THE PUBLIC. WE
CONNECTP- N)0 IT IS AN APT IN#UNCTION TO LAWYERS LIKE ME.

HAVE TO ACCORD AS MUCH ATTENTION TO PUBLIC ATTITUDES AS WE DO TO THE FORMAL RULES THAT PURPORT TO GUIDE OR MOLD THOSE ATTITUDES. THAT MEANS THINKING AS CONCERTEDLY ABOUT PROCESS AS WE DO ABOUT SUBSTANCE. PROCESS MATTERS. HOW A NEW RULE COMES ABOUT MAY, IN THE END, BE AS IMPORTANT WAS WHAT IT SAYS.

177

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NC (SHORT)

1. COMPETITION CHEC S- THE FACT THAT THE CP IS NET BENEFICIAL PROVES THAT THE AGENT OF ENACTMENT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE PLAN. 2. BEST POLICY OPTION- MANY TIMES THE BEST POLICY OPTION COMES FROM A DIFFERENT AREA OF THE GOVERNMENT ENACTING PLAN. FINDING BEST POLICY IS KEY TO EDUCATION. 3. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS AGENT- THE AFF HAS LOTS OF TIME TO THINK ABOUT EVERY PART OF THEIR PLAN ! THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PICKING THE BEST AGENT POSSIBLE. 4. AGENT CPS ARE A EY LIMIT ON THE TOPIC- ON A TOPIC THIS BIG, AGENT CPS ARE !.
NECESSARY TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF VIABLE AFFIRMATIVES AND TO GIVE THE NEGATIVE GENERIC STRATEGIES TO COMBAT THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASES. LITERATURE DEMANDS AND CHEC S A. IF ITS DISCUSSED AND DEBATED IN THE LITERATURE, THEN IT SHOULD BE IN THE DEBATE ROUND. B. IF IT IS IN THE LITERATURE, THEY SHOULD HAVE ANSWERS. SIDE BIAS (USTIFIES- THE AFF GETS THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH, THEY CHOOSE THEIR GROUND AND HAVE NEAR-INFINITE PREP TIME. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME ON THIS THEORY QUESTION, THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

". #.

178

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD

2NR OVERVIEW

1. OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE NEGATIVE GETS TO FIAT ONE ACTOR BASED IN THE LITERATURE. THIS SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE ABOUT EDUCATION, PREDICTABLE LIMITS, AND INFINITE REGRESSION. '. AGENT COUNTERPLANS ARE THE ONLY VIABLE WAY FOR THE NEGATIVE TO CHECK BACK AFF SIDE BIAS- THEY GET INFINITE PREP TIME TO PREPARE ANSWERS TO COUNTERPLANS, AS WELL AS THE 1ST AND LAST SPEECH TO MAKE E"TRAPOLATIONS. WE NEED AGENT COUNTERPLANS TO CHECK AGAINST THOSE FACTORS. (. ONLY VOTE ON IN ROUND ABUSE- THEY NEED TO PROVE THAT WE SPECIFICALLY DID
SOMETHING WRONG BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE WILL ABUSE A GOOD STRATEGY. POTENTIAL ABUSE MAKES AN IMPOSSIBLE-TO-MEASURE THRESHOLD AND GUARANTEES WE LL ALWAYS LOSE. BEST POLICY OPTION SUBSUMES 1$$% OF THEIR OFFENSE- DEBATE IS A GAME OF EDUCATION AND THE #UDGE IS TO BE EDUCATED TO FIND THE BEST SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM. AGENT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT DISCUSSION AND CRITICAL TO ENSURING THAT DEBATE IS MEANINGFUL. RE#ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM. WE VE INVESTED TIME IN EVERY SPEECH TO ANSWER THIS THEORY ARGUMENT, THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME IN THIS CASE.

).

*.

179

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& NET BENEFIT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT

1. THIS STIFLES OUR ABILITY TO RUN COUNTERPLANS- THE ULTIMATE IMPACT IS THAT COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD. THEY ENCOURAGE BETTER AFF RESEARCH, FULLY E"PLORE THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE 1AC, AND PRODUCE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION ON IMPORTANT ISSUES. '. NEGATION THEORY- ALL GROUND OUTSIDE OF THE RESOLUTION IS OURS, INCLUDING COUNTERPLANS. IF WE CAN FIND UNIQUENESS AND A NET BENEFIT, WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE A BETTER POLICY OPTION.

180

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& ILLS TOPIC SPECIFIC DEBATE

1. BEST POLICY OPTION OVERWHELMS- THE EDUCATION OF THE ACTIVITY IS PREDICATED ON FINDING THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE A TOPIC-SPECIFIC ISSUE, AGENT IS AN E"TENSION OF THAT. '. TURN/ IT ENCOURAGES DEEPER TOPIC E"PLORATION BY FINDING THE FLAWS IN THE TOPIC S AGENT AND E"PLORING BETTER WAYS TO SOLVE THEM. (. CRITICAL THINKING REQUIRED TO RESEARCH AND ANSWER THESE COUNTERPLANS CANCELS OUT ANY POSSIBLE EDUCATIONAL LOSS.

181

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& INFINITELY REGRESSIVE

1. OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT WE ONLY GET TO FIAT THROUGH ONE ACTOR WITH LITERATURE TO SUPPORT. THIS SOLVES 1$$% OF THEIR OFFENSE. '. THIS IS NO LESS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE THAN THE ABILITY TO SPECIFY COURTS, CONGRESS, E"ECUTIVE, AND AGENTS&ACTORS WITHIN. (. NON-UNIQUE/ THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF NON-AGENT COUNTERPLANS THAT WE COULD RUN. THIS ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT WE D RUN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF COUNTERPLANS- NOT TRUE.

182

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& FORCES AFF TO ARGUE AGAINST SELVES
1. THIS IS ONLY TRUE FOR BAD AFF CASES- ANY GOOD AFF CASE SHOULD BE PREDICATED ON THE NECESSITY OF SPECIFIC AGENT ACTION. '. NO IMPACT- THE AFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEFEND THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR PLAN, INCLUDING THE AGENT. (. NEGATION THEORY SUBSUMES- OUR #OB IS TO TEST, NOTHING MORE.

183

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& ENCOURAGES VAGUE PLAN WRITING

1. TURN/ AGENT COUNTERPLANS ENCOURAGE SPECIFIC PLAN WRITING TO AVOID GIVING AMPLE GROUND TO THESE SORTS OF COUNTERPLANS. '. NO IMPACT/ VAGUE PLAN TE"TS GIVE MORE GROUND FOR AGENT COUNTERPLANS BECAUSE NEW 'AC CLARIFICATIONS WILL ALWAYS LOSE ON THEORY. (. OUR FAIRNESS CLAIMS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF AGENT COUNTERPLANS OUTWEIGH
THIS POSSIBILITY AND ANY EDUCAITONAL BENEFIT WILL BE SUBSUMED BY FORCED LINKS TO AGENT COUNTERPLANS IN THE FUTURE.

184

THEORY MAGIC

AGENT COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& MOOT 1AC

1. NOT TRUE- A GOOD 1AC SHOULD HAVE SOLVENCY PREDICATED ON A SPECIFIC ACTOR. '. NEGATION THEORY SUBSUMES- OUR #OB IS TO TEST AND DISPROVE THE 1AC AND THE RESOLUTION, IF WE DO THAT WELL, MORE POWER TO US. (. SOLVENCY QUESTIONS SHOULD ALLOW THE 1AC TO STILL BE USED AS AUTOMATIC OFFENSE, GUARANTEEING RECIPROCITY.

185

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT BAD 2AC

OB#ECT FIAT IS BAD AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. NOT PREDICTABLE- THE LITERATURE DOESN T SUPPORT OB#ECT FIAT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES A UTOPIAN WORLD. THIS UTOPIANISM IS BAD A. IT CREATES BAD ADVOCACY- WE SUSPEND REALITY TO HOPE THAT THINGS WILL HAPPEN. B. IT MOOTS THE VALUE OF GOOD RESEARCH- POLICIES ARE BASED ON INTERVENING ACTORS. 2. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- ALLOWING ANY INSTANCE OF OB#ECT FIAT UNLIMITS THIS CHECK AND ALLOWS COUNTERPLANS OUT OF EVERY OB#ECT OF EVERY HARM. 3. MOOTS THE 1AC- IT DESTROYS THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF THE 1AC BY RENDERING SOLVENCY MEANINGLESS. 4. RECIPROCITY- ALLOWING THE NEGATIVE TO FIAT OUT OF THE OB#ECT OF THE HARMS&RESOLUTION MAKES DEBATE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AFF BECAUSE WE LL ALWAYS LOSE ON SOLVENCY DEFICIT QUESTIONS. !. BAD MODEL FOR DEBATE- OB#ECT FIAT IS A LA2Y MODEL FOR DEBATE BECAUSE IT TEACHES POOR RESEARCH AND ARGUMENTATION SKILLS. ". ILLS TOPIC SPECIFIC DEBATE- IT SHIFTS THE FOCUS AWAY FROM TRUE SOLUTIONS #.
TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE RESOLUTION AND TOWARD INFLATED CONTRIVED COUNTERPLAN NET BENEFITS. RE(ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT- THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW THEORY ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC REASON TO PULL THE TRIGGER.

186

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& NET BENEFITS CHEC ABUSE

1. THE FACT THAT WE COULD TRY TO RUN OFFENSE AGAINST THE NET BENEFIT IS IRRELEVANT TO QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS- WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE 1AC IN THAT WAY. '. THIS DOESN T ANSWER OUR INFINITE REGRESSION OR TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION CLAIMS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE WARRANTED REASONS TO VOTE HERE.

187

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& ALL CPS ) OB(ECT FIAT

1. THERE IS A UNIQUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRYING TO SOLVE THE HARMS AND FIATING OUT OF THE ACTOR OF THE HARMS. THIS IS UNLIMITING AND UNPREDICTABLE. '. NOT TRUE- AGENT COUNTERPLANS WOULDN T USE ANY ASPECT OF OB#ECT FIAT, NEITHER WOULD MOST PICS.

188

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& GROUND

EY TO NEG

1. NO THRESHOLD- THEY HAVE TO PROVE HOW OTHER COUNTERPLANS AND KRITIKS WOULDN T SUBSUME THIS ARGUMENT. '. NO IMPACT- NEGATIVE GROUND DOESN T OUTWEIGH FAIRNESS CONCERNS. THE LACK OF THE USE OF THE 1AC AS ANY OFFENSE OUTWEIGHS ANY LOSS OF UNWARRANTED GROUND.

189

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& EY TO TEST FEDERAL GOVT

1. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO TEST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT- THEY CAN T PROVIDE A UNIQUE REASON WHY THIS IS TRUE. '. THIS IS AN EDUCATIONAL QUESTION- FAIRNESS CONCERNS SHOULD COME FIRST, NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY A RIGGED GAME. FAIRNESS IS A PRECURSOR TO EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION.

190

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT BAD 2AR % OVERVIEW

OB#ECT FIAT IS ABUSIVE AND A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT 1. INFINITE REGRESSION- THIS IS REASON ENOUGH TO PULL THE TRIGGER. TO ALLOW
ANY INFRINGEMENT ON FIAT OF THE OB#ECT CREATES A WORLD OF INFINITELY MORE ABUSIVE COUNTERPLANS TO FIAT OUT OF THE OB#ECTS OF THE 1AC HARMS OR THE RESOLUTION. THIS MAKES DEBATE UNPREDICTABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AFF TO WIN- SUBSUMES ALL OF THEIR FAIRNESS CLAIMS. EDUCATION- OB#ECT FIAT MOOTS THE VALUE OF EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION COMPARING DIFFERING ACTORS OR PICS ON A SPECIFIC ISSUES. WE RE THE ONLY ONES UNIQUELY ACCESSING EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS CONCERNS. GROUND AND STRATEGY SKEW- BY MOOTING THE VALUE OF THE 1AC THEY FUNCTIONALLY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE AFF BECAUSE WE HAVE TO START THE DEBATE IN THE 'AC AND LOSE AN ENTIRE CONSTRUCTIVE. THIS ABUSE CLAIMS OUTWEIGHS ANY OF THEIR CLAIMS TO NEGATIVE GROUND AND LINK TURNS SIDE BIAS CONSIDERATIONS. ERR AFF ON THIS THEORY QUESTION- THIS ISN T EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO LEVEL THE FIELD, IT S A BLATANT ABUSE OF FIAT AND A REASON THAT THEY SHOULD LOSE.

'. (.

).

191

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT GOOD 2NC

1. 2. 3. 4. !. ".
EY TO TEST 0FEDERAL GOVERNMENT1- THEY NEED TO PROVE THAT THE PLAN IS GERMAINE TO THE TOPIC. GROUND- THERE ARE A HUGE NUMBER OF AFF TOPIC AREAS, THE NEGATIVE NEEDS FLE"IBILITY. EY TO CHEC AFF SIDE BIAS- THEY GET INFINITE PREP TIME TO COME UP WITH CP ANSWERS AND THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH. NON-UNI$UE- ALL COUNTERPLANS TRY TO SOLVE THE AFF HARMS WHICH FIATS THE OB#ECT IN SOME WAY. NET BENEFITS CHEC - THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO STRAIGHT TURN, WHICH ENSURES FAIR AFF GROUND. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME ANSWERING THESE THEORY ARGUMENTS AND THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

192

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT GOOD 2NR % OVERVIEW

OB#ECT FIAT IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE 1. IT IS CRITICAL TO NEGATIVE GROUND- THE SHEER SI2E OF THE TOPIC DEMANDS MA"IMUM NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY. OB#ECT FIAT ALLOWS US TO CREATE UNIQUE COUNTERPLANS THAT TEST THE ENTIRETY OF THE 1AC IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY. '. AFF SIDE BIAS- THIS ARGUMENT SUBSUMES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE. OUR
COUNTERPLAN IS ONLY ABUSIVE IN A WORLD IN WHICH DEBATE IS ALREADY SKEWED SO FAR AFF. WE RE ONLY TRYING TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD AGAINST INFINITE PREP TIME AND FIRST&LAST SPEECH PRIVILEGES. KEY TO TEST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT- ADEQUATE TESTING OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE RESOLUTION AND ENSURING THE GERMAINITY OF THE 1AC IS CRITICAL ON A TOPIC LIKE THIS. IT IS ONLY ONCE THIS IS ESTABLISHED THAT EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION CAN TAKE PLACE. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY- MAKE THEM PROVE IN ROUND ABUSE BEFORE YOU PULL THE TRIGGER. POTENTIAL ABUSE BEGS #UDGE INTERVENTION AND SETS NONQUANTIFIABLE LIMITS FOR WHAT IS OR IS NOT POSSILE ABUSE.

(.

).

193

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& MOOTS 1AC

1. NOT TRUE- A GOOD 1AC SHOULD STILL BE ABLE TO GENERATE SOLVENCY OFFENSE AGAINST THE COUNTERPLAN. '. ALL COUNTERPLANS MOOT THE VALUE OF THE 1AC IN SOME WAY BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. (. NON-UNIQUE/ PICS AND AGENT COUNTERPLANS MOOT MUCH OF THE SOLVENCY QUESTIONS OF THE 1AC AND FORCE BETTER CRITICAL THINKING BY THE AFFIRMATIVE. THIS UNIQUELY HELPS EDUCATION FOR BOTH TEAMS.

194

THEORY MAGIC

OB(ECT FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& INFINITELY REGRESSIVE

1. THERE IS NO QUANITIFIABLE AMOUNT OF OB#ECT FIAT TO GO BEYOND INFINITE REGRESSION. THIS ARGUMENT IS MISPLACED. '. NO IMPACT- TO USE MORE OR LESS OB#ECT FIAT IS IRRELEVANT IF EITHER SIDE WINS THEIR OFFENSE ON EDUCATION OR FAIRNESS.

195

THEORY MAGIC

ARTIFICIALLY COMPETITIVE CP/S BAD

1. Not Real World The negative has forced the counterplan to be competitive. No counterplan solvenc author !ould advocate doing the counterplan and also "#####################$ at the same time. %. &iat 'buse The negative shouldn(t be able to simultaneousl implement the counterplan) but also "###########################$. We don(t do this. 't the ver least fiat should be reciprocal. *. Reduces +olic ,iscussion -ounterplans and debate are meant to discuss the strengths and !ea.ness of polic proposals. /a.ing a counterplan artificiall competitive undermines this pursuit. 0. ,estro s 'ffirmative 1round We can never debate the competitive nature of a counterplan because artificial competition forces counterplans to be competitive !ithout an solvenc evidence or realistic merit.

196

THEORY MAGIC

ARTIFICIALLY COMPETITIVE CP/S GOOD

1. The affirmative must be able to e2plain !h the counterplan is artificiall competitive. The must also prove !h being artificiall competitive is abusive. %. 3est +olic Option The counterplan still forces us to discuss !hich polic is better4 the plan or the -+. *. No 'buse The counterplan bans "part or all$ of the plan. 5f the affirmative should be able to do an thing at all) the should be able to defend the merits of their plan. 0. Real World /ember of -ongress fre6uentl choose policies and re7ect parts or !holes of other policies in order to obtain the best proposal. 8. No 1round 9oss The affirmative can run disads to the counterplan. :. Not ;nfair The counterplan must still on<face compete !ith the plan. 5f our polic solves the best and avoids the disads) ou still should re7ect the plan.

197

THEORY MAGIC

consultation counterplans bad %ac

CONSULTATION COUNTERPLANS ARE UNFAIR AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. THEY FIAT MOVING TARGETS- THE OUTCOME OF THE COUNTERPLAN IS NEVER A STABLE ADVOCACY WHICH HI#ACKS OUR ABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE. 2. THEY AREN/T PREDICTABLE- THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF CONSULTABLE ACTORS/ HUNDREDS OF COUNTRIES, BILLIONS OF INDIVIDUALS, COUNTLESS ORGANI2ATIONS. 3. TIME FRAME FIAT- THIS MAKES IT EFFECTIVELY A DELAY COUNTERPLAN WHICH MEANS 4.
THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN NEVER WIN THE DEBATE BECAUSE THEY LL LOSE TIMEFRAME UNIQUENESS QUESTIONS. ERR AFF ON THIS THEORY- WE LL GRANT THEM THE RIGHT TO COUNTERPLANS AND EVEN PICS, BUT CONSULTATION COUNTERPLANS ARE UNIQUELY BAD.

