great theory

SDI 2009-20101

Cambre-Samuels-Burk LabTheory File

Theory Index

Theory Index....................................................................................................................................1Dispo Bad........................................................................................................................................2Dispo Good......................................................................................................................................3Condo Bad.......................................................................................................................................4Condo Good.....................................................................................................................................5PICs Bad..........................................................................................................................................6PICs Good........................................................................................................................................7Floating PICs Bad............................................................................................................................8Floating PICs Good.........................................................................................................................950 State Fiat Bad............................................................................................................................1050 State Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................11Multi Actor Fiat Bad......................................................................................................................12Multi Actor Fiat Good...................................................................................................................13Agent CP’s Bad.............................................................................................................................14Agent CP’s Good...........................................................................................................................15Consult CP’s Bad...........................................................................................................................16Consult CP’s Good........................................................................................................................172NC CP’s Bad................................................................................................................................182NC CP’s Good.............................................................................................................................19Utopian Fiat Bad............................................................................................................................20Utopian Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................21Vagueness Bad...............................................................................................................................22Vagueness Good............................................................................................................................23No Solvency Advocate Bad...........................................................................................................24No Solvency Advocate Good........................................................................................................25No Alt Text Bad.............................................................................................................................26No Alt Text Good..........................................................................................................................27Textual Competition Good............................................................................................................28Functional Competition Good.......................................................................................................29Lopez CP Bad................................................................................................................................30Lopez CP Good..............................................................................................................................31Multiple Perms Bad.......................................................................................................................32Multiple Perms Good.....................................................................................................................33Severance Perms Bad....................................................................................................................34Severance Perms Good..................................................................................................................35Intrinsic Perms Bad........................................................................................................................36Intrinsic Perms Good.....................................................................................................................37Intrinsic DA Perms Bad.................................................................................................................38Intrinsic DA Perms Good..............................................................................................................39Perf Con Bad..................................................................................................................................40Perf Con Good...............................................................................................................................41Advocating Perms Bad..................................................................................................................42Advocating Perms Good................................................................................................................43

“Power is inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is tearing human minds to pieces.” – George Orwell

SDI 2009-20102


Dispo Bad

1. Kills Education

a. Conditionality in disguise – the neg knows it puts us at a strategic disadvantage to straight turn the cp/k so they can just kick them later.

b. Not real world – policy makers have to deal with the consequences of proposing an action. They can’t just pretend they didn’t read it if someone questions them about it.

2. Ground

a. Strategy and time skew – the neg can just read a bunch of dipso counterplans and moot 2AC answers by kicking almost all of them in the block because the aff can’t fairly turn all the different counterplans.

b. Race to the bottom – Forcing the aff win offense on the counterplan by straight turning vs. the neg’s net benefits leads to a race to the bottom.

c. Perms key to aff ground – checks back non-competitive and artificially competitive counterplans

3. Straight turns don’t check – it’s suicide not to perm in most instances, it puts the neg into a strategic advantage.

4. Reciprocity – the aff is forced to stick with one advocacy, so should the neg.

5. Err aff on theory – debate has changed, statistically neg wins more rounds. When was the last time you wanted to be aff in an outround?

6. Voter for fairness, ground and education


SDI 2009-20103


Dispo Good

1. Education –

a. Best policy option – real policy makers are never confined to just one solution to a problem or forced to pass it no matter the consequences.

b. Forces strategic 2AC answers – promotes critical, in-round thinking from the affirmative.

2. Ground --

a. Neg flex – Our only burden is to disprove the plan. Arguing from multiple levels is vital to negative strategy which outweighs because it’s key to checking aff bias and we have a right to make strategic 2NR decisions.

3. Non-unique -- All other negative arguments are dispo.

4. Time skew is inevitable for the aff with 13 minutes in the block.

5. Aff choice -- the aff literally decides whether or not the neg can kick the cp.

6. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speeches and unlimited prep.

7. Not a voter -- Reject the argument not the team.


SDI 2009-20104


Condo Bad

1. Education - Depth over Breadth – There’s an incentive for the neg to read 11 conditonal counterplans and net benefits for us to undercover one and then kick out of everything else in the block.

2. Not reciprocal – the aff can’t just kick it’s advantages whenever it wants. Conditionality kills fairness because the neg can just kick out of the cp/k even if we kick it.

3. Time skew- Any arguments read against the cp or k can instantly go away if the neg doesn’t want to go for it.

4. Strat skew- we’ve already done our 2ac, there is in round abuse. We can’t change what we’ve already gone for.

5. Potential and in round abuse are voting issues for fairness and education.


SDI 2009-20105


Condo Good

1. Best for education- forcing the aff to make critical decisions maximize the education in debate.

2. Best for fairness- aff gets first and last speech, and 8 minutes in the 1ac. Multiple conditional advocacies are the only way to check.

3. Multiple worlds good – forces the aff to think critically on how to answer certain arguments and is key to negative flexibility.

4. Most real world – laws that go through Congress can be instantly rejected if they are not good enough.

5. Making the neg a moving target is key to having non-repetitive debates.

6. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.