198

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NC

1. TURN % THE STATE CP IS GOOD FOR DEBATE& A. TESTS THE WORD 0FEDERAL1- NO DISAD CAN SERVE TO TEST THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE RESOLUTION. ONLY THE STATES CP
ISOLATES THE ACTOR AND FORCES THE AFFIRMATIVE TO BE IN THE REALM OF NECESSARY FEDERAL ACTION. B. DECREASES TOPIC SI2E- WITHOUT *$ STATE FIAT WE D HAVE TO DEBATE AGAINST AN INFINITE NUMBER OF CASES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WASN T RELEVANT TO. C. INCREASES PREDICTABILITY! *$ STATE FIAT MAKES NEGATIVE PREPARATION MANAGEABLE B&C WE CAN ALWAYS ISOLATE THE AREAS WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE. THE AFF INTERPRETATION MAKES WINNING A NEGATIVE ROUND IMPOSSIBLE. THAT S A VOTER FOR GROUND AND FAIRNESS. D. INCREASES ARGUMENT DIVERSITY! THE AFF CAN CHOOSE FROM *$ DIFFERENT STATES TO RUN EACH DISAD TO OUR COUNTERPLAN. IT ISN T OUR FAULT IF THEY AREN T CREATIVE WITH RESEARCH. NO IMPACT TO THEIR ARGUMENTS& A. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY- THIS TOPIC IS HUGE, THE AFF HAS INFINITE PREP TIME, LAST SPEECH, AND #UGE BIAS. GIVE THE NEGATIVE MA"IMUM LEEWAY. B. BEST POLICY OPTION- DEBATE IS A SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY OPTION. THE AFF S INTERPRETATION FORECLOSES REALISTIC POLICY OPTIONS CRITICAL TO DEBATE. C. COMPETITION CHEC S- IF WE CAN WIN A DISAD, WE VE PROVEN A REASON THAT THE PLAN IS A BAD IDEA AND THERE IS A PREFERABLE POLICY ALTERNATIVE. YOU STILL VOTE NEGATIVE. D. ITS PREDICTABLE! THE CP IS RUN EVERY YEAR ON EVERY TOPIC. THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, NOT VOTE AGAINST OUR CP. E. ITS RECIPROCAL- THEY GET ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE FED GOVERNMENT AND EVERY FEDERAL COURT. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND LOTS OF CASES THE STATES CAN T SOLVE. F. IT/S A SHOULD*WOULD ARGUMENT- WE ONLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT. OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IDEALLY THE *$ STATES AND TERRITORIES SHOULD DO THE PLAN. THEIR ARGUMENT LEGITIMI2ES US MAKING PLAN REPEAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE AFF, IF THEY E"TEND THIS ARGUMENT, YOU SHOULD VOTE NEG ON PRESUMPTION BECAUSE THE PLAN WOULD GET OVERTURNED. NOT A VOTING ISSUE& A. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME IN THESE ARGUMENTS AND PUNISHMENT DOESN T FIT THE CRIME.

2.

3.

199

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD 2AC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT IS ABUSIVE AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. NOT PREDICTABLE- THERE ARE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL ACTORS THAT THE AFF CAN NEVER BE READY TO DEBATE. 2. LITERATURE- THE NEGATIVE SHOULD HAVE TO PRODUCE SOLVENCY EVIDENCE THAT 3. 4.
SPEAKS TO THE E"ACT MANDATES OF THE PLAN IN CONTE"T TO THEIR INTERNATIONAL ACTOR SO THAT THEY CAN ENSURE PREDICTABILITY WITHIN THE LITERATURE. BAD ADVOCACY MODEL- THE #UDGE IS SUPPOSED TO BE A U.S. POLICY MAKER, NOT HAVE INTERNATIONAL #URISDICTION. THESE TYPES OF COUNTERPLANS MAKE WORLD PEACE CPS AND UTOPIA CPS LEGITIMATE. INIFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THEY CAN HAVE AS MANY ACTORS AS THEY WANT AS WELL AS THE ABILITY TO FIAT THE OB#ECT OF RESOLUTION. THAT ALLOWS THEM TO LITERALLY FIAT OUT OUR ADVANTAGES AND WIN ON A SMALL RISK OF DISADS MEANING DEBATE IS NEVER FAIR OR PREDICTABLE. INTERNATIONAL ORGANI2ATIONS ARE UNI$UELY ABUSIVE- THEY COMPROMISE MULTIPLE COUNTRIES INCLUDING THE U.S. WHICH MAKES THEM PLAN-PLUS AND NOT COMPETITIVE, BECAUSE U.S. ACTION IS INVOLVED.

!.

200

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& DISPROVES THE RESOLUTION

1. THIS IS A SOLVENCY ARGUMENT, NOT A THEORY ARGUMENT. WE HAVE FAIRNESS CONCERNS REGARDING INTERNATIONAL ACTION- THIS IS NONRESPONSIVE. '. IT ISN T UNIQUE TO INTERNATIONAL COUNTERPLANS- THERE IS OTHER COUNTERPLAN GROUND THAT CAN DISPROVE THE RESOLUTION.

201

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& LITERATURE CHEC S

1. NOT TRUE- LOTS OF CRACKPOTS RIGHT STUPID STUFF THAT COULD BE DONE AS '. (.
COUNTERPLANS BUT THAT DOESN T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DEBATE IT. LITERATURE MAY E"IST FOR ONE SPECIFIC COUNTERPLAN BUT INTERNATIONAL FIAT SETS A PRECEDENT THAT ALLOWS FOR ANY INTERNATIONAL ACTOR OR ORGANI2ATION, WHICH IS TOO NUMEROUS TO EVER BE PREDICTABLE. GENERIC LITERATURE ABOUT ONE COUNTRY S ACTION DOESN T MAKE IT SPECIFIC- IT SHOULD SPEAK E"ACTLY TO THE MANDATES OF THE PLAN.

202

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& AGENT IS A EY RESOLUTION $UESTION

1. THERE ARE OTHER ACTORS OUTSIDE OF OTHER COUNTRIES- COUNTLESS DOMESTIC ACTORS COULD WORK TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. '. THIS #UST MEANS THAT TEAMS SHOULD BE MORE CREATIVE THAN TRYING TO MAKE UP SOME LAME INTERNATIONAL COUNTERPLAN, IT DOESN T #USTIFY A WORLD WITHOUT ANY PREDICTABLE LIMITS.

203

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD 2AR % OVERVIEW

INTERNATIONAL FIAT IS A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT 1. ALL OF THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE PREDICATED ON AN EDUCATIONAL GAIN WHICH IS A '.
MOOT POINT IN A WORLD WHERE DEBATE ISN T FAIR BECAUSE FAIRNESS IS A NECESSARY PRECURSOR TO EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- EVEN IF THEY CAN PROVIDE SOME SEMBLANCE OF LITERATURE ON THIS ACTOR IN A PARTICULAR REALM, IT CREATES A WORLD WHICH #USTIFIES ANY INTERNATIONAL ACTOR THAT THE AFF CAN NEVER PREPARE FOR. IT ALSO ALLOWS ANY NUMBER OF ACTORS WHICH IS UNIQUELY UNLIMITING. IT CREATES AN UNMEETABLE AFF BURDEN OF DISPROVING THE ABILITY OF EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO SOLVE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM- THE LACK OF LITERATURE ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS QUESTION PROVES THAT THESE COUNTERPLANS ARE NOT PREDICTABLE. ERR AFF ON THIS THEORY QUESTION- WHILE MOST THEORY MAY GO NEG, THE ABILITY TO REACH BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PREDICTABLE LIMITS AND FIAT ANY INTERNATIONAL ACTOR MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AFF TO EVER WIN AND NECESSITATES AN AFFIRMATIVE BALLOT.

(.

).

204

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD 2NC

1. DISPROVES THE RESOLUTION- IF WE PROVE THAT AN INTERNATIONAL ACTOR IS CAPABLE OF DOING THE PLAN THERE IS NO REASON TO VOTE AFF. 2. LITERATURE CHEC S- THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DEBATE THE COUNTERPLAN IF 3. 4. !. ". #. -.
THERE IS SOLVENCY EVIDENCE IN THE CONTE"T OF THE ACTOR AND THE MANDATES OF THEIR PLAN. MORE REAL WORLD- HISTORY PROVES THAT MULTIPLE ACTORS ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THE SAME ACTIONS. BEST POLICY OPTION- THE #UDGE S ONLY BURDEN IS TO CHOOSE THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM, INTERNATIONAL ACTORS ALLOW THAT. AGENT IS !+, OF THE RESOLUTION- THERE IS A REASON THE RESOLUTION SAYS THE USFG, THUS WE SHOULD E"AMINE OTHER COUNTRIES. NET BENEFITS CHEC ANY ABUSE- IF ANOTHER AGENT IS IRRELEVANT IT EITHER WILL NOT SOLVE OR ELSE LACKS NET BENEFITS. IT IS EY TO CHEC AFFIRMATIVE SIDE BAIS- THEY HAVE INFINITE PREP TIME AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE DISTINGUISHING THEIR ACTOR FROM OTHERS. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME ON THEORY AND THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

205

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD 2NR % OVERVIEW

INTERNATIONAL FIAT IS GOOD FOR DEBATE 1. BEST POLICY OPTION- DEBATE IS A SEARCH FOR THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE THE HARMS OF THE 1AC. IF WE CAN PROVE THAT ANOTHER ACTOR DOES THAT BEST, IT SHOULD SUBSUME LAME THEORY DEBATES. '. NO ABUSE- OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT WE GET ONE INTERNATIONAL ACTOR OR ORGANI2ATION GROUNDED IN THE LITERATURE. THIS ANSWERS A FEW OF THEIR ARGUMENTS. A. ITS PREDICTABLE- THE LITERATURE QUALIFICATION MEANS THAT THEY SHOULD SEE IT COMING AND BE ABLE TO PREPARE ANSWERS. B. ITS NOT INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- WE WONT EVER ABUSE MULTIPLE ACTOR FIAT BY USING 1$ COUNTRIES THAT ARE TOTALLY UNRELATED. (. TESTING- THE NEGATIVE S #OB IS TO DISPROVE AND TEST THE 1AC AND THE RESOLUTION. THIS EFFECTIVELY TESTS THEIR SOLVENCY CLAIMS AND THE USFG ASPECT OF THE RESOLUTION. THIS IS UNIQUELY CRITICAL TO CAPTURING ANY OF THEIR EDUCATION ARGUMENTS. ). ERR NEGATIVE ON QUESTIONS OF THEORY- WE RE #UST TRYING TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. AT WORST, SINCE WE VE ANSWERED THE THEORY AND INVESTED TIME, THEY VE PRODUCED A REASON TO RE#ECT THE COUNTERPLAN BUT NOT THE TEAM.

206

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& (UDGE IS A US POLICYMA ER

1. THIS ARGUMENT IS STUPID- THE #UDGE IS SUPPOSED TO VOTE FOR THE BEST POLICY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. IF AN INTERNATIONAL ACTOR SOLVES BEST, THEY SHOULD VOTE THERE. '. NO RESOLUTIONAL BASIS- THE RESOLUTION SAYS THAT THE USFG SHOULD DO SOMETHING BUT THAT MANDATE APPLIES ONLY TO THE AFFIRMATIVE, NOT THE #UDGE.

207

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT 2NR % AT& INTERNATIONAL ORGS ) MULTIPLE COUNTRIES

1. INTERNATIONAL ORGANI2ATIONS ARE TREATED AS ONE ACTOR AND ARE THUS FAIR FIAT GROUND BECAUSE THEY ACT IN UNISON BY NATURE. '. THIS IS NO MORE ABUSIVE THAN SAYING USFG AND MEANING ALL OF THE CONGRESSMEN, SENATORS, PRESIDENT, AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORKERS. THEY ARE #UST TRYING TO MAKE OURS SEEM WORSE.

208

THEORY MAGIC

INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& INFINITELY REGRESSIVE

1. OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT WE GET ONE INTERNATIONAL ACTOR GROUNDED IN THE LITERATURE. THIS SOVLES ALL OF THE INFINITE REGRESSION ARGUMENTS- IF LITERATURE SUPPORTS ANY SINGLE COUNTRY, THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED. '. WE WONT EVER FIAT BEYOND ONE SINGLE COUNTRY OR ORGANI2ATION, WHICH ARE
ALL EQUALLY FAIR USES OF FIAT AS FIATING THE ENTIRETY OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

209

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 2AC (LONG)

*$ STATE FIAT IS ABUSIVE AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. IT ISN/T RECIPROCAL- THE AFF ONLY FIATS THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHILE THE NEGATIVE FIATS THROUGH ALL *$ STATE GOVERNMENTS. THIS GIVES THEM A HUGE ADVANTAGE. '. !+ STATE FIAT IS UTOPIAN- THE STATES HAVE NEVER SIMULTANEOUSLY ADOPTED THE E"ACT SAME POLICY. UTOPIANISM IS BAD A. IT HURTS EDUCATION BY PREVENTING REAL WORLD DEBATE B. CRUSHES THE AFF S ABILITY TO DEBATE THE COUNTERPLAN BECAUSE THERE IS NO LITERATURE THAT DISCUSSES THIS ABSURD SITUATION WHERE ALL *$ STATES ACT TOGETHER. (. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE % IF THE NEGATIVE CAN FIAT THROUGH THE STATES, THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING THEM FROM FIATING EVERY LOCALITY, OR INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. THE AFF CAN NEVER BE PREPARED TO DEBATE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF COUNTERPLANS. ). THE (UDGE CANT ENDORSE THE COUNTERPLAN ! IT HAS *$ PIECES OF LEGISLATION PASS AT ONCE. ONE PERSON COULD NEVER ENACT *$ POLICIES. THE PLAN IS ONE. PREFER AFF. *. ITS NOT PREDICTABLE- NO LITERATURE SUPPORTS *$ STATE ACTION. 0. MOOTS THE 1AC- IT MAKES DEBATE ABOUT THE ACTORS, NOT THE MERITS OF SOLVENCY. 1. ARGUMENT DIVERSITY- GENERIC COUNTERPLANS LIKE STATES GET RECYCLED FROM YEAR-TO-YEAR AND KILL TOPIC SPECIFIC EDUCATION WHICH IS THE BACKBONE OF DEBATE.

210

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 2AC (SHORT)

*$ STATE FIAT IS ABUSIVE AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. IT ISN/T RECIPROCAL- THE AFF ONLY FIATS THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHILE THE NEGATIVE FIATS THROUGH ALL *$ STATE GOVERNMENTS. THIS GIVES THEM A HUGE ADVANTAGE. 2. !+ STATE FIAT IS UTOPIAN- THE STATES HAVE NEVER SIMULTANEOUSLY ADOPTED THE E"ACT SAME POLICY. UTOPIANISM IS BAD C. IT HURTS EDUCATION BY PREVENTING REAL WORLD DEBATE D. CRUSHES THE AFF S ABILITY TO DEBATE THE COUNTERPLAN BECAUSE THERE IS NO LITERATURE THAT DISCUSSES THIS ABSURD SITUATION WHERE ALL *$ STATES ACT TOGETHER. 3. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE % IF THE NEGATIVE CAN FIAT THROUGH THE STATES, THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING THEM FROM FIATING EVERY LOCALITY, OR INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. THE AFF CAN NEVER BE PREPARED TO DEBATE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF COUNTERPLANS. 4. ITS NOT PREDICTABLE- NO LITERATURE SUPPORTS *$ STATE ACTION. !. MOOTS THE 1AC- IT MAKES DEBATE ABOUT THE ACTORS, NOT THE MERITS OF SOLVENCY.

211

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 1AR (ALL ARGS)

STATE FIAT IS BAD AND A VOTER FOR FAIRNESS. A COUPLE OF ARGUMENTS THAT ANSWER ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE. 1. THE NET BENEFIT ALONE SOLVES ALL OF THEIR EDUCATION-BASED OFFENSE- WE CAN STILL DISCUSS STATES RIGHTS ISSUES WITH FEDERALISM DISADS, ETC. '. AGENT COUNTERPLANS SOLVE THEIR FAIRNESS-BASED OFFENSE- THEY HAVE OTHER (. ). *. 0. 1. +. 9.
GENERIC COUNTERPLANS THAT DON T DESTROY THE FAIRNESS OF RECIPROCAL FIAT POWERS. NO LITERATURE- THEIR AUTHORS DON T DISCUSS SIMULTANEOUS *$ STATE ACTION MEANING THERE IS NO LEVEL OF PREDICTABILITY. RECIPROCITY- THIS E"PLODES THE NUMBER OF ACTORS THEY CAN EMPLOY, OPENING THE DOOR TO ABUSIVE PROCEDURAL COUNTERPLANS. DON T NEED IN ROUND ABUSE- IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD TO OB#ECTIVELY MEASURE. DEFAULT TO COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS. DESTROYS EDUCATION- THIS UNDERMINES ARGUMENT DIVERSITY TO NEAR-UNIVERSAL APPLICATION. NO IMPACT TO BEST POLICY OPTION- DEBATE IS A GAME, IT MUST BE FAIR. STATE FIAT LINK TURNS AND MAGNIFIES SIDE BIAS- WE CAN T USE THE 1AC AS OFFENSE. SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN A TIE BREAKER. RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT #UST THE ARGUMENT- WE SHOULDN T HAVE TO WIN A THEORY DEBATE TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.

212

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& ITS RUN EVERY YEAR

1. TURN/ THIS PROVES A LACK OF ARGUMENTATIVE DIVERSITY. THEIR STANDARD ALLOWS FOR SHALLOW DEBATE WHICH AVOIDS THE QUESTION OF SPECIFIC TOPIC ISSUES. VOTER FOR EDUCATION. '. THE FACT THAT PEOPLE RUN AN ABUSIVE COUNTERPLAN EVERY YEAR DOESN T MEAN
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TO PREDICT IT AND WRITE STRATEGIES WHEN IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET SPECIFIC 1AC OFFENSE.

213

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& COMPETITION CHEC S

1. ANYONE CAN CREATE AN ARTIFICIALLY COMPETITIVE-BUT-ABUSIVE COUNTERPLAN, THAT DOESN T MAKE IT LEGITIMATE. '. THIS DOESN T ANSWER OUR LITERATURE OR UTOPIANISM STANDARDS- THERE IS STILL NOT PREDICTABILITY TO THEIR COMPETITIVE COUNTERPLAN. (. THIS #UST MEANS THAT THEY COULD HAVE RUN THE NET BENEFIT ALONE AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO CAPTURE ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE.

214

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& ITS SHOULD*WOULD

(. THIS IS A BAD NEGATION THEORY ARGUMENT- DON T FAVOR UNWARRANTED CLAIMS ABOUT TESTING WITHOUT REASONS WHY IT SUBSUMES OUR ABUSE CLAIMS. ). THIS PROVES OUR UTOPIANISM ARGUMENT- MAYBE THEY CAN PROVE THAT THE *$ STATES ,SHOULD- DO IT, BUT MAGICAL ALIENS ALSO ,SHOULD- STOP THE PROBLEM FROM HAPPENING- THAT DOESN T MAKE THOSE COUNTERPLANS PREDICTABLE OR BASED IN THE LITERATURE.

215

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 1AR % AT& TESTS FEDERAL

1. THERE ARE OTHER AGENTS THAT CAN BE USED TO TEST FEDERAL THAT DON T VIOLATE STANDARDS OF FIAT- ONE ACTOR. '. THIS ISN T AN OFFENSIVE REASON TO PREFER TESTING OVER POTENTIAL ABUSE CLAIMS- IF WE WIN ANY REASON *$ STATE FIAT IS BAD, ERR AFF.

216

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT BAD 2AR % OVERVIEW

*$ STATE FIAT IS A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT 1. INFINITE REGRESSION- THIS IS THE ONLY STANDARD WE NEED TO WIN. TO #USTIFY THE FIAT OF *$ DIFFERENT ACTORS IN A UTOPIAN MANNER DEVOLVES NEGATIVE FIAT GROUND INTO AN INFINITE NUMBER OF LOCALITIES, PRINCIPALITIES, INDIVIDUALS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES. THE AFF CAN NEVER PREDICT OR PREPARE FOR THOSE COUNTERPLANS, EVEN IF THIS RECYCLED GARBAGE IS COMMON. '. IT ISN T RECIPROCAL- THE AFF ONLY FIATS ONE MA#OR ACTOR IN UNISON AS OPPOSED TO A SPECIFICATION OF *$ AGENTS WHO DON T EVER ACT IN UNISON. (. ITS UTOPIAN- TO SUSPEND REALITY AND ENVISION WHAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN
DESTROYS REAL WORLD DEBATE EDUCATION AND MOOTS THE VALUE OF GOOD RESEARCH BECAUSE IT ALLOWS GOOD TEAMS TO CREATE ARTIFICIAL, ABUSIVE, AND BAD COUNTERPLANS TO WIN. THE NET BENEFIT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT- THEIR OFFENSE IS ALL EDUCATION RELATED, AND OUR INTEPRETATION ALLOWS THEM TO RUN THE NET BENEFIT SEPERATELY AND GAIN ALL OF THEIR EDUCATION MEANING THAT OUR FAIRNESS CLAIMS TRUMP. EVEN IF WE LOSE IN-ROUND ABUSE DISTINCTIONS, YOU SHOULD DEFAULT TO COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS ON THEORY- IT S THE ONLY OB#ECTIVE WAY TO ENVISION THE WAY THAT DEBATE SHOULD LOOK AND NOT MAKE SUB#ECTIVE DETERMINATIONS.

). *.

217

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NC (LONG)

1. TURN % THE STATE CP IS GOOD FOR DEBATE A. TESTS THE WORD ,FEDERAL.- NO DISAD CAN SERVE TO TEST THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE RESOLUTION. ONLY THE STATES CP
ISOLATES THE ACTOR AND FORCES THE AFFIRMATIVE TO BE IN THE REALM OF NECESSARY FEDERAL ACTION. B. DECREASES TOPIC SI2E. WITHOUT *$ STATE FIAT WE D HAVE TO DEBATE AGAINST AN INFINITE NUMBER OF CASES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WASN T RELEVANT TO. C. INCREASES PREDICTABILITY ! *$ STATE FIAT MAKES NEGATIVE PREPARATION MANAGEABLE B&C WE CAN ALWAYS ISOLATE THE AREAS WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE. THE AFF INTERPRETATION MAKES WINNING A NEGATIVE ROUND IMPOSSIBLE. THAT S A VOTER FOR GROUND AND FAIRNESS. D. INCREASES ARGUMENT DIVERSITY ! THE AFF CAN CHOOSE FROM *$ DIFFERENT STATES TO RUN EACH DISAD TO OUR COUNTERPLAN. IT ISN T OUR FAULT IF THEY AREN T CREATIVE WITH RESEARCH. NO IMPACT TO THEIR ARGUMENTS A. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY. THIS TOPIC IS HUGE, THE AFF HAS INFINITE PREP TIME, LAST SPEECH, AND #UGE BIAS. GIVE THE NEGATIVE MA"IMUM LEEWAY. B. BEST POLICY OPTION ! DEBATE IS A SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY OPTION. THE AFF S INTERPRETATION FORECLOSES REALISTIC POLICY OPTIONS CRITICAL TO DEBATE. C. COMPETITION CHECKS ! IF WE CAN WIN A DISAD, WE VE PROVEN A REASON THAT THE PLAN IS A BAD IDEA AND THERE IS A PREFERABLE POLICY ALTERNATIVE. YOU STILL VOTE NEGATIVE. D. ITS PREDICTABLE ! THE CP IS RUN EVERY YEAR ON EVERY TOPIC. THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, NOT VOTE AGAINST OUR CP. E. ITS RECIPROCAL ! THEY GET ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE FED GOVERNMENT AND EVERY FEDERAL COURT. THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND LOTS OF CASES THE STATES CAN T SOLVE. F. IT S A SHOULD&WOULD ARGUMENT ! WE ONLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT. OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IDEALLY THE *$ STATES AND TERRITORIES SHOULD DO THE PLAN. THEIR ARGUMENT LEGITIMI2ES US MAKING PLAN REPEAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE AFF, IF THEY E"TEND THIS ARGUMENT, YOU SHOULD VOTE NEG ON PRESUMPTION BECAUSE THE PLAN WOULD GET OVERTURNED. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME IN THESE ARGUMENTS AND PUNISHMENT DOESN T FIT THE CRIME.

2.

3.

218

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NC (SHORT)

1. TURN % THE STATE CP IS GOOD FOR DEBATE A. TESTS THE WORD ,FEDERAL.- NO DISAD CAN SERVE TO TEST THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE RESOLUTION. ONLY THE STATES CP
ISOLATES THE ACTOR AND FORCES THE AFFIRMATIVE TO BE IN THE REALM OF NECESSARY FEDERAL ACTION. B. DECREASES TOPIC SI2E. WITHOUT *$ STATE FIAT WE D HAVE TO DEBATE AGAINST AN INFINITE NUMBER OF CASES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WASN T RELEVANT TO. C. INCREASES PREDICTABILITY ! *$ STATE FIAT MAKES NEGATIVE PREPARATION MANAGEABLE B&C WE CAN ALWAYS ISOLATE THE AREAS WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE. THE AFF INTERPRETATION MAKES WINNING A NEGATIVE ROUND IMPOSSIBLE. THAT S A VOTER FOR GROUND AND FAIRNESS. NO IMPACT TO THEIR ARGUMENTS A. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY. THIS TOPIC IS HUGE, THE AFF HAS INFINITE PREP TIME, LAST SPEECH, AND #UGE BIAS. GIVE THE NEGATIVE MA"IMUM LEEWAY. B. BEST POLICY OPTION ! DEBATE IS A SEARCH FOR THE BEST POLICY OPTION. THE AFF S INTERPRETATION FORECLOSES REALISTIC POLICY OPTIONS CRITICAL TO DEBATE. C. ITS PREDICTABLE ! THE CP IS RUN EVERY YEAR ON EVERY TOPIC. THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IS TO CHANGE THE TOPIC, NOT VOTE AGAINST OUR CP. D. IT S A SHOULD&WOULD ARGUMENT ! WE ONLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT. OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT IDEALLY THE *$ STATES AND TERRITORIES SHOULD DO THE PLAN. THEIR ARGUMENT LEGITIMI2ES US MAKING PLAN REPEAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE AFF, IF THEY E"TEND THIS ARGUMENT, YOU SHOULD VOTE NEG ON PRESUMPTION BECAUSE THE PLAN WOULD GET OVERTURNED. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- WE VE INVESTED TIME IN THESE ARGUMENTS AND PUNISHMENT DOESN T FIT THE CRIME.

2.

3.

219

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NR % OVERVIEW

STATE FIAT IS GOOD 1. ITS CRITICAL TO TESTING THE AFFIRMATIVE INCLUDING THE WORLD FEDERAL IN THE RESOLUTION. THE STATES COUNTERPLAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHICH CAN EFFECTIVELY '. (. ). *. 0.
ISOLATE THE ACTOR AND FORCE THE AFFIRMATIVE INTO THE NECESSARY FEDERAL REALM. IT IS RECIPROCAL- THEY ARE USING MULTIPLE BRANCHES AND ORGANI2ATIONS WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEY #UST DON T SPECIFY. OUR INTERPRETATION FORECLOSES INFINITE REGRESSION- WE WILL ONLY SPECIFY THE *$ STATES AND NEVER BEYOND THAT. THIS IS A FAIR INTERPRETATION BECAUSE IT PRESERVES AFF AND NEGATIVE GROUND, CAPTURING BOTH SIDES OFFENSE. BEST POLICY OPTION ANSWERS ALL OF THEIR EDUCATION CLAIMS- *$ STATE FIAT MAY BE UTOPIAN BUT IT PROVIDES FULL ASSURANCE THAT THE BALLOT ENDORSES THE BEST METHOD FOR SOLVING THE HARMS OF THE 1AC. NO IMPACT TO UTOPIANISM- EVEN IF THERE IS LITTLE LITERATURE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE COUNTERPLAN AND THE *$ STATES RARELY WORK IN UNISON, WE LL USE OUR COUNTERPLAN AS AN AVENUE TO ENVISION WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY- WE RE TRYING TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD AND THEIR ARGUMENTS PROVIDE, AT BEST, A REASON TO RE#ECT THE COUNTERPLAN, NOT THE TEAM.

220

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& ITS UTOPIAN

1. 1. THE ENTIRE 1AC IS UTOPIAN- INCLUDING NUCLEAR WAR IMPACTS. THIS ARGUMENT IS NON-UNIQUE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF DEBATE ARGUMENTS. '. TURN- UTOPIANISM IS GOOD. IT ALLOWS US TO ENVISION AND WORK TOWARD A WORLD THAT SHOULD BE. (. NO IMPACT- EVEN IF THEY WIN THIS ARGUMENT, IT ISN T A REASON TO RE#ECT THE COUNTERPLAN.

221

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& INFINITELY REGRESSIVE

1. 1. OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT WE GET THE STATES COUNTERPLAN, WE WONT FIAT OTHER INDIVIDUAL ACTORS. '. POTENTIAL ABUSE ISN T A VOTING ISSUE- WE COULD ALWAYS BE DOING SOMETHING ABUSIVE, THE DISTINCTION SHOULD BE WHETHER WE ARE. (. RECIPROCAL- THEY COULD INFINITELY SPECIFY DOWN TO A MINUTIA OF ACTORS WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

222

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& NO LITERATURE

1. 1. NOT TRUE, LITERATURE SUPPORTING ,STATE ACTION- IS WRITTEN FROM THE HOPEFUL PERSPECTIVE OF EVERY STATE ACTING IN UNISON. '. NO IMPACT TO THIS ARGUMENT- EVEN IF NO ONE SPECIFICALLY WRITES OF ALL *$ STATES DOING IT AT ONCE, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE LITERATURE THAT THEY CANT OR WONT. WE LL PROVIDE PROOF THAT STATE ACTION IS GOOD IN AN INSTANCE AND USE THAT TO DRAW OUR CONCLUSIONS.

223

THEORY MAGIC

!+ STATE FIAT GOOD 2NR % AT& IT ISN/T RECIPROCAL

1. THIS IS SHORTSIGHTED- THEY ARE TREATING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS IF IT IS ONE ENTITY- IT ISN T. THEIR FIAT NECESSARILY MEANS THE FAIT OF COUNTLESS OTHER AGENCIES AND SUB ACTORS, WE #UST SPECIFY. '. RECIPROCITY IS IRRELEVANT- WE RE NEGATIVE. THE RESOLUTION MANDATES SINGLEACTOR USFG GROUND, EVERYTHING ELSE IS OURS.

224

THEORY MAGIC

PERMS % SEVERANCE BAD

1. STRATEGY S EW- NOT KNOWING WHETHER THE PLAN WILL CHANGE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NEGATIVE TO FORM A COHESIVE STRATEGY. 2. GROUND- THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN PERMUTE TO DO THE CP WHICH HURTS COMPETITIVE EQUITY. 3. DESTROYS DISAD GROUND- THE AFF COULD SEVER PARTS OF PLAN TO AVOID DISAD LNKS. 4. THIS IS A VOTER FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION.

225

THEORY MAGIC

SEVERANCE PERMUTATIONS GOOD

1. +RO=E> THE +9'N 5> ' 1OO, 5,E'. The portion of the plan in the permutation is 7ustified) !hich means that there is a !arrant to vote affirmative. %. RE-5+RO-'9 -ounterplans serve to alter the baseline neg advocac . We should be able to amend the plan) the aff advocac ) the same !a . *. NO '3;>E We made the argument in a constructive) %'-) so the had time to respond in the debate. 5t?s not our fault the !asted time ma.ing theor args instead of substantive responses. 0. TO+5-'95TY -HE-@> '99 '3;>E 'ff should be allo!ed to alter the plan as much as the !ant in %'- as long as it?s still topical. 5f it?s topical) then neg should be prepared to debate it) and the have the bloc. to ans!er it. 8. NO =OT5N1 5>>;E 5f the !in the theor then the perm goes a!a ) but the plan ma still be 7ustified. There?s no specific abuse and ou shouldn?t vote on potential abuse because if the abuse happened in the future) specific args !ould al!a s chec..

226

THEORY MAGIC

perms A timeframe bad

1. '. (. 4.
ILLS COUNTERPLAN GROUND- IT FUNCTIONALLY ALLOWS INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS WHICH MEANS THE NEGATIVE CAN NEVER COMPETE. ALL COUNTERPLANS WOULD BE DEFEATED BY TIMEFRAME PERMS. (USTIFIES FUTURE FIAT ! IT ALLOWS BOTH TEAMS TO FIAT OUT OF THE INTERNAL LINK TO ANY ADVANTAGE OR DISAD BY BANNING IT IN THE FUTURE. THIS IS BAD FOR BOTH TEAMS. DISAD GROUND- THE AFF COULD ALWAYS PASS THE PLAN IN THE FUTURE TO GET OUT OF DISAD LINKS. THIS CRUSHES NEGATIVE GROUND AND COMPETITIVE EQUITY. IT ALSO KILLS EDUCATION BY MOOTING TIME SENSITIVE ISSUES. THIS IS A VOTER FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION.

227

THEORY MAGIC

TIME FRAME PERMUTATIONS GOOD

1. +RO=E> THE +9'N 5> ' 1OO, 5,E'. The plan is not a time<bound claim<<it sa s the ;>&1 should) but it doesn?t sa !hen. The perm proves the plan is a true statement. %. @EY TO '&& 1RO;N, Time frame permutations are the onl !a to chec. dela counterplans) !hich are the !orst argument in debate<<the ma.e an disad automaticall out!eigh the case and ma.e 1'- irrelevant) giving neg B e2tra minutes of speech time. *. NO >E=ER'N-E The !ord immediatel isn?t in our plan<<the can?t point to a single !ord in the plan that the permutation severs. +erms that include the !hole plan b definition are nonabusive<< it 7ust proves the -+ doesn?t compete. 0. NO '3;>E We made the argument in a constructive) %'-) so the had time to respond in the debate. 5t?s not our fault the !asted time ma.ing theor args instead of substantive responses. 8. NO =OT5N1 5>>;E 5f the !in the theor then the perm goes a!a ) but the plan ma still be 7ustified. There?s no specific abuse and ou shouldn?t vote on potential abuse because if the abuse happened in the future) specific args !ould al!a s chec..

228

THEORY MAGIC

INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS GOOD

1. +RO=E> THE +9'N 5> 1OO, The !hole plan is in the permutation. 'dding an enabling mechanism 7ust proves that the -+ doesn?t compete. %. 3E>T +O95-Y 's a 7udge ou rolepla the ;>&1<<the perm is a logical polic <<the logic of polic ma.ing is the onl alternative to !holl arbitrar theor that .ills predictable ground. *. RE-5+RO-'9 Neg tests the intrinsicness of advantages !ith counterplans) and it?s crucial to affirmative ground that !e can reciprocall chec. the intrinsicness of disadvantages and counterplans. 0. TO+5-'95TY -HE-@> '99 '3;>E 'ff should be allo!ed to alter the plan as much as the !ant in %'-<<the - stands for constructive. 5f it?s topical) then neg should be prepared to debate it) and the have the bloc. to ans!er it. 8. &O-;>5N1 ON 5NTR5N>5- /ER5T> 5> 1OO, 5t?s better form of polic ma.ing to e2amine the intrinsic merits of the plan<<it chec.s generic and irrelevant arguments) and boosts specific topic education. :. ,OE>N?T H;RT NE1 1RO;N, You 7ust need to run a counteprlan that has a net benefit that can?t be avoided through additional polic action. >pecific net benefits are better for neg ground<< ou 7ust have to put in some research time and !rite one. C. NO =OT5N1 5>>;E 5f the !in the theor then the perm goes a!a ) but the plan is still be 7ustified. There?s no abuse if ou re7ect the perm.

229

THEORY MAGIC

perms A intrinsicness bad

1. OUT INTERPRETATION& TO BE LEGIT, A PERMUTATION CAN ONLY CONTAIN THE ENTIRE PLAN AND ALL OR PART OF THE CP. 2. THE PERM IS ILLEGIT ! IT CONTAINS COMPONENTS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE COUNTERPLAN. 3. PLAN IS THE FOCUS OF DEBATE ! SHIFTS IN ADVOCACY ARE THEREFORE ILLEGITIMATE ! IF THEY CAN CHANGE AROUND THE PLAN WE COULD NEVER NEGATE IT WHICH KILLS OUR GROUND. 4. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE ! IF WE CP OUT THE NEW PART OF THE PERM, THEY MAKE ANOTHER INTRINSICNESS RESPONSE.. WHICH COULD KEEP GOING UNTIL THE 'AR. !. ILLS NEGATIVE GROUND ! THEY USE INTRINSICNESS TO TEST THE LINK TO THE CP ! THEY COULD NO LINK OR DISADS AND T VIOLATIONS BY ALWAYS CHANGING THEIR PLAN ! WHICH MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO WIN. ". ARGUMENTATIVE IRRESPONSIBILITY ! THEY MAKE A NEW POLICY OPTION AND NEVER REALLY HAVE TO ADVOCATE, E"PLAIN OR E"TEND IT ! EVEN THOUGH IT HAS ALL OF THE COMPLE"ITIES OF THE 1AC PLAN TE"T. #. VOTING ISSUE ! FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION, EVEN IF THEY DON T GO FOR THE PERMUTATION.

230

THEORY MAGIC

PERMS % AT& CAN/T PERM A RITI

1. THE CRITI$UE ACTS LI E A PIC- IT DOES SOME OR ALL OF THE PLAN E"CEPT IT HAS AN ALTERNATIVE. THAT #USTIFIES A PERM. 2. TESTING- #UST LIKE THE KRITIK TESTS THE PLAN, THE PERM CAN TEST THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE KRITIK. 3. EDUCATION- PERMS ENCOURAGE INDEPTH DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION OF THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. 4. PERFORMANCE AND ADVOCACY (USTIFY CONDITIONALITY A. TRUE ADVOCATES AD#UST TO OVERCOME FLAWS AND COMBINE IDEAS. B. IF ADVOCACY IS TRULY THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT, THE RULES OF DEBATE SHOULDN T MATTER.

231

THEORY MAGIC

CONSULTATION BAD % AT& MULTIPLE PERMS BAD

1. THE COUNTERPLAN FORCED MULTIPLE PERMS- CONSULTATION SETS UP MULTIPLE WORLDS. THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN ONLY TEST THEM WITH MULTIPLE PERMS. A NONCONSULTATION COUNTERPLAN SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE. '. THE PERMS ARE ONLY TESTS- THE AFF NEVER HAS THE OPTION OF ADVOCATING THEM WHICH MEANS THEY NEVER REPRESENT MULTIPLE WORLDS. (. PERMUTATIONS ARE MORE PREDICTABLE THAN CONSULTATION COUNTERPLANSPERMS ARE LIMITED BY THE TE"T OF THE COUNTERPLAN.

232

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS BAD 1AR

NEW COUNTERPLANS IN THE 'AC ARE ABUSIVE AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. (USTIFIES INTRINSICNESS PERMS- IT TESTS THE GERMAINENESS OF THE AFF S ADVANTAGES TO THE PLAN, SO THE AFF SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THAT SAME TEST AGAINST THE NEG S DISAD LINKS. 2. STRATEGY S EW- THE COUNTERPLAN FORCES THE AFFIRMATIVE TO REACT TO THE CREATION OF A COMPLETELY NEW WORLD BY THE NEGATIVE. IT EFFECTIVELY MAKES THE 1AC AND THE 'AC IRRELEVATION, FORCING THE AFF TO START THE DEBATE IN THE 1AR. 3. MOVING TARGET- THE 1NC S ENDORSEMENT OF THE STATUS QUO MEANS THAT THE 'NC COUNTERPLAN IS AN ADMENMDENT TO THE 1NC POLICY OPTION. THIS #USTIFIES 'AC AMENDMENTS AND SEVERANCES, WHICH KILLS DEBATE AND HURTS AFF AND NEG GROUND. 4. EDUCATION- THE COUNTERPLAN PREVENTS IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS BY FORCING OUR ORIGINAL DEBATE TO SHIFT AFTER THE BLOCK. !. (USTIFIES 1AR MISTA ES- THE STRATEGY SKEW FROM THE NEW WORLD VIEW SHOULD #USTIFY SCANT E"PLANATION ON OTHER 1AR FLOWS.

233

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AR OVERVIEW

NEW 'NC COUNTERPLANS ARE A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT 1. ITS NOT PREDICTABLE- WE MAKE STRATEGIC DECISIONS IN THE 'AC BASED ON 1NC NEGATIVE STRATEGY. TO ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE LATER MEANS THAT WE CAN NEVER ADEQUATELY PREPARE AND DEPLOY OFFENSE. THERE ARE TWO IMPLICATIONS A. FAIRNESS- THIS SHOULD TRUMP EDUCATIONAL CONCERNS BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY A RIGGED GAME. TO ALLOW THEM TO SHIFT THEIR ADVOCACY LINK TURNS AND MAGNIFIES ALL SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS, WHICH SHOULD ONLY BE USED IN THE CASE OF A TIE BREAKER. B. EDUCATION- IN DEPTH DISCUSSION IN DEBATE IS PREDICATED UPON STABLE ADVOCACIES THROUGHOUT THE ROUND. TO ALLOW THIS SORT OF SHIFT ENSURES THAT DEBATE IS MEANINGLESS. '. MOVING TARGET- IT ALLOWS THEM TO CHANGE THEIR ADVOCACY TO SPIKE OUT OF 'AC OFFENSE. WE CAN T USE THE 1AR TO EFFECTIVELY MAKE NEW ANSWERS, SO WE LL ALWAYS LOSE. (. IT #USTIFIES INTRINISICNESS ARGUMENTS- IF THE ENTIRE GOAL OF THE COUNTERPLAN IS TO TEST THE GERMAINENESS OF OUR ADVANTAGES, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE SAME LINK TEST ON THEIR DISADS AND NET BENEFIT. ). WE CAN WIN IN ROUND AND POTENTIAL ABUSE- IT MOOTS THE VALUE OF THE 'AC AND SKEWS THE 1ARS ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY MAKE STRATEGIC DECISIONS ON OTHER FLOWS. THIS STRATEGY SKEW ISN T RECIPROCAL AND THE ONLY IN ROUND ABUSE. THIS TRUMPS ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE.

234

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AR % AT& BEST POLICY OPTION

1. THE OFFENSE HERE IS BASED ON EDUCATION- FAIRNESS CLAIMS SHOULD TRUMP EDUCATION BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY A RIGGED GAME/ FAIR RULES ARE A PREREQUISITE TO EDUCATIONAL DISCUSSION. '. TURN- THE BEST POLICY IS ONLY WARRANTED IF IT IS FULLY DISCUSSED. NEW 'NC
COUNTERPLANS ENCOURAGE SHALLOW POLICY DISCUSSION AND INFLATE THE VALUE OF POORLY CONSTRUCTED POLICY OPTIONS.

235

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AR % AT& 2AC CRITICAL THIN ING
1. TURN- THIS DISCOURAGES 'AC CRITICAL THINKING BECAUSE IT DISCOURAGES MAKING THE BEST ANSWERS WHICH WOULD FORCE THE NEGATIVE INTO 'NC COUNTERPLANS. '. NO THRESHOLD- WE CAN DEVELOP CRITICAL THINKING AND EDUCATION WITHOUT NEW 'NC COUNTERPLANS. CRITICAL THINKING ISN T GERMAINE TO THIS ABUSE.

236

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AR % AT& IT/S A CONSTRUCTIVE

1. THIS ARGUMENT HAS NO WARRANT- #UST BECAUSE IT IS A CONSTRUCTIVE DOESN T MEAN THAT NEW WORLD VIEWS SHOULD BE READ. THE CONSTRUCTIVE SHOULD BE USED TO FULLY CONSTRUCT THE POORLY-LAID-OUT ARGUMENTS OF THE 1NC. '. THIS STANDARD #USTIFIES READING HALF OF THE AFF CASE IN THE 1AC AND THE OTHER HALF IN THE 'AC. QUESTIONS OF GROUND AND FAIRNESS SUBSUME.

237

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS BAD 2AR % AT& MOOTS 1NC COUNTERPLAN VALUE
1. NO IMPACT- THEIR 1NC COUNTERPLANS SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO OUR 'AC ANSWERS. '. THAT S THE VALUE OF THE 'AC- ADD ONS ARE A STRATEGIC CHOICE THAT WE CAN USE TO CHECK BACK AGAINST THE POWER OF COUNTERPLANS. (. OUR FAIRNESS CLAIMS ON 1AR AND 'AC DAMAGE SUBSUME THIS ANSWER. THEY NEED TO COMPARATIVELY PROVE THAT THIS IS WORSE THAN WHAT 'NC COUNTERPLANS DO TO AFF GROUND.

238

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NC (LONG)

'NC COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD 1. RESTRICTING 2NC COUNTERPLANS MA ES 1NC COUNTERPLANS WORTHLESS- THEY ARE BASED ON THE 1AC, IF THE 'AC READS ADD-ONS AND WE RE STUCK WITH THE ORIGINAL COUNTERPLAN. IT COMPLETELY ERASES THE STRATEGIC BENEFIT OF RUNNING A COUNTERPLAN AT ALL. 2. THE IMPACT IS THAT COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD. A. STATUS QUO IS BAD GROUND- THEY FORCE US TO DEFEND STIGMA GOOD. B. EDUCATION- COUNTERPLANS PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR DEEP RESEARCH FOR SPECIFIC PICS. 3. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY- THEY GET INFINITE PREP, WIN 0$% OF ROUNDS, AND FIRST&LAST SPEECH PROVES ITS HARD TO BE NEGATIVE. 4. IT/S A CONSTRUCTIVE- THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR ANY TYPE OF ARGUMENT. OUR #OB AS THE NEGATIVE IS #UST TO PROVE THE PLAN IS BAD. !. 2AC CRITICAL THIN ING- THEY MUST TAILOR IMPACT TURNS TO DISAD S AND 'AC ADD-ONS TO MAKE THEM COUNTERPLAN PROOF. ". 2NC CRITICAL THIN ING- WITH THIS OPTION AT OUR DISPOSAL WE MUST STRATEGICALLY PLAN THE MOST EFFECTIVE PLACE, IF ANY, TO DEPLOY IT. #. CRITICAL THIN ING GOOD- DEEP DECISION-MAKING REINFORCES KNOWLEDGE OF SUBSTANCE, WHICH OUTWEIGHS FAIRNESS BECAUSE IT WONT MATTER IN THE END WHO WINS OR LOSES THIS ROUND BUT WHAT WE LEARN FROM IT. -. BEST POLICY OPTION- IF THE AFF READS ADVANTAGES NOT INHERENTLY RELEVANT TO THE PLAN, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COUNTERPLAN THEM OUT TO TEST COMPARATIVE BENEFITS OF POLICIES. .. ARGUMENTATIVE INTERACTIONS- THE OPTION TO RUN 'NC COUNTERPLANS FORCE THE 'NC AND EVERY SPEECH AFTER IT TO CAREFULLY ANALY2E INTERACTIONS BETWEEN POSITIONS AS SMART 1ARS TRY TO LINK THE NEW COUNTERPLAN TO OTHER DISAD IMPACTS. 1+. ITS FAIR TO THE AFFIRMATIVE- GOOD 1ARS SHOULD WIN A SUBSTANTIAL SOLVENCY DEFICIT THEN COMPARE THE IMPACT TO THE DEFICIT AGAINST THE NET BENEFIT. 11. EVEN IF INTRINSICNESS ARGUMENTS ARE LEGIT THE AFFIRMATIVE CANNOT MAKE THEM NEW IN THE 1AR BECAUSE IT SKEWS 'NR TIME ALLOCATION.

239

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NC (SHORT)

'NC COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD 1. RESTRICTING 2NC COUNTERPLANS MA ES 1NC COUNTERPLANS WORTHLESS- THEY ARE BASED ON THE 1AC, IF THE 'AC READS ADD-ONS AND WE RE STUCK WITH THE ORIGINAL COUNTERPLAN. IT COMPLETELY ERASES THE STRATEGIC BENEFIT OF RUNNING A COUNTERPLAN AT ALL. 2. THE IMPACT IS THAT COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD. A. STATUS QUO IS BAD GROUND- THEY FORCE US TO DEFEND STIGMA GOOD. B. EDUCATION- COUNTERPLANS PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR DEEP RESEARCH FOR SPECIFIC PICS. 3. ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY- THEY GET INFINITE PREP, WIN 0$% OF ROUNDS, AND FIRST&LAST SPEECH PROVES ITS HARD TO BE NEGATIVE. 4. IT/S A CONSTRUCTIVE- THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR ANY TYPE OF ARGUMENT. OUR #OB AS THE NEGATIVE IS #UST TO PROVE THE PLAN IS BAD. !. 2AC CRITICAL THIN ING- THEY MUST TAILOR IMPACT TURNS TO DISAD S AND 'AC ADD-ONS TO MAKE THEM COUNTERPLAN PROOF. ". CRITICAL THIN ING GOOD- DEEP DECISION-MAKING REINFORCES KNOWLEDGE OF SUBSTANCE, WHICH OUTWEIGHS FAIRNESS BECAUSE IT WONT MATTER IN THE END WHO WINS OR LOSES THIS ROUND BUT WHAT WE LEARN FROM IT. #. BEST POLICY OPTION- IF THE AFF READS ADVANTAGES NOT INHERENTLY RELEVANT TO THE PLAN, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COUNTERPLAN THEM OUT TO TEST COMPARATIVE BENEFITS OF POLICIES.

240

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % OVERVIEW

NEW 'NC COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD 1. WITHOUT 'NC COUNTERPLANS THE AFFIRMATIVE WOULD SAVE THE BEST REASONS THE PLAN IS GOOD UNTIL THE 'AC, MOOTING ANY STRATEGIC OR EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT OF 1NC COUNTERPLANS. COUNTERPLANS ARE GOOD/ A. THEY ARE KEY TO FAIRNESS SINCE THEY ARE THE ONLY WAY TO TEST SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF UNARGUABLY GOOD PLANS. THE AFFIRMATIVE FORCES US TO DEFEND RACISM SE"ISM GOOD. B. THEY ARE KEY TO EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY ENCOURAGE RESEARCH TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE ADVANTAGE AREAS. '. EVEN IF IT S A LITTLE BIT ABUSIVE ITS GOOD TO EQUALI2E SIDE BIAS AND WIN RATIOSINFINITE PREP, FIRST AND LAST SPEECH PROVE REASONS WHY THE AFF WINS 0$% OF DEBATES AND GIVE OUR CLAIMS TO GROUND GREATER MAGNITUDE. (. THE OPTION OF RUNNING 'NC COUNTERPLANS STIMULATES CRITICAL THINKING FROM THE 'AC AND THROUGH THE REST OF THE DEBATE, CAUSING INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT INTERACTIONS AND BIG-PICTURE DEBATING- THE 'AC MUST MAKE DISAD OFFENSE CLEARLY RELEVANT TO THE PLAN AND THE 'NC MUST DECIDE THE MOST EFFECTIVE PLACES TO EMPLOY THE COUNTERPLAN AND WORD THE TE"T CAREFULLY. THE 1AR
HAS TO MAKE SOLVENCY DEFICIT ARGUMENTS AND RELATE THE COUNTERPLAN TO OTHER FLOWS. THIS STRATEGIC PLANNING AND CRITICAL THINKING OUTWEIGHS THEIR FAIRNESS CLAIMS, SINCE IT S THE KNOWLEDGE WE GAIN, NOT THE SIGNATURE ON THE BALLOT, THAT WE RE GOING TO CARE ABOUT IN THE FUTURE. PLUS, DEBATE-ORIENTED EDUCATION HELPS US DEVELOP POLITICAL OPINIONS FOR SHAPING FUTURE POLITICS. THE 'AR WILL SAY THAT FAIRNESS IS A PRECONDITION TO EDUCATION, WHICH ALTHOUGH TRUE IN INSTANCES SUCH AS UN-TOPICAL PLANS, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO 'NC COUNTERPLANS ! AFFIRMATIVES HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE, AND MAKE US UNABLE TO RUN SILVER-BULLET COUNTERPLANS, THEY #UST CHOSE NOT TO MAKE THOSE STRATEGIC DECISIONS THAT WOULD AVOID IT IN THIS DEBATE- THAT ISN T OUR FAULT. THE 1AR STILL COULD HAVE COPED WITH IT IN THIS ROUND HAD THEY NOT SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON THESE TERRIBLE THEORY ARGUMENTS.

).

241

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& INTRINSICNESS PERMS (USTIFIED

1. NOT TRUE- INTRINSICNESS PERMS ARE UNIQUELY WORSE BECAUSE THEY ARE INFINITE AND UNPREDICTABLE. OUR COUNTERPLAN MAY BE NEW, BUT THAT DOESN T MAKE IT SHIFTY AND UNPREDICTABLE. '. NO THRESHHOLD- THIS SHOULD MEAN THAT ANY NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 'NC #USTIFY INTRINSIC PERMS. (. IT S A CONSTRUCTIVE- WE RE MAKING NEW 'NC ARGUMENTS, NOT 1NR OR 'NR. REBUTTALS ARE OFF LIMITS TO NEW WORLD VIEWS, WE CONCEDE THAT.

242

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& LEEWAY ON 1AR ARGUMENTS

1. DON T ALLOW THE 1AR ANY LEEWAY ON LACK OF ANALYSIS BECAUSE OF OUR COUNTERPLAN- THEY HAVE TO MAKE STRATEGIC CHOICES ABOUT WHERE THEY WILL E"PLAIN THEIR ARGUMENTS BEST. '. CRITICAL THINKING BY THE 1AR IS IMPORTANT- THEY SPEND ONE ENTIRE SPEECH #UST READING EVIDENCE WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ANY WORK, THE 1AR SHOULD BE HARD. (. THIS #USTIFIES GIVING THE 'NC LEEWAY BECAUSE THE 'AC READ A LOT OF ARGUMENTS- THERE S NO BRIGHTLINE TO QUANTIFY THE ABUSE.Q

243

THEORY MAGIC

DELAY COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NC (LONG)

1. BEST POLICY OPTION- QUESTIONS OF THE TIMELINESS OF IMPLIMENTATION ARE CRITICAL TO ENSURING THAT THE PLAN IS THE BEST OPTION IN THE ROUND. 2. REAL WORLD! TIMING OF IMPLIMENTATION WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC RESPONSE OR POLITICAL CLIMATE IS CENTRAL TO ISSUES OF IMPLIMENTATION. 3. EY TO (USTIFICATION- THE RESOLUTION IS IN THE PRESENT TENSE, SO THE COUNTERPLAN IS CRITICAL TO EFFECTIVELY TESTING THE AFFIRMATIVE. 4. CROSS-E' CHEC S- THEY COULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE TIMELINESS OF IMPLIMENTATION AND AVOIDED THIS COUNTERPLAN. !. NO GROUND LOSS- WE DON T CO-OPT THEIR AFF BECAUSE THEY CAN USE THE PROLONGED STATUS QUO AS OFFENSE. ". DELAYS OCCUR ALL OF THE TIME-LIGHT .. NPAUL C.. THE PRESIDENT S AGENDA. THIRD EDITION. P. '*O
T<6 S6:>6 BI T9J9:C. DB6> ;<6 >6:>6 BI ;9J9:C 6R9>;S I: ;<6 G=>6 BI ;<6 FBJ6>;9G =C6:F=, 9; 6R9>;> H6?<=H> B:7A 9:=>JEG< => P?6>9F6:;>

?6>HB:F ;B ;<6 H?6>>E?6 ;B JBD6 LE9G@7A. T<9> 9> :B; ;B >ECC6>; ;<=; P?6>9F6:;> <=D6 :B GB:;?B7 BD6? ;9J9:C. T<6A 8977 G6?;=9:7A F67=A >BJ6 =C6:F= ?6LE6>;> BD6? ;<6 ;6?J. ;<6A J=A <BH6 ;B I9:F = JB?6 >EHHB?;9D6 CB:C?6>> B? I=><9B: = >;?B:C6? H?BHB>=7 B? ;<6A J=A K6 IB?G6F ;B 8=9; E:;97 ;<6 76C9>7=;9D6 G=76:F=?> G76=?. #B<:>B: > FBJ6>;9G >;A76 => 9:;6?H?6;6F KA K6=?:> 9> B:6 6R=JH76.
#. ERR NEGATIVE ON $UESTIONS OF THEORY- THEY HAVE THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AND INFINITE PREP TIME, WE RE #UST TRYING TO GET BACK TO SQUARE ONE. -. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM- THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

244

THEORY MAGIC

DELAY COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NC (SHORT)

1. BEST POLICY OPTION- QUESTIONS OF THE TIMELINESS OF IMPLIMENTATION ARE CRITICAL TO ENSURING THAT THE PLAN IS THE BEST OPTION IN THE ROUND. 2. REAL WORLD! TIMING OF IMPLIMENTATION WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC RESPONSE OR POLITICAL CLIMATE IS CENTRAL TO ISSUES OF IMPLIMENTATION. 3. CROSS-E' CHEC S- THEY COULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE TIMELINESS OF IMPLIMENTATION AND AVOIDED THIS COUNTERPLAN. 4. NO GROUND LOSS- WE DON T CO-OPT THEIR AFF BECAUSE THEY CAN USE THE PROLONGED STATUS QUO AS OFFENSE. !. ERR NEGATIVE ON $UESTIONS OF THEORY- THEY HAVE THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH AND INFINITE PREP TIME, WE RE #UST TRYING TO GET BACK TO SQUARE ONE. ". RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM- THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

245

THEORY MAGIC

DELAY COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& PLAN IS DONE LATER

(ONLY READ T1 IF PLAN DOES NOT SPECIFY CONGRESS OR SUPREME COURT) THEIR CLARIFICATION OF THE PLAN/S DELAY IS AN INDEPENDENT REASON TO VOTE NEGATIVE 1. ITS ABUSIVE AND UNWARRANTED& A. CONTE"T DISPROVES THEIR ARGUMENT- EVEN IF THEY CAN PROVE THAT THE
CONGRESS ISN T IN SESSION RIGHT NOW AND THE SUPREME COURT IS AD#OURNED, THE E"ECUTIVE CAN ALWAYS ACT. B. THIS MEANS THAT SOME FEDERAL ACTOR COULD DO THE PLAN IN THE IMMEDIACY SO THE FUNCTION OF THEIR DELAY IS PURELY STRATEGIC AND ABUSIVE BECAUSE IT HI#ACKS NEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN GROUND/ THEY GET THE PLAN IN THE IMMEDIACY, WE GET EVERYTHING ELSE. C. PLAN TRICKS LIKE THIS ARE UNPREDICTABLE AND INFINITELY REGRESSIVETHEY COULD CHOOSE TO SPECIFY OUT OF FUNDING OR ENFOURCEMENT BY SPECIFIC BRANCHES. FIAT SHOULD ENSURE THE AFF GETS THEIR PLAN IN THE IMMEDIACY. THIS SORT OF ABUSE MUST BE STOPPED. DELAY IS NON-TOPICALA. #UDGE TOPICALITY FIRST ! THE PLAN S TOPICAL SHOULD BE ASSESSED FIRST WITHOUT REGARD TO OTHER ISSUES. IF THE PLAN DOESN T ACT UNTIL THE FUTURE, INTERVENING EVENTS COULD OR WOULD IMPLACT THE TOPICALITY IN VARIOUS WAYS FORCING RECOURSE ON OTHER ISSUES AND DESTROY THE A PRIORI NATURE OF TOPICALITY. B. PLAN IS ANTI-TOPICAL- CONFRONTED TODAY WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD AFFIRM THE RESOLUTION THE AFF S PLAN CLARIFICATION IS AN ENDORSEMENT OF MAINTAINING THE HARMS OF THE STATUS QUO FOR AN INDETERMINANT AMOUNT OF TIME. C. WE DON T HAVE TO WIN A DEFINITION OF RESOLVED FOR THE LOGICAL ARGUMENT THAT THE RESOLUTION HAS A SENSE OF IMMEDIACY TO BE TRUE. PLAN CONDITIONALITY BADA. LINK/ DELAYED ADOPTION OF THE PLAN IS CONDITIONAL IN THREE WAYS. I. ITS NOT CERTAIN WHEN THE PLAN IS DONE EVEN AFTER CLARIFICATION WHICH MEANS THEY ARE SHIFTING THEIR POSITION BASED ON AVOIDING NEGATIVE ARGUMENTATION. II. IT CONDTIONS ENACTMENT OF THE PLAN ON SOME FUTURE EVENT. III. THE AFF APPEARS TO RESERVE THE OPTION TO ABANDON DELAYED ENACTMENT AND CHOOSE TO HAVE THE PLAN DONE NOW- MAKING THEIR ADVOCACY UNPREDICTABLE AND MOVING. B. VOTING ISSUE/ THE PLAN IS THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE. ALLOWING THEM TO MANEUVER OUT OF NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS MEANS THAT WE LL NEVER WIN. FIRST AND LAST SPEECH ALONG WITH INFINITE PREP TIME PROVE THAT WE RE ALREADY FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE. DESTROYS DISAD GROUND- THE AFFIRMATIVE SPECIFICALLY DELAYS IMPLIMETNATION TO AVOID OUR TIMELY AND PERTINENT DISADS LIKE POLITICS. THEIR STANCE #USTIFIED DELAYING THE PLAN UNTIL REASONABLE BRINK AND UNIQUENESS EVIDENCE CAN T PREDICT. THIS DESTROYS EDUCATION AND NEGATIVE STRATEGY BY PUNISHING AND DISCOURAGING US FROM RESEARCHING PERTINENT TIMELY ISSUES.

2.

3.

4.

246

THEORY MAGIC

!. AFF SEVERANCEA. LINK- THE PLAN IS ASSUMED TO E"IST NOW AND FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. HAVING THE PLAN SEVERED FOR " AMOUNT OF TIME SEVERS THE INITIAL AFF ADVOCACY OF THE PLAN. B. VOTING ISSUE- ALLOWING SEVERANCE OF EVEN TEMPORAL ISSUES #USTIFIES SEVERANCE OF ANY PART OF PLAN. THIS IS A BAD FRAMEWORK FOR DEBATE BECAUSE IT MEANS THE AFFIRMATIVE HAS NO STABLE ADVOCACY. I. THE NEGATIVE WILL ALWAYS LOSE BECAUSE THEY CAN SPIKE OUT OF OUR OFFENSE. II. EDUCATION IS TANKED- THEY WILL SPIKE OUT OF PARTS OF PLAN AND MITIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSING THOSE ISSUES. ". AFF DELAY DESTROYS THE ACTIVITYA. USURPS PRESUMPTION AND BREACHES STOCK ISSUE BURDENS- IT S THE AFF
BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR CHANGE NOW OR YOU PRESUME AGAINST THE RISKS INHERENT IN IMMEDIATE CHANCE. DELAY COULD ASSUME THAT THE PLAN S PROBLEMS WILL BE SOLVED ON THEIR OWN. GIVEN CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, THEIR 1AC EVIDENCE IS NO LONGER CREDIBLE THREAT OF A HARM AND NO REASON TO VOTE AFF. B. DESTROYS NEGATIVE GROUND- AFFIRMATIVE DELAY SEI2ES PRESUMPTION FROM THE NEGATIVE FOR AS LONG AS THE AFF WANTS IT AND MAKES THE PLAN INCLUDE A VOTE TO ENDORSE THE STATUS QUO IN THE MEANTIME. VOTE AGAINST THE THEFT OF PRESUMPTION OF THE STATUS QUO WHICH IS NEGATIVE GROUND TO DEFEND. C. TIMING OF DEBATE SHOULDN T REFLECT PLAN S ADOPTION- WE RE BEST PREPARED AND CAN MOST ACCURATELY DEBATE THE PLAN S MERITS TODAY. IF THE AFF CAN T DEFEND THE PLAN S ADOPTION NOW YOU VOTE NEGATIVE AND DEFER ACTION TO TAKE UP THE PLAN WHEN IT MAY BE DESIRABLE. AFF DESTROYS COMPARISON- ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASSESS THE PLANA GAINST THE STATUS QUO IN THE NEAR TERM IF THEY ARE E"ACTLY THE SAME. ITS NON-INTRINSIC- IT ADDS TO THE PLAN SUPPORT FOR THE SQ NOW WHICH IS A NON-RESOLUTIONAL ACTOIN WHICH WE CAN T PREDICT. SUCH ADDITIONS TO THE PLAN ARE UNPREDICTABLE SEI2URES OF OUR GROUND WHICH THEY COULD USE TO BEAT BACK ANY OF OUR ARGUMENTS. NO AFFIRMATIVE FIAT SUPPORTS DELAY- THERE IS NO THEORY OF AFF FIAT THAT SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT NOW, WHEN THE FIAT IS SUPPOSED TO OCCUR, NOTHING CHANGES.

#. -.

..

247

THEORY MAGIC

NEW 2NC COUNTERPLANS GOOD 2NR % AT& (USTIFIES INTRINSICNESS

1. EVEN IF INTRINSICNESS ARGUMENTS ARE LEGIT THEY SHOULDN T GET TO MAKE THEM IN THE 1AR BECAUSE IT SKEWS 'NR TIME- WE ALREADY HAVE TO ANSWER THIS ASININE THEORY. '. ALL INSTRINSICNESS ARGUMENTS MUST BE TOPICAL- IF THEY AREN T THE #UDGE CAN T VOTE FOR THEM AS PART OF THE PLAN. IT S THE SAME AS VOTING FOR A CLEARLY E"TRATOPICAL PLAN PLANK. (. INTRINSICNESS ISN T RECIPROCAL- THE COUNTERPLAN IS FORCED TO MEET THE
BURDEN OF COMPETITION WHILE THE AFF S ARSENAL OF INSTRISICNESS ARGUMENTS ARE CONTAINED BY NOTHING

248

THEORY MAGIC

ASPEC 2AC
1. 0THE1 IS AN ARTICLE OF SPECIFICATION PRECEDING A COLLECTIVE NOUN AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY '$$$ NDICTIONARY.COMO THE/ USED BEFORE A NOUN, AND GENERALLY STRESSED, TO EMPHASI2E ONE OF A GROUP OR TYPE AS THE MOST OUTSTANDING OR PROMINENT/ CONSIDERED LAKE SHORE DRIVE TO BE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO LIVE IN THESE DAYS. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- FORCING AGENT SPECIFICATION #USTIFIES INFINITE SPECIFICATION OF EVERY MINUTE DETAIL- CRUSHING MEANINGFUL DEBATE. CROSS-E" CHECKS- THEY COULD HAVE #UST ASKED AND C&" IS BINDING SO WE WONT LIE. WE GIVE THEM MORE GROUND BECAUSE THEY CAN TRY TO FORCE LINKS TO DISADS AND RUN ANYTHING. WE ALSO GIVE THEM LINKS TO D&AS FOR ALL OF THE AGENTS. AGENT COUNTERPLANS ARE BAD A. THEY STEAL AFFIRMATIVE GROUND AND DESTROY EDUCATION IN DEBATE. B. THEY DISSOLVE THE DEBATE INTO TRIVIAL COURT&CONGRESS BETTER DISCUSSIONS AS OPPOSED TO MOST PICS WHICH QUESTION A MA#OR ASPECT OF THE 1AC. REASONABILITY/ THERE S NO RESOLUTIONAL BASIS FOR SPECIFICATION WHICH MEANS
THAT IN ORDER TO WIN THEY HAVE TO NOT ONLY PROVE ABUSE BUT THAT AGENT CPS ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD LOSE FOR NOT PROVIDING THEM.

2. 3. 4. !.

".

249

THEORY MAGIC

ASPEC 1AR % AT& SOLVENCY DEFICIT

1. THIS IS A BAD SOLVENCY ARGUMENT. THIS SAME LOGIC WOULD MEAN THAT A LACK OF SPECIFYING OUR FUNDING MEANS THAT SOLVENCY IS TANKED. '. THIS FEEDS OUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT INFINITE REGRESSION- WE CAN NEVER BE PREPARED TO SPECIFY ENOUGH TO BEAT THEIR BASELESS CLAISM ABOUT GROUND. (. THERE ISN T A SOLVENCY DEFICIT- THEIR EVIDENCE IS WRITTEN FROM THE CONTE"T OF REAL LIFE POLICY MAKING. THIS IS DEBATE. WE SHOULD ONLY HAVE TO SPEFICY AS FAR AS OUR SOLVENCY EVIDENCE.

250

THEORY MAGIC

ASPEC 1AR OVERVIEW

NOT SPECIFYING OUR AGENT IS NOT A REASON TO LOSE THE ROUND/ A FEW KEY PIECES OF OFFENSE. 1. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- VIEW THIS AS A QUESTION OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS. THEY ARE OPENING THE FLOODGATES TO TRIVIAL DISTINCTIONS AS OPPOSED TO OUR STANDARD OF REASONABILITY TO PRESERVE GROUND. THIS CREATES DEBATE ABOUT MENIAL DETAILS AND ASININE PICS. '. THE IS AN ARTICLE BEFORE A COLLECTIVE NOUN- THAT OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY EVIDENCE- THE ONLY TOPICAL PLAN TE"T USES ALL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (. NO RESOLUTIONAL BASIS- AT BEST THIS IS A POOR WHINE. THERE IS NO WARRANTED REASON THAT WE SHOULD LOSE. ). OUR INTERPRETATION IS BETTER FOR EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS- IT BEST PRESERVES *.
GROUND FOR BOTH SIDES BECAUSE IT DOESN T FORCE THE AFFIRMATIVE INTO POOR DISTINCTIONS AND OVERBURDENED PLAN TE"TS. AGENT COUNTERPLANS ARE WORSE FOR DEBATE THAN NOT SPECIFYING/ A. THEY ARE A GROUND AND STRATEGY SKEW- THEY MOOT THE VALUE OF THE 1AC. B. THEY TANK EDUCATION ON SPECIFIC ISSUES AND IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS. C. THEY FORCE THE AFF TO ARGUE AGAINST THEMSELVES- THIS IS UNFAIR AND SHOULD SUPERCEDE QUESTIONS OF EDUCATION. THESE ARE ALL REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD SHY AWAY FROM VOTING ON ASPEC.

0.

251

THEORY MAGIC

FIAT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATE

1. 1round 3eing able to fiat be ond the immediate undermines negative ground. Our disads and counterplan strategies all assume a !orld !here the plan is adopted immediatel . %. Not Real World /embers of -ongress don(t vote for something that is adopted or implemented in the future. The ma vote on a proposal in the future) but that isn(t the same as fiating the plan...this !ould 7ust mean that ou should vote for or against the plan in the future. *. -an(t +redict the &uture The state of affairs ma change b the time the plan is adopted. Things could be !orse in !hich case the plan !ouldn(t solve or things could get better in !hich case !e !on(t need the affirmative. 5n either case) the reasons for voting for the plan are specious and !e should caution against loo.ing into a cr stal ball. 0. Evidence ,oesn(t -orrelate With 'ffirmative 5nterpretation 'll of their evidence assumes the current situation. &iating into the future undercuts the credibilit of their evidenciar support. 8. 'ffirmative(s 5nterpretation is ;topian No one !ould advocate their proposal. To the e2tent that no solvenc evidence e2ists for their proposal) ou should vote against them based on presumption. 'lso) no solvenc authors prove our abuse argument. There is no !a an negative could anticipate this affirmative because no literature supports it. :. &uture 'ction /a.es 5nherenc +robablistic &iating in the future doesn(t rule<out the possibilit that the present s stem could do the plan in the meantime. +robablistic inherenc is insufficient to prove that a barrier actuall e2ists in the status 6uo. Without proving such a barrier e2ists) the affirmative is not prima facie and hasn(t met their burden of proof. This is an independent voting issue for reasons of fairness) ground and tradition. C. &iat 'ssumes the +resent The affirmative is onl allo!ed enough fiat po!er that is minimall sufficient to get the plan adopted. 'dvocating future action re6uires additional fiat po!er since !hat is minimall sufficient no! ma change in the future in addition to the po!er re6uired to loc. the plan into stasis until the time of adoption.

252

THEORY MAGIC

FIAT DOESN/T HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATE

1. Resolution is Not Time<3ound The resolution doesn(t sa !e should adopt a polic 5//E,5'TE9Y. 5nstead) it sa s !e should adopt a polic . >ince the timing of the adoption is e2cluded !ithin the resolution) !e are not necessaril bound b the immediate present. %. /ost Real World -ongress fre6uentl ma.es decisions and then !aits to implement policies due to the sensitivit of polic <ma.ing. *. 9iterature -hec.s 'buse We still have to have solvenc evidence to support our proposal. The negative has ample opportunit to research the topic and discover this t pe of polic action. 0. Not a =oting 5ssue You shouldn(t punish us for being clever and for doing research. 8. No 'buse The negative still has .riti. ground) or the could counterplan. :. Time<>ensitive ,isads are 3ad aD The reduce education !e are forced to debate the same mundane political disads ever ear instead of the substantive issues surrounding polic <ma.ing in the topic area. bD 1eneric arguments don(t ade6uatel test the resolution our interpretation of fiat forces the negative to produce arguments that actuall clash !ith our plan and !ith the resolution. cD The re!ard big schools teams !ith multiple le2is accounts and e2tra researchers that sta up all nite can afford to obtain the up<to<the<minute brin. evidenceE smaller s6uads cannot. Our interpretation of fiat provides an e6ual pla ing field. dD Time<sensitive disads force debaters to become brief<dependent. Our interpretation of fiat re!ards innovative and creative argumentation s.ills. C. The Word F>houldG in the Resolution +ermits Our 5nterpretation F>houldG simpl means !e ought to do the plan sometime 5N THE &;T;RE. 5t doesn(t necessaril have to be in the immediate future) so long as the action is ta.en. We debate about !hether or not it FshouldG be done. Even !hen the 7udge signs the ballot) it is in the FfutureG !ith relation to our present moment of arguing.

253

THEORY MAGIC

MULTI-ACTOR FIAT BAD

1. 5t(s abusive << aD 5t(s not in the literature) !hich undermines predictabilit and destro s clash bD 5t undermines our abilit to generate offense %. 5t destro s education << their manufacturing of an abusive polic limits our discussion of the actual pro(s and con(s of the proposal) thereb eroding education. *. 5t(s an abuse of fiat) and 7ustifies utopian and ob7ect fiat << their use of multiple actors is meant to spi.e< out of certain arguments b nearl fiating their solvenc . This eliminates an possibilit of debating the issue. 0. This is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and ground.

254

THEORY MAGIC

MULTI-ACTOR FIAT GOOD

1. 5t(s reciprocal << their plan has multiple agents acting) so !e should be allo!ed to do that as !ell. %. /ultiple actors increases their ground << it generates more possibilit for them to have offense. *. 5t(s real !orld << multiple actors fre6uentl act in ever da polic ma.ing. 0. 9iterature chec.s abuse and proves !h there(s predictabilit << !e read evidence that proves !h our advocac of multiple actors is in the literature.

255

THEORY MAGIC

@riti.s /ust Have a Te2tual 'lt %'THERE IS NO TE"TUAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE CRITIQUE. THE NEGATIVE MUST DEFEND THE STATUS QUO OR A COUNTERPLAN. THIS IS A VOTING ISSUE/ 1. NON-TE"TUAL ALTERNATIVES ARE VAGUE AND CREATE A MOVING TARGET. THEY CAN CHANGE THE MEANING OF DEPENDING ON 'AC ARGUMENTS. 2. IT DEPRIVES US OF THE ABILITY TO MAKE A PERM BECAUSE WE CAN T PREDICT THEIR ADVOCACY. 3. CROSS-E" DOESN T CHECK- CROSS-E" ISN T TE"TUAL SO IT DOESN T PROVIDE A STABLE GROUND. 4. RECIPROCITY- ALLOWING CRITIQUES WITHOUT A TE"TUAL ALTERNATIVE IS BAD FOR AFFIRMATIVE GROUND. WE DEFEND A STABLE PLAN TE"T WHICH GIVES THEM GROUND FOR ALL OF THEIR DISADS, COUNTERPLAN COMPETITION, AND TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS.

256

THEORY MAGIC

S MUST HAVE A TE'T. ALT 1AR % OVERVIEW

NOT HAVING A STABLE TE"TUAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE CRTIQUE IS A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT. 1. IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO LEVERAGE 'AC OFFENSE. WE WON T GO FOR A TIME SKEW, #UST STRATEGY SKEW A. WE CAN T MAKE PERMS BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT SEVERANCE OR INTRINSICNESS. WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR COMPARISON. B. WE CAN T EFFECTIVELY DEPLOY OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY COULD REINTERPRET THE ALTERNATIVE TO ACCOUNT FOR OUR ARGUMENTS. '. USING THEIR TAGS&CARDS AS TE"TUAL ADVOCACY IS A HORRIBLE STANDARD FOR DEBATE. FAIRNESS DEMANDS RECIPROCITY- WITHOUT A STABLE TE"T WE DON T GET GROUND TO MAKE ARGUMENTS. THIS IS THE SAME AS THE AFF NOT READING A PLAN TE"T, #UST A MESS OF CARDS. (. THEY CREATE A MOVING TARGET WHICH MEANS THERE IS NEVER ANY EFFECTIVE WAY TO ATTACK THE KRITIK. THIS IS BAD FOR FAIRNESS AND EDUCATION BECAUSE WE LEARN LESS ABOUT THE CRITIQUE WHEN IT ISN T FULLY ENGAGED. ). THEIR CRITIQUE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENTLY DENSE AND FULL OF #ARGON THAT THE *.
ONLY WAY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE ADVOCATING IS TO HOLD THEM TO A STABLE ADVOCACY- TE"TUAL. DON T LET THEM TRY TO #USTIFY CROSS-E" AS A CHECK ON ABUSE- THAT S DUMB. WE CAN T TRY TO ELICIT THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR ADVOCACY IS AN + SECOND CROSSE" RESPONSE. IF THAT STANDARD IS SUFFICIENT, THE AFF SHOULD #UST NOT READ A PLAN AND CLARIFY THEIR ADVOCACY IN THE CROSS-E". BESIDES, THEY COULD #UST CLAIM THAT THEY SLIPPED UP IN CROSS-E" AND CLARIFY IN THE 'NC. YOU SHOULD PRIVILEGE QUESTIONS OF 'AC STRATEGY SKEW AND FAIRNESS ABOVE ANY OTHER CLAIM- IT IS OUR ONLY SPEECH TO GENERATE CREDIBLE OFFENSE AGAINST THE CRITIQUE. IF THEY ROB US OF THAT ABILITY YOU SHOULD RE#ECT THE TEAM FOR SKEWING DEBATE 1$$% NEGATIVE. THIS LINK TURNS ALL OF THEIR CLAIMS ABOUT AFF SIDE BIAS.

0.

257

THEORY MAGIC

RITI S MUST HAVE A TE'TUAL ALT 1AR % AT& TAGS*CARDS ) ADVOCACY

1. A SPECIFIC TE"T IS KEY TO PREDICTABILITY. WORDS HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS AND EVIDENCE HAS MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS DEPENDING ON THE READER. THEY CAN ALWAYS INTERPRET THEIR ALTERNATIVE DIFFERENTLY TO ACCOUNT FOR 'AC ARGUMENTS. '. EVEN IF PLANS CAN HAVE MULTIPLE MEANINGS OR SEEM VAGUE IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE A STABLE PLAN TE"T. SPECIFIC WORDINGS ARE LESS SUB#ECTIVE THAN EVIDENCE. (. THE TAGS&CARDS THEY READ ARE MEANINGLESS AND FILLED WITH #ARGON. THEY DON T OUTLINE A DEFINITE COURSE OF ACTION. VOTE AGAINST THEIR TE"T BECAUSE IT IS VAGUE AND CREATES A MOVING TARGET. ). A SPECIFIC TE"T IS CRITICAL TO FAIRNESS BECAUSE THE 'AC IS LIMITED BY TIME AND DOESN T GET A SECOND CHANCE. IT IS CRITICAL TO AFFIRMATIVE STRATEGY. ERR ON AFF ON THIS QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO ATTACK A MOVING ADVOCACY. *. LACK OF TE"T KILLS PERM GROUND- IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE SEVERANCE OR INTRINSICNESS IF THERE IS NO STANDARD FOR COMPARISON. PERMS ARE CRITICAL TO AFF GROUND OR ELSE THE NEGATIVE WOULD ALWAYS WIN.

258

THEORY MAGIC

PI S BAD 2AC
PLAN INCLUSIVE CRITIQUE ALTERNATIVES ARE ILLEGITIMATE AND A VOTING ISSUE 1. GROUND- THEY STEAL OUR ABILITY TO GENERATE OFFENSE AGAINST THE CRITIQUE AND FORCE US TO #USTIFY 1AC ASSUMPTIONS IN A VACUUM. 2. PREDICTABILITY- WE CAN T PREPARED FOR THE THOUSANDS OF ASSUMPTIONS THAT OUR EVIDENCE MAKES IN A WORLD WHERE WE CAN T LEVERAGE THE 1AC. 3. MOVING TARGET- THEY DON T HAVE A TE"T TO THE ALTERNATIVE SO ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHAT PART OF THE PLAN THEY DO. 4. FAIRNESS- PIKS DON T TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE AFFIRMATIVE. THIS ANSWERS THEIR INEVITABLE AFF SIDE BIAS ARGUMENTS- PIKS LINK TURN THEM AND MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE AFFIRMATIVE. !. POTENTIAL ABUSE IS A VOTING ISSUE- EVEN IF THEY DON T USE THIS ABUSIVELY THEY #USTIFY A WORLD OF ABUSIVE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTATION. THIS IS A REASON TO RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT. FAIRNESS TRUMPS EDUCATION- NO ONE PLAYS A RIGGED GAME.

259

THEORY MAGIC

FLOATING PI S BAD 1AR (ASSUMES CLARIFICATION)

THEIR DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE IN THE 'NC IS ABUSE AND A VOTING ISSUE. 1. IT CONTRADICTS THE 1NC ADVOCACY- THEY VE SHIFTED THEIR ORIGINAL CLARIFICATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE. 2. IT/S NEW IN THE 2NC- WE VE ALREADY GIVEN THE 'AC. WE CAN T RECANT WHAT WE SAID OR CHANGE OUR ANSWERS. THEY RE CONTINGENT UPON STABLE NEGATIVE ADVOCACY. 3. IT/S CONDITIONAL- THAT S AN INDEPENDENT VOTING ISSUE ! THEY SAY THEY COULD ADVOCATE THIS, NOT THAT THEY WILL. IT UNIQUELY DESTROYS 1AR SPEECH TIME AND STRATEGY. 4. THERE/S NO TE'T- IT S LIKE A PIC E"CEPT WE CANT EVEN BE SURE WHAT THEY E"CLUDE BECAUSE ITS VAGUE. IT HI#ACKS OUR OFFENSE. !. IT STARTS THE DEBATE TOO LATE- WE DON T HAVE TIME TO DEVELOP A COHERENT, FOCUSED, OR EDUCATIONAL DEBATE. ". THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE- WE VE SPENT 1AR TIME AND THEIR ADVOCACY REQUIRES AN INDEPTH RESPONSE OR WE LOSE. IT DESTROYS OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO OTHER ARGUMENTS. #. FAIRNESS TRUMPS ANY EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT- THE DEPLOYMENT OF THIS ARGUMENT IN THE 'NC PROVES THAT ANY EDUCATIONAL VALUE HAS ALREADY LOST TO THEIR DESIRE TO WIN. -. THIS COMES BEFORE ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS A. ANSWERING A SEPARATE ADVOCACY REQUIRES TOO MUCH TIME. B. THEY CHANGED THE FOCUS OF THE DEBATE. IT TRADES OFF WITH OTHER 1AR ANSWERS.

260

THEORY MAGIC

NEGATIVE FRAMEWOR

2NC % FIAT BAD

1. A FIAT-BASED FRAMEWOR IS DISEMPOWERING3 A. IT CREATES BAD ADVOCACYUDEBATING SOLELY ABOUT WHAT TO DO AS

POLICYMAKERS TRADESOFF WITH WHAT WE DO IN OUR OWN LIVES SINCE WE ARE REMOVED FROM THE SYSTEM OF POLICYMAKINGUTHERE IS 2ERO EDUCATIONAL VALUE TO THEIR FRAMEWORK B. OUR FRAMEWORK CAN INCLUDE THEIRS, BUT IT LEADS TO BETTER TESTING OF THE AFFIRMATIVEUTHE NEGATIVE IS THE REACTIVE TEAM THAT TESTS THE AFFIRMATIVE FROM ALL STANDPOINTS AND SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO ENGAGE EACH ONE IN EVERY DEBATE. ITS BETTER FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE3 A. ITS PREDICTABLEUTHEY #UST NEED A DEFENSE OF WHY STATE-BASED ACTIVISM IS GOOD AND WORKS AND THEY LL BE PREPARED B. A FIAT-BASED FRAMEWORK ISN TUIT #USTIFIES THE POLITICS DISAD OF THE WEEK AND INCREASES THEIR OVERALL RESEARCH BURDENS, AND THEIR FORTUNES WILL CHANGE WITH UNIQUENESS A SOLELY FIAT BASED FRAMEWOR ISN/T TOPICALUTHE RESOLUTION SAYS ,SHOULD-, NOT ,WOULD-, WHICH MEANS THAT WE SHOULDN T ASSUME A PARTICULAR OUTCOMEUTOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE TO PRESERVE NEGATIVE PREDICTABILITY OUR FRAMEWOR IS CRITICAL TO THE NEGATIVE A. SIDE BIAS MEANS THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE WINS TOO MANY DEBATESUTHEY CHOOSE THEIR GROUND, GET THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH, AND THIS TOPIC IS SO BROAD THAT THE NEGATIVE NEEDS MA"IMUM FLE"IBILITY TO HAVE A CHANCE B. ITS OUR ONLY DEFENSE AGAINST CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES THAT CLAIM DISCOURSE ADVANTAGES OR CRITIQUES OF REALISM THAT DESTROY OUR DISADS ITS CRITICAL TO BEST POLICY OPTION3$UESTIONS OF METHODOLOGY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES- THEY DICTATE HOW CONCLUSIONS ARE ACHIEVED- BARTLETT .+
NKATHARINE. PROFESSOR OF LAW AT DUKE UNIVERSITY. 1$( HARVARD LAW REVIEW +'9. FEBRUARY. 1999. P. LE"ISO FEMINISTS HAVE DEVELOPED E"TENSIVE CRITIQUES OF LAW N' AND PROPOSALS FOR LEGAL REFORM. FEMINISTS HAVE HAD MUCH LESS TO SAY, HOWEVER, ABOUT WHAT THE VDOINGV OF LAW SHOULD ENTAIL AND WHAT TRUTH STATUS TO GIVE TO THE LEGAL CLAIMS THAT FOLLOW. THESE METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES MATTER BECAUSE METHODS SHAPE ONEWS
VIEW OF THE POSSIBILITIES FOR LEGAL PRACTICE AND REFORM.

'.

(. ).

*.

METHOD VORGANI2ES THE

APPREHENSION OF TRUTH. IT DETERMINES WHAT COUNTS AS EVIDENCE AND DEFINES WHAT IS TAKEN AS VERIFICATION.V FEMINISTS CANNOT IGNORE METHOD, BECAUSE IF THEY SEEK TO CHALLENGE E"ISTING STRUCTURES OF POWER WITH THE SAME METHODS THAT HAVE DEFINED WHAT COUNTS WITHIN THOSE STRUCTURES, THEY MAY INSTEAD VRECREATE THE ILLEGITIMATE POWER STRUCTURES NTHAT THEY AREO TRYING TO IDENTIFY AND UNDERMINE.V

0. SOLELY LOO ING TO FIAT MEANS THAT TEAMS WOULD GET AWAY WITH THINGS LI E RACIST (O ESUTHIS PROVES THERE ARE SOMETIMES MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES THAN
POLICY OUTCOMES

1. OUR INTERPRETATION IS MORE REAL WORLDUSUSPENDING REALITY TO MAGICALLY ENVISION WHAT HAPPENS ISN T REALISTIC OR EDUCATIONAL.

261

THEORY MAGIC

AT& 0MUST SPEC CP STATUS IN THE 1NC1 (SHORT)

1. NO ABUSE A. THEY CAN T WIN IN-ROUND ABUSE. WHINES ABOUT ,IT IS MY CROSS-E"- ARE BASELESS- CROSS-E" IS WHERE YOU QUESTION STRATEGIES AND SOLIDIFY LINKS TO POSITIONS. WE WONT LIE AND YOU LL GET LINKS TO THEORY. B. WE LINK TURN POTENTIAL ABUSE. ALLOWING THEIR INTERPRETATION STEALS NEGATIVE SPEECH TIME WHICH IS UNIQUELY WORSE- THE AFF ALREADY HAS FIRST&LAST SPEECH AND INFINITE PREP TIME, WE NEED ALL THE TIME WE CAN GET. PLUS, WE CAN T RUN NEW OFF CASE IN THE 'NC OR WE LL LOSE ON
THEORY

2. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THIS IS A BAD SPEC ARGUMENT IN DISGUISE. #USTIFYING THIS LEVEL OF 1NC SPECIFICITY #USTIFIES ARBITRARY INTERPRETATIONS MAKING US SPECIFY FUNDING, IMPLIMENTATION, AGENT, AND STATUS. THIS IS UNIQUELY WORSE 3.
FOR BOTH EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS BECAUSE IT INFLATES ARTIFICIAL VALUE TO TRIVIAL ISSUES. COUNTER-INTERPRETATION- COUNTERPLANS ARE OPPORTUNITY COST TESTS OF THE AFFIRMATIVE- THEY ARE ASSUMED CONDITIONAL UNTIL OTHERWISE STATED. THIS IS CRITICAL TO NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY, BEST POLICY OPTION, AND CHECKING AFF SIDE BIAS. CROSS-E' CHEC S- WE WONT LIE AND THEY CAN GET LINKS TO THEORY ARGUMENTSTHAT S THE ANALYSIS IN THE T1. IT IS CLEARER TO BOTH THE #UDGE AND THE OTHER TEAM IF THEY ASK INSTEAD OF COUNTING ON US TO COME UP WITH SOME CONTRIVED WAY OF PUTTING IT IN SPEECH TIME. RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- IF THEY WIN OFFENSE ON THIS LAME THEORY ARGUMENT, VOTE AGAINST OUR COUNTERPLAN, NOT US. THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.

4.

!.

262

THEORY MAGIC

AT& 0MUST SPEC CP STATUS IN 1NC1 (LONG)

1. NO ABUSE A. THEY CAN T WIN IN-ROUND ABUSE. AT WORST, THEY LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME IN CROSS-E". WHINES ABOUT ,IT IS MY CROSS-E"- ARE BASELESSCROSS-E" IS WHERE YOU QUESTION STRATEGIES AND SOLIDIFY LINKS TO POSITIONS. WE WONT LIE AND YOU LL GET LINKS TO THEORY. B. WE LINK TURN POTENTIAL ABUSE. ALLOWING THEIR INTERPRETATION STEALS NEGATIVE SPEECH TIME WHICH IS UNIQUELY WORSE- THE AFF ALREADY HAS FIRST&LAST SPEECH AND INFINITE PREP TIME, WE NEED ALL THE TIME WE CAN GET. PLUS, WE CAN T RUN NEW OFF CASE IN THE 'NC OR WE LL LOSE ON
THEORY

2. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- THIS IS A BAD SPEC ARGUMENT IN DISGUISE. #USTIFYING THIS LEVEL OF 1NC SPECIFICITY #USTIFIES ARBITRARY INTERPRETATIONS MAKING US SPECIFY FUNDING, IMPLIMENTATION, AGENT, AND STATUS. THIS IS UNIQUELY WORSE 3.
FOR BOTH EDUCATION AND FAIRNESS BECAUSE IT INFLATES ARTIFICIAL VALUE TO TRIVIAL ISSUES. COUNTER-INTERPRETATION- COUNTERPLANS ARE OPPORTUNITY COST TESTS OF THE AFFIRMATIVE- THEY ARE ASSUMED CONDITIONAL UNTIL OTHERWISE STATED. THIS IS CRITICAL TO NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY, BEST POLICY OPTION, AND CHECKING AFF SIDE BIAS. CROSS-E' CHEC S- WE WONT LIE AND THEY CAN GET LINKS TO THEORY ARGUMENTSTHAT S THE ANALYSIS IN THE T1. IT IS CLEARER TO BOTH THE #UDGE AND THE OTHER TEAM IF THEY ASK INSTEAD OF COUNTING ON US TO COME UP WITH SOME CONTRIVED WAY OF PUTTING IT IN SPEECH TIME. EDUCATION- FORCING US TO WASTE TIME ON SPECIFYING STATUS IN THE 1NC MEANS THAT WE GET TO MAKE LESS UNIQUE ARGUMENTS, HURTING IN-ROUND DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT. REASONABILITY- IT IS BETTER FOR THEM TO LOSE 1$ SECONDS OF CROSS-E" TIME THAN FOR US TO LOSE SPEECH TIME- IT IS UNIQUELY IMPORTANT FOR US. (USTIFIES NEW 2NC ARGUMENTS- THIS MEANS THAT SLOW TEAMS WILL READ NEW DISADS THE 'NC TO COMPENSATE FOR LOST TIME IN THE 1NC RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- VOTING ON THIS IS AKIN TO VOTING ON HIGHLIGHTER SPEC- ITS BAD FOR DEBATE AND SETS A PRECEDENT FOR WHININESS WINNING DEBATES. NO AGREEMENT- WE CAN T #UST SAY THE COUNTERPLAN IS DISPO WITHOUT DEFINING THAT- MEANING THAT OUR TIME TRADE OFF ARGUMENTS IN THE SPEECH ARE TRUE. NOT SPECIFYING DOESN/T MEAN THE COUNTERPLAN HAS TO BE UNCONDITIONALTHAT S A BAD STANDARD FOR LA2Y DEBATERS TO TRY TO SCREW THE NEGATIVE. WE RE ENTITLED TO ALL GROUND OUTSIDE OF THE AFFIRMATIVE AND WE CAN ADVOCATE IT IN WHATEVER WAY WE WANT SO LONG AS WE PROVE THE AFF IS BAD. IF THEY DON T WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO ASK US BUT RATHER ENGAGE IN ASININE THEORY DEBATES ABOUT SPECIFICATION AND PURPORTED AFFIRMATIVE FAIRNESS THAT S WORSE FOR DEBATE THAN OUR SHIFTINESS ANYWAY

4.

!. ". #. -. .. 1+.

263

THEORY MAGIC

11. THIS CREATES A TERRIBLE WORLD OF OVERSPECIFIED 1NC COUNTERPLAN STATUSES THAT ROB THE NEGATIVE OF ANY FLE'IBLITY- LINGER +! (MICHAEL, HARVARD DEBATER X 'ND
SEED AT THE

NDT '$$*, EDEBATE, HTTP/&&WWW.NDTCEDA.COM&ARCHIVES&'$$*11&$)'1.HTML)

F6J=:F IB? V>;=;E> >H6G9I9G=;9B:V >66J> = 79;;76 6RG6>>9D6. T<6 GE??6:; GBJJE:9;A :B?J BI =>@9:C =KBE; ;<6 GBE:;6?H7=: >EK>;=:;9=;6> = H?6;;A GBJH6779:C VG?B>>-6R G<6G@>V =:>86? ;B ABE? GBJH7=9:;. H=> 9; ?6=77A ;=@6: JB?6 ;<=: ;6: >6GB:F> IB? ABE ;B F6;6?J9:6 ;<6 >;=;E> BI = GBE:;6?H7=:S I: ;<B>6 G=>6>, <=> ;<6 ?6>; BI ABE? G?B>>-6R ?6=77A
A7>B, ABE? K66: >B IE77A H=G@6F 89;< ?BE:F-89::9:C LE6>;9B:> ;<=; ;<6>6 7B>; ;6: >6GB:F> 86?6 G?EG9=7S P7E>,

GB:>9F6? ;<6

=7;6?:=;9D6. YBE >=9F ABE?>67I ;<=; ;<6?6 9> :B 6>;=K79><6F J6=:9:C IB? F9>HB>9;9B:=79;A B? GB:F9;9B:=79;A. SB 9> >=A9:C V86 BII6? ;<9> VF9>HB>9;9B:=7 GBE:;6?H7=:V :B; 6:BEC<S DB6> ;<9> J6=: ;<=; ;<6 :6C=;9D6 <=> ;B <=D6 = V>;=;E>V GBJHB:6:; ;B ;<69? ><677/ VW6 BII6? ;<6 IB77B89:C GBE:;6?H7=: ;<=; 86 J=A @9G@ => 7B:C => ;<6 :6C=;9D6 H6?JE;6> ;<6 GBE:;6?H7=: B? J=@6> = ;<6B?A =?CEJ6:; =C=9:>; ;<6 GBE:;6?H7=: B;<6? ;<=: =: =?CEJ6:; >=A9:C ;<=; ?E::9:C = GBE:;6?H7=: ;<=; 86 G=: @9G@ 9> 9776C9;9J=;6...V I: ><B?;, I ;<9:@ ;<=; ;<9> 9> JEG< =FB =KBE; :B;<9:C. I G=:W; ?6J6JK6? =:A ;9J6 8<6?6 F9>HB>9;9B:=79;A&GB:F9;9B:=79;A GB:IE>9B:
G=E>6F <=DBG 9: = F6K=;6. O: ;<6 B;<6? <=:F, ABE? GBJH=?9>B: ;B =>>EJ9:C ;<6 J6=F G=?F 8=> ?6=F >;?EG@ = 79;;76 G7B>6? ;B <BJ6...

264

THEORY MAGIC

AT& MUST SPEC CP STATUS % 2NR % OVERVIEW

EVEN IF THEY HAVE OFFENSIVE REASONS WHY NOT SPECIFYING IS BAD IN THE ABSTRACT, THERE ARE A FEW REASONS YOU SHOULDN T VOTE ON THIS BAD THEORY ARGUMENT. 1. ITS INFINITELY REGRESSIVE- IT #USTIFIES FORCING THE NEGATIVE TO SPECIFY EVERY ASININE DETAIL OF THEIR 1NC STRATEGY, INCLUDING AGENT, ENFORCEMENT, FUNDING, IMPLIMENTATION, CONDITIONS FOR REMOVAL, INTENT, GRAMMAR. IT IS A BAD STANDARD THAT LEADS TO SHALLOW DEBATES. IT ALSO #USTIFIES FORCING BAD AFFIRMATIVE SPECIFICATION. 2. OUR COUNTER-INTERPRETATION SOLVES ALL OF THEIR OFFENSE/ THEY CAN T WIN A REASON WHY A COUNTERPLAN SHOULD BE ASSUMED UNCONDITIONAL. NEGATION THEORY SWAMPS THEIR ANALYSIS- IT IS OUR #OB TO TEST THE AFFIRMATIVE, 3.
COUNTERPLANS ARE OPPORTUNITY COSTS THAT ARE ASSUMED CONDITIONAL UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. FAIRNESS CLAIMS FLOW NEGATIVE. EVEN IF THEY CAN WIN THAT THIS SEEMS BAD FOR THE AFF, IT IS UNIQUELY WORSE FOR US TO LOSE SPEECH TIME. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE THAT CROSS-E" IS IMPORTANT, THE NEGATIVE HINGES 1$$% OF THEIR STRATEGY ON THE 1NC- TO LOSE EVEN ONE SECOND OF THAT IS UNIQUELY BAD AND MEANS THAT WE LL ALWAYS BE AT A DISADVTANGE. THIS GIVES CREED TO OUR CLAIMS ABOUT SIDE BIAS KLINGER PROVIDES A PRETTY GOOD VIEW OF WHAT THE WORLD OF DARTMOUTH S SPEC LOOKS LIKE/ )* SECOND PREFACES TO THE COUNTERPLAN OUTLINING A COMPLE" SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT CAN BE KICKED. THIS IS BAD FOR DEBATE BECAUSE IT DECREASES PLAN FOCUS DEBATE AND ENCOURAGES THE NEGATIVE NOT TO RUN COUNTERPLANS. RE#ECT THE ARGUMENT NOT THE TEAM- IF IT IS TRUE THAT WE MUST SPECIFY OR ITS BAD, RE#ECT OUR COUNTERPLAN FOR BEING RUN THE WRONG WAY, RATHER THAN ENDORSING A WORLD VIEW THAT #USTIFIES AFF ABUSE OF THE NEGATIVE.

4.

!.

265

THEORY MAGIC

AT& MUST SPEC CP STATUS % 2NR % AT& ITS MY CROSS-E'

1. TURN/ IT IS MY SPEECH. I DON T FORCE THE AFF TO SPECIFY EVERY MUNDANE DETAIL OF THE METHOD OF THEIR 1NC ADVOCACY- TO TRY TO #USTIFY THE SAME FROM ME IS UNFAIR. FAIRNESS SHOULD TRUMP EDUCATION CLAIMS BECAUSE IT DOESN T MATTER WHAT WE LEARN IF NO ONE WILL PLAY AN UNFAIR GAME. '. AFF SIDE BIAS- EVEN IF THEY CAN WIN THAT THE AFF DOESN T HAVE A SIDE BIAS RIGHT NOW, THIS GUARANTEES ONE. THE NEGATIVE WOULD ALWAYS LOSE BECAUSE WE D NEVER HAVE ENOUGH SPEECH TIME FOR CONVINCING ARGUMENTS. (. THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT CROSS-E" WINS THEM EVERY DEBATE AND THE LOSS OF TIME IS SO SUBSTANTIAL THAT THEY CAN T RECOVER. ). THE ALTERNATIVE IS WORSE- THEY SHOULD HAVE TO ASK ABOUT OUR STRATEGY RATHER THAN A COMPLICATED E"PLANATION IN THE 'NC.

266

THEORY MAGIC

AT& MUST SPEC CP STATUS % 2NR % AT& YOU/RE STUC WITH THE CP
1. THIS PROVES OUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT FAIRNESS- THEY RE INTERPRETATION IS SCREW THE NEGATIVE IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE. WE RE ONLY ARGUING FOR A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- NO LOSS OF CRITICAL SPEECH TIME AND NOT BEING FORCED INTO ONE METHOD OF ADVOCACY. '. OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE COUNTERPLAN IS ASSUMED CONDITIONAL UNDER SPECIFIED OTHERWISE- NEGATION THEORY #UST MEANS WE NEED TO PROVE THE AFF IS BAD BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY. (. THIS LEADS TO A WORLD WHERE TEAMS WONT RUN COUNTERPLANS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO STRATEGIC VALUE. COUNTERPLANS ARE THE CORE OF NEGATIVE
STRATEGY BECAUSE THEY ALLOW FOR COMPLETE TESTING OF THE AFFIRMATIVE AND A COMPELLING STRATEGY.

267

THEORY MAGIC

AT& MUST SPEC CP STATUS % 2NR % AT& NOT SPECIFYING ISN/T FAIR
1. TURN/ THE AFF DOESN T SPECIFY THE MEANS UNDER WHICH THEY CAN KICK ANY PART OF THEIR 'AC, THAT S NOT FAIR TO OUR ABILITY TO PREPARE HOW WE LL ANSWER ADVANTAGES SINCE THEY COULD #UST KICK IT LATER. '. TURN/ FORCING THE NEGATIVE TO LOSE SPEECH TIME IS WORSE. CROSS-E" IS LESS VALUABLE THAN 1NC SPEECH TIME SO THE TRADEOFF IS NET BETTER FOR ROUND FAIRNESS. (. THE ALTERNATIVE IS WORSE FOR EDUCATION WHICH IS THE HEART OF THIS ACTIVITYIT LEADS TO REGRESSIVE BAD DEBATES. THAT S OUR KLINGER IN $* EVIDENCE.

268

THEORY MAGIC

AT& MUST SPEC CP STATUS % 2NR % AT& LEADS TO CONDITIONALITY

1. TURN/ OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT A COUNTERPLAN IS CONDITIONAL UNTIL OTHERWISE STATED. ASKING IN CROSS-E" GUARANTEES THAT THIS DOESN T HAPPEN. '. THIS IS AN OVERGENERALI2ATION. #UST BECAUSE SOME TEAMS WILL TAKE NOT (. ).
ASKING TO MEAN THE COUNTERPLAN IS CONDITIONAL DOESN T MEAN YOU SHOULD PUNISH US. THAT S WHY CROSS-E" CHECKS ALL ABUSE. CONDITIONALITY IS GOOD/ A. BEST POLICY OPTION- SEARCHING FOR MULTIPLE AVENUES OF SOLVING IS BEST FOR DEBATE. B. NEGATIVE FLE"IBILITY- WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER 'AC ADD-ONS SINCE 1NC COUNTERPLANS ARE ONLY BASED ON 1AC ARGUMENTS. C. SIDE BIAS #USTIFIES- THE AFF GETS FIRST&LAST SPEECH, INFINITE PREP TIME, AND WINS 0$% OF DEBATES. WE NEED EVERY TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL. D. ERR NEGATIVE ON THIS QUESTION- WE HAVE OFFENSIVE REASONS WHY WE NEED COUNTERPLANS AND CONDITIONALITY IS THE ONLY WAY TO EFFECTIVELY DEPLOY THAT STRATEGY.

269

THEORY MAGIC

MISC - NEGATIVE FIAT E'ISTS 2NC

OUR INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE NEGATIVE ALSO GETS FIAT IF THE AFF DOES 1. RECIPROCITY- THEY CAN SUSPEND REALITY FOR HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN, ITS ONLY FAIR THAT WE GET THE SAME ABILITY 2. STATUS $UO IS INDEFENSIBLE- THE WORLD GETS MORE SCREWED UP BY THE MINUTE ! WE SHOULDN T BE FORCED TO #UST DEFEND THE STATUS QUO. 3. REAL WORLD- POLICYMAKERS ARE NOT FORCED TO NEGATE EACH OTHER S PROPOSALS WITH THE STATUS QUO ! THEY OFFER REAL WORLD ALTERNATIVES AS A FORM OF NEGATION. 4. FIAT IS A NORMATIVE TOOL- NEITHER TEAM CONTROLS FIAT IN THE ROUND ! IT IS A !. ". #. -.
MENTAL TOOL BELONGING TO THE #UDGE WHO USES IT TO ENDORSE OR RE#ECT POLICY OPTIONS. BEST POLICY OPTION- THEIR INTERPRETATION FORECLOSES EFFECTIVE TESTINF OT HE AFFIRMATIVE. NO AFFIRMATIVE FIAT- THEY HAVEN T PROVEN SHOULD IS A BASIS FOR FIAT, THEY #UST ASSERTED IT. SHOULD DOESN T REQUIRE POLICY, IT ONLY REQUIRES ADVOCACY, WHICH IS WHAT OUR COUNTERPLAN IS. NEGATIVE GROUND- CPS ARE CRITICAL TO TEST THE PLAN AND PREVENT THE NEGATIVE FROM DEFENDING IMMORAL POLICIES. ERR NEGATIVE- THIS IS ONE THEORY QUESTION WHERE YOU SHOULD LEAN NEGATIVEWE RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN ACCESS ANY SORT OF EDUCATION OR FAIRNESS STANDARDS.

270

THEORY MAGIC

MISC % THEORY IS NOT A VOTER

DON T VOTE ON CHEAP THEORY SHOTS 1. IT ISN/T GROUNDED IN THE RESOLUTION- THEY #UST HAVE A SUB#ECTIVE WHINY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY THINK THAT THIS DEBATE SHOULD LOOK LIKE. THEY 2.
NEED SPECIFIC CONCRETE E"AMPLES OF HOW OUR ADVOCACY SKEWED THE DEBATE INALTERABLY IN OUR FAVOR. AT WORST, RE(ECT THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE TEAM A. EQUAL TIME TRADE-OFF CHECKS- WE RE SPENDING EQUIVALENT TIME ANSWERING THEORY AND ALL OF THE SUBSTANATIVE ARGUMENTS. THIS MEANS WE GIVE THEM THE STRATEGIC OPTION TO CHOOSE, WHICH ISN T AVAILABLE TO US. B. THE AFF HAS TO #USTIFY THE PLAN- THEORY ARGUMENTS ARE NOT A REASON TO ADOPT THE 1AC- IT STILL NEEDS #USTIFICATION. THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME- THEORY IS A BAD WAY TO DECIDE DEBATES. IF IT WARRANTS PUNISHMENT, PUNISH OUR SPEAKER POINTS AND MAKE IT CLEAR HOW YOU FEEL ON THIS POSITION- BUT USING THE BALLOT AS A WEAPON OF RETRIBUTION SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.

3.

271

THEORY MAGIC

MISC % ERR NEGATIVE ON THEORY

DEFAULT NEGATIVE ON ALL THEORY QUESTIONS 1. AFF SIDE BIAS A. THEY GET THE FIRST AND LAST SPEECH WHICH MAKES FOR ROUND FOCUS AND 'AR E"TRAPOLATION. THIS MEANS THAT THEY GET AN UNMISTAKABLE ADVANTAGE, EVEN IF THE 1AR SEEMS HARD. B. THEY GET INFINITE PREP TIME TO PREPARE FOR STRATEGIES AND WE RE LIMITED TO MINISCULE PRE-ROUND PREP AND IN-ROUND DECISION MAKING. FURTHERMORE, THEY ALWAYS HAVE STABLE 1AC GROUND GUARANTEED TO THEM. 2. NO GROUND OR TIME TRADEOFFS TO THEIR ARGUMENTS- WE LL SPEND AS MUCH TIME
ON THEORY AS THEY DO WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEFENDING THE REST OF OUR ARGUMENTS IN THE BLOCK. THE AFF HAS THE CHOICE OF GOING FOR THEORY OR SUBSTANCE, PROVIDING A SUBSTANTIAL LEG UP. NO ABUSE- CLAIMS OF ABUSE ARE #UST ATTEMPTS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. IF WE WIN A 1% RISK OF A SIDE BIAS, ERR NEGATIVE.

3.

272

THEORY MAGIC

MISC % POTENTIAL ABUSE IS A VOTER

YOU SHOULD RE#ECT THE TEAM, NOT THE ARGUMENT, ON POTENTIAL ABUSE 1. THEORY $UESTIONS ARE OF COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS- IF WE WIN THAT THEIR 2. 3.
INTERPRETATION IS UNIQUELY BAD FOR DEBATE THEN YOU SHOULD VOTE AGAINST THEM TO PRESERVE THIS ACTIVITY. ABUSE IS SUB(ECTIVE- YOU CAN ONLY DETERMINE A STANDARD FOR ABUSE BY COMPARING OTHER ROUNDS. ONLY BY RETAINING A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN DEBATE IS THIS SUB#ECTIVITY AVOIDABLE. GROUND SUPERCEDES- EVEN IF WE LOSE ABUSE CLAIMS ON THIS DEBATE YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THE INTERPRETATION THAT BEST PRESERVES EQUITABLE AND PREDICTABLE GROUND FOR BOTH TEAMS- WE RE THE ONLY ONES WITH AN INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS ON THIS POINT. CREATES PRECIDENCE- PUNISHING TEAMS FOR BAD INTERPRETAITONS SENDS A SIGNAL ABOUT WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE IN DEBATE AND FORCES THEM TO CHANGE THEIR ACTIONS. MOST REAL WORLD- OUR INTERPRETATION OF ABUSE ALLOWS YOU TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE PLAN FROM AN OB#ECTIVE STANDPOINT IN RELATION TO DEBATE, RATHER THAN THIS ROUND ALONE.

4. !.

273

THEORY MAGIC

AT& REVERSE INHERENCY

1. Their argument hurts affirmative ground << !e couldn(t find someone to propose a solution to a problem if the status 6uo is alread solving it. %. Their argument hurts negative ground << it means that none of their argument !ould be uni6ueE and it precludes our abilit to find a solvenc author) !hich !ould never ma.e an affirmative predictable. *. There(s no abuse << our solvenc authors prove that our proposal is feasible and could occur if certain barriers !ere overcome Hi.e.) fiatD. 0. There argument is a Futopian fiat is badG argument in disguise << but !e don(t use utopian fiat. Our proposal is real<!orld and feasible. 8. There(s no abuse << the have plent of ground. The can al!a s counterplan out the case. Or) the have valuable @riti. ground to argue about performance and advocac . :. E2tend our 1'- solvenc evidence !hich is specific to our plan << the have no evidence to counter this. This means ou should al!a s value our evidence !hich discusses real solutions to real problems versus their theoretical !hines an da . C. The can(t prove an abuse4 aD There(s literature to support our plan << that(s the solvenc evidence bD The actuall have /ORE ground to run counterplans and .riti.s cD The actuall have an opportunit to run a disad that FmightG be uni6ue dD These all mean ou should vote for our interpretation << !hich is loo. to our solvenc evidence and to our plan << both are real !orld and are not utopian. Their interpretation allo!s for more abuse to occur against negatives. 'N,) if ou !ere to vote for this) ou should onl vote for '-T;'9 abuse. We shouldn(t be punished for !hat other affirmatives claim. That(s li.e sa ing ou should vote against '99 negatives simpl because there(s the ris. that the could run the 'narch -ounterplan.

274

THEORY MAGIC

AT& COUNTER-PERMS
1. The (re infinitel regressive << the can al!a s come bac. to sa the !ill test our permutations in multiple !a s << this undermines debate and creates moving targets. %. -ounter<perms are theoreticall d sfunctional << the don(t test the competition of an thing. Our permutation either tests the viabilit and competition of their "cpI.riti.$ or it doesn(t. 5nitiating a counter< perm onl muddies the issue. *. -ounter<perms s mboliJe the strength of our permutations << it proves that the Neg has to resort to obscure theoretical arguments to serve no function because our permutations prove that their original arguments aren(t competitive. 0. Turn << counter<permutations flip their advocac << aD The are mas. po!er relations << instead of directl debating and refuting our permutations) the shield their intentions behind counter<permutations << this onl intensifies po!er disparit . bD The prove the insincerit of their advocac << a counter<permutation is a ne! form of advocac ) !hich means the abandon their original advocac . This proves t!o things4 1. We can advocate our permutation later if !e desire %. There is no Fin<roundG or FdiscursiveG or F our ballot is .e G implication to their arguments. 8. -ounter<perms are abusive << aD The undermine our abilit to generate offense. +ermutations are vital for 'ffirmative(s to test the viabilit and competition to Neg arguments. -ounter<perms eliminate that. bD -ounter<perms are 7ust asserted) anal tical and manufactured lin. arguments. The use our permutations as springboards to 7ustif a theoretical abstraction) !hich the !ill then claim is another lin. into their position. 't the end of the debate) ou should recogniJe that theses are NOT lin.s to our plan or advocac ) but rather blan.et assertions b the Negative. :. This is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and ground.

275

THEORY MAGIC

AT& WHOLE RE2

1. We meet the Resolution sa s to substantiall increase securit assistance to one or more of the nations in >outheast 'sia. We substantiall increase securit assistance to ##################. >ince the Resolution has the !ords Fone or more of the follo!ing)G the !ord ForG allo!s us to defend the entiret of the Resolution. %. The Resolution isn(t the focus of the debate once the plan is read) the affirmative relin6uishes all other ground to the negative. *. Whole ReJ .ills negative -+ ground onl !ith an aff. plan can the negative have an on<point -+. 0. Time constraints prevent effective debating. 5f the affirmative is responsible for advocating the entire resolution) !e !ouldn(t have enough time to debate the !hole thing. 8. Whole ReJ perpetuates the part vs. !hole dichotom . The plan is not simpl one aspect of the resolution. Rather) it is an illustration or e2ample of the resolution. 3 voting affirmative) ou are voting for a !arrant for the resolution. :. Whole ReJ. undermines affirmative ground. 3 forcing an affirmative to defend the entiret of the resolution) negatives are able to run more disadvantages that !ould other!ise not lin.. C. Whole ReJ. encourages irresponsible plan advocac . 5nstead of generating a specific and carefull !orded plan for polic action) affirmatives are encouraged to use the Resolution as their proposal. This opens up lots of abuse and places !ording responsibilit on the &ramers) rather than the affirmative team. B. Whole ReJ. is unrealistic and cumbersome for the affirmative. No solvenc author advocates implementing the entire resolution as a plan. K. Whole ReJ undermines competition topical counterplans are no longer legitimate !ith a resolutional focus. >ince competition is !hat legitimates topical counterplans) it too is devalued. 1L. There(s no abuse. Whole ReJ. is onl a !hine about ground and fairness. >ince the negative has arguments and evidence against our plan) there(s no reason to vote for the Resolution as a !hole versus our plan.

276

THEORY MAGIC

E'TRA-TOPICALITY GOOD
1. 3est +olic +ermitting e2tra<topical plan.s allo!s us to find the best polic . The resolution is still 7ustified as long as it is part of the optimal polic pac.age. %. Real World >upports /embers of -ongress use riders to their bills for the best policies. *. No 1round 9oss The plan is still the focus of the debate. The negative still has counterplan ground. 'lso) the negative can run disads to the e2tra<topical plan spi.es. 0. No 'buse The e2tra<topical plan.s are neutral parts of the plan that have potential of ans!ering disads) but not claiming independent advantages. The can remove FminusesG but never create Fpluses.G 8. Reciprocit -ounterplans also contain elements that are Fspi.esG or at least have non<competitive portions of the counterplan. The affirmative should also have this privilege. :. No 5nfinite Regress There is a limit to the abilit to spi.e out disads. C. No 'buse The negative researched and ran the disadsE the should be prepared to debate potential !a s of solving for them. B. &iat ,oesn(t E2clude E2tra<Topical +lan.s The !ord FshouldG doesn(t solel define fiatE if it did) no non<topical counterplan !ould have fiat po!er. 'lso) FshouldG implies a conte2t a conte2t !here !e believe real !orld advocates !ould permit our plan provisions.

277

THEORY MAGIC

E'TRA-TOPICALITY BAD
1. 1round The purpose of the resolution is to divide ground. 3 going outside resolutional parameters) the affirmative reduces negative ground and creates an unfair advantage. %. 'busive The affirmative can spi.e out disads and claim advantages from the plan plan.. This means that our ground is undermined. +ermitting e2tra<topical plan.s enables the affirmative to spi.e out all negative positions in !hich the negative could never !in. *. 9imits E2tra<topical plan plan.s are virtuall limitless and infinitel regressive. We could never prepare or anticipate !hat plan.s the affirmative chooses to use. 0. ,erails +olic ,iscussion The topic is designed to focus discussion. E2tra<topical plan.s derails our polic discussion b moving it into a different direction. 'll topic focus becomes lost. 8. &iat 'buse &iat is derived from the !ord Fshould.G Onl topical action !ithin the resolution is !ithin the confines of possible fiat. There is no resolutional sanction for fiat be ond the resolution. :. Mustifies Negative 3allot E2tra<topical plan.s concede that the resolution b itself is insufficient. 'n insufficient resolution !arrants its re7ection.

278

THEORY MAGIC

EFFECTS 0T1 GOOD

1. No =iolation The plan on<face is topical. We directl "#############################$. %. /ultiple >teps are 5rrelevant The same results are .e for ground and abuse. 's long as !e aren(t abusive to the negative) then &N topicalit is a moot issue. *. ' -ouple of E2tra >teps is Not 'busive T!o or three e2tra steps does not uni6uel encroach on negative ground. 5n fact) !e provide more negative ground because the no! have more counterplan and disad ground. 0. No 3right<9ine The negative does not provide a bright<line interpretation as to !hat !ould be legitimate and illegitimate. 8. The Resolution Re6uires &N Topicalit "5N>ERT RE'>ON5N1 HERE$ :. Negative 5nterpretation is &la!ed The resolution doesn(t re6uire direct action) it 7ust sa s that something FshouldG be done in the area of the resolution. Our plan does this on<face. C. We ,o Not =iolate 'n Word 5n The Resolution >ince no !ord is violated) this shouldn(t be evaluated li.e a normal topicalit violation. 5t no longer is an a priori voting issue.

279

THEORY MAGIC

EFFECTS 0T1 BAD

1. The +lan On<&ace /ust 3e Topical The affirmative(s interpretation forces us to loo. at their evidence to determine if the (re topical. %. 1round &N topical plans reduces negative ground. We can(t anticipate !hat the aff. !ill run. The could ban nuclear !eapons !hich !ould) in<turn) eventuall ma.e them topical. 'lso) &N<topical plans limits our disad and counterplan ground. *. 9imits &N topical plans underlimit the topic. The affirmative could do an thing that eventuall results in topical action. No negative can ever prepare for such a topic. 0. Reduces +recision 5f the affirmative can be &N topical) then focused polic discussion becomes meaningless. We end up debating about the resolutional area as a probable harm area instead of as a polic action area. 8. /i2es 3urdens &N topicalit re6uires us to loo. at solvenc to determine topicalit instead of the plan. /i2ing burdens is illegitimate because it reduces the overall burdens to be met b the affirmative and increases the potential for abuse. :. 5nfinitel Regressive The affirmative can al!a s claim to eventuall become topical.

280

THEORY MAGIC

GRAMMAR STANDARD BAD

1R'//'R 5> 'N 5/+ORT'NT TOO9 &OR O++RE>>5ON) ;>E, '> ' WE'+ON TO /'5NT'5N THE ,O/5N'NT -;9T;RE 'N, +;>H /'R15N'95OE, 1RO;+> TO THE +ER5+HERY 3';,R599'R,) 1KKB
HMean) F1rammar 'in(t No 1ood4 ' -riti6ue of 1rammar and a ,e<&acto ,efense of Ebonics)G http4IIbro6uard.tilted.comIsaloonIne!sletter%.html) cite from &ullertonD

5n this !a grammar and speech Pcorrection( have been an important tool for oppression of non<standard spea.ers of English. >mitherman states) Fthe Pnational mania for correctness( is) after all) a useful tool. The speech of blac.s) the poor) and other po!erless groups is used as a !eapon to den them access to full participation in societ G H1KKD. 's long as the dominant culture maintains that there is one Pcorrect( or Pright( !a of spea.ing Pthe English language)( and the have full control over those Pstandards)( marginaliJed groups) !ith their o!n e6uall legitimate grammars) !ill continue to be pushed to the peripher of our increasingl fragmented culture and denied access to the center. 1rammar is used to maintain the po!er structure of the dominant cultureE certain privileged classes Hthe !ealth ) eastern and !hiteD have the abilit to regulate) !ho is and !ho is not spea.ing Pcorrect( English. Mames >ledd states in his boo. Black language reader) >tandard English in the ;nited >tates is a principal means of preserving the e2isting po!er structure) for it builds the s stem of class distinctions into the most in!ard reaches of each child(s humanit 4 the language !hose master ma.es the child human ma.es him also a member of social class. H%L1LD.

281

THEORY MAGIC

SPEED GOOD % SHORT VERSION

1. Their arguments are 7ust !hines A if it !ere their favorite song) the !ould have no problem listening to the fast l rics. The abilit to comprehend fast spea.ing is directl related to one(s abilit to focus on things the want to listen to. %. Their arguments are disingenuous A since the can comprehend fast debate) the are ma.ing these arguments 7ust to !in a debate too A don(t re7ect us 7ust because !e(re tr ing to be strategic) !hen the are doing the same thing. *. Turn A fast debate is good4 a. 5t improves memor A studies sho! that processing higher rates of speed improves cognitive memor b. 5t improves efficienc A !e(re able to sa more things in a shorter amount of time c. 5t improves our abilit to thin. more 6uic.l A spea.ing and reading faster re6uires us to thin. more 6uic.l A !hich allo!s us to absorb greater amounts of information on our feet. d. 5t e2pands our cognitive abilities A the average person onl uses about 1Q of their brain A faster spea.ing e2pands our cognitive abilities b using more brain po!er e. We learn more about a topic A not onl does faster spea.ing allo! us to read and absorb more information) but it also means more issues get e2plored in debate rounds) causing more in<depth anal sis and discussion. f. 5t increases argument responsibilit A b introducing more arguments) debaters have to defend the entiret of their position) from different and var ing vie!points. 5f !e onl allo!ed a fe! arguments A at a slo!er pace A during a speech) positions !on(t get tested as much. 0. &ast spea.ing is not e2clusionar 4 a. With practice) ever one can spea. more 6uic.l b. There is no uni6ue reason !h an particular individual or group is e2cluded as a result from fast debate c. Turn A to assume that certain individuals cannot access fast debate is patroniJing and condescending 8. &ast debate does not unfairl disadvantage one side over another A slo!er debaters can group arguments) straight turn arguments) or ma.e more efficient arguments. 'n of these methods can be emplo ed !ithout FdroppingG important arguments) and the e6ualiJe the pla ing field.

282

THEORY MAGIC

SPEED GOOD % LONG VERSION (1*4)

1. Turn4 spreading boosts short term memor ) .e to education and ever da life &s%c!o$og% Toda% October 1KH /report of the results of the Raine et al stud D R5f friends criticiJe ou for tal.ing too fast) at least the can?t also accuse ou of having a bad memor . >peech rate is a strong inde2 of short term memor span... ?Therefore) the faster ou can tal.) the greater our short< term memor )? sa s 'drian Raine) +h,) a ;niversit of >outhern -alifornia ps chologist. The lin. has been established for adults for some time) Raine reports in -hild ,evelopment. No!) he and his colleagues find the correlation holds for .ids as !ell) a finding that promises short<term pa off in the classroom and long< term pa off in life. >hort<term memor is the po!er behind recall of phone numbers) directions) and other ever da tas.s. 5t is also the foundation of arithmetic and reading s.ills... That raises the possibilit that speech< training ma be a short<cut to achievement.R Hp.10D %. Ho! fast is Ptoo fast(S There(s no bright line) m partner(s prett sure i(m moving along !a too slo! no!

283

THEORY MAGIC

SPEED GOOD % LONG VERSION (2*4)

*. Turn4 Tal.ing faster increases memor ) preventing losses !ith age Hu$'e) -harles T 5ac,enIie) >usie. H1KH D. Wor.ing /emor and >evere 9earning ,ifficulties. Hillsdale) ;>'4 9a!rence Erlbaum 'ssociates. +g 08 RThese results are stri.ing in that the same linear function relating recall to speech rate fits the results for all age groups. >ub7ects of different ages in this stud all recalled) on average) as much as the could sa in roughl 1.8 seconds. 5ncreases in memor span !ith age are seen to be ver closel related to changes in speech rate !ith age. Thus the results of these different studies are re'ar,a($% c$ear and consistent. The dramatic improvements in serial recall performance !ith increasing age are closel and 6uantitativel related to changes in speech rate. 5n terms of the articulator loop theor ) !hich gave impetus to these studies) the length of the loop appears to remain constant across different agesE more material is stored in this s stem because it can be spo.en and so rehearsed more rapidl . These results) relating developmental increases in speech rate to increases in short<term memor efficienc ) lead 6uite directl to a simple causal theor 4 That increases in memor span !ith age depend upon increases in speech rate. Needless to sa ) ho!ever) such a theor is not necessitated b the findings. The findings are essentiall correlationalE as children get older their speech rate increases and in line !ith this so does their memor performance. 5t could be that both these changes depend upon some other factor. The obvious !a to test this causal theor is to conduct a training stud . 5f short< term memor depends upon speech rate) if !e can successfull train children to spea. faster) then this should) according to the theor ) lead to a corresponding increase in short<term memor . Hp.08D 0. Turn4 speed solves elitism4 ou can come from a poor bac.ground and practice an hour a da spreading an thing) ne!spapers or boo.s) and ou(ll be a better debater for it. Without speed debate !ould be for the rich elite onl .

284

THEORY MAGIC

SPEED GOOD % LONG VERSION (3*4)

8. Turn4 e2panded !or.ing memor is critical to literac and math Hu$'e) -harles T 5ac,enIie) >usie. H1KH D. Wor.ing /emor and >evere 9earning ,ifficulties. Hillsdale) ;>'4 9a!rence Erlbaum 'ssociates. +g %1 R5n its broadest sense) !or.ing memor refers to the use of temporar storage mechanisms in the performance of more comple2 tas.s. >o) for e2ample) in order to read and understand prose) !e must be able to hold incoming information in memor . This is necessar in order to compute the semantic and s ntactic relationships among successive !ords) phrases) and sentences and so construct a coherent and meaningful representation of the meaning of the te2t. This temporar storage of information during reading is said to depend on !or.ing memor . 5n this vie! the abilit to understand prose !ill depend on) among other things) the capacit of a person(s !or.ing memor s stem. >uch temporar storage of information is obviousl necessar for the performance of a !ide variet of other tas.s apart from reading) such as mental arithmetic HHitch) 1KCBD and verbal reasoning H3addele T Hitch) 1KC0D.R :. Turn4 spreading increases education b allo!ing a discussion of more issues) if !e couldn(t read a bunch of ans!ers !e couldn(t have a tenth the depth of a good fast round

285

THEORY MAGIC

SPEED GOOD % LONG VERSION (4*4)

C. Turn4 >peed is critical linguistic abilities Stine) EliJabeth 9.) +ingfie$d) 'rthur) J &oon) 9eonard. H1KGKD. Ho! much and ho! fast4 Rapid processing of spo.en language in later adulthood. +s cholog and 'ging) vol. 1) no. 0) *L*<*11. +.*L* R't a ver fast rate) several things must be accomplished. The various processes re6uired to recode linguistic stimuli into meaning have been articulated for both spo.en language HMust T -arpenter) 1KBLE /arslen< Wilson T T ler) 1KBLD and !ritten te2t H@intsch T van,i7.) 1KCBE M. /iller T @intsch) 1KBLD. There must be some initial phase in !hich the stimulus is encoded) ph sical features Hvisual or acousticD are e2tracted) and le2ical access is achieved HMust T -arpenter) 1KBLD. Ne2t) the language content must be parsed into meaningful idea units in !hich relationships are determined among !ords H@intsch T van,i7.) 1KCBD. These relationships are t picall represented in terms of propositions consisting of a predicate and one or more arguments that are related b the predicate. Third) relationships bet!een idea units of the te2t must be established in order to construct overall structural coherence in the te2t. &inall ) the te2t must be related to and integrated !ith !orld .no!ledge. 'lthough such processes !ould undoubtedl have to !or. in both a top<do!n and bottom<up fashion) the output at each of these stages !ould !ave to (e !e$d in an on$ine !or.ing memor for an effective integration of meaning.R B. Turn4 fast debate is more fun) it adds such a ne! level of depth to debate) speed is indispensable to it) 5(d probabl 6uit if 5 couldn(t go fast

286