7. Not a voter - reject the argument not the team.


SDI 2009-20106


PICs Bad

1. Bad for education

a. Unfair: makes the aff debate themselves.

b. Resolutional shift: concentrates the debate on insignificant aspects of the counterplan

c. Encourages vague plan writing to avoid PICs.

2. Ground – explodes neg ground because there is an infinite amount of things that they can pic out of.

3. Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.

4. Voter for fairness, ground, and education.


SDI 2009-20107


PICs Good

1. Ground

a. Aff should be prepared to defend the entire plan text, PIC’s prove the plan is a bad idea in at least one instance.

b. Most cp’s are pics – the ability to test the agent is destroyed if we can’t run pics

c. Key to checking extra topical plan planks

2. Education

a. Forces better plan writing – the aff will write their plan more strategically

b. Depth over Breadth – focuses the debate on specifics of the policy which is better for topical education.

3. Lit checks abuse – there is only a few things we can functionally pic out which answers their infinite regression argument.

4. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech and infinite prep.

5. Not a voter, reject the argument not the team.


SDI 2009-20108


Floating PICs Bad

1. No solvency advocate – kills resolutional education, make them read specific solvency and a plan text.

2. Education – their advocacy can shift in round which means we can never debate the specifics of the texts.

3. Ground

b. Moving Target – no text means the neg can constantly change their advocacy throughout the debate which is bad for aff ground because it can render 2AC meaningless by the 2NR.

c. Unpredictable -- The PIC steals affirmative ground and allows them to solve our affirmative in a 15 second blip. This is totally unpredictable and forces the aff to perm every part of the 2nc to cover their bases.


4. Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.


SDI 2009-20109


Floating PICs Good

1. Education -

a. Forces better case writing – makes the plan be specific from the 1AC.

b. Best policy option – makes the aff defend the entire plan and is key to finding the best policy option which is best for education.

2. Ground

a. Predictable – if you say something offensive, you should be prepared to defend it.

3. Representations matter – key to rejecting racist slurs or arguments like genocide good.

4. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.

5. No voter -- Reject the argument not the team.


SDI 2009-201010


50 State Fiat Bad

1. Education -- Not real world- the 50 states have never cooperated on a single issue in uniformity since the founding of the U.S.

2. No lit. - There is no literature for or against all the states cooperating.

3. Justifies multiactor fiat – 50 actors against one actor can never win. If we target one of the actors the neg can say the other 49 will check which is key to reciprocity.

4. Err aff on theory - Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.

5. Voter for education and fairness.


SDI 2009-201011


50 State Fiat Good

1. Having the state government work is key to check the federal key warrants for “in the United States” part of the resolution.

2. Real world arguments should not be weighed. Debate is not real world; if it were then the earth probably would have been blown up by nuclear war by now.

3. Reciprocity - 50 states acting in uniformity act functionally as one actor.

4. We increase aff ground when they can read a DA on any one of the 50 states.

5. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep time.

6. Not a voting issue – reject the argument and not the team.


SDI 2009-201012


Multi Actor Fiat Bad

1. Ground

a. Not reciprocal – we are stuck with just the USFG, they should be limited to one other actor too.

2. Education

a. Infinitely regressive – there are an infinite number of actors which the neg can use in combination.

b. Unpredictable – because there are so many different actors we can’t predict the various combinations to research answers to which kills education and destroys clash


4. Voter for fairness, education, and ground.


SDI 2009-201013


Multi Actor Fiat Good

1. Ground –

a. Turn: each new actor is more ground for the aff to turn or read disads to.

b. Key to negative ground – everything except for the plan is fair game after the 1AC and key to neg flex.

2. Education –

a. Most real world – We learn about the interaction between the different relevant various policymakers. There is never just a single actor.

b. Best policy option – if the best policy option is with multiple actors than that is better for education.

3. Multi-actor fiat is default – the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman, the president, and the courts alone.

4. No reasonable regress – as long as we don’t fiat two random obscure actors we should be entitled to more than one.

5. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus infinite prep

6. No voter - reject the argument and not the team


SDI 2009-201014


Agent CP’s Bad

1. Ground – Forces the aff to debate against itself – a solvency deficit to the counterplan is a solvency deficit to the plan.

2. Neg bias – there are tons of actors just within side the federal government, destroys our fed gov key and affirms the resolution.

3. Unpredictable – there are literally thousands of actors the neg could choose and there’s no way the aff could prepare for all of them which kills clash and education.


5. Voter for fairness, education and ground.


SDI 2009-201015


Agent CP’s Good

1. Predictable – aff should have prepared, they’re run every round and our actor is completely legit and not obscure.

2. Key to negative ground – agent counterplan make up the core of the negative’s strategic options and not getting them is grossly unfair towards the aff.

3. Increases aff ground – they can turn or read offense against our agent to win the round.

4. Lit checks abuse – there arnt many actors through which to do the plan , the aff had the same opportunity to research and write answers as we did

5. Not a voter – reject the argument and not the team

6. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep


SDI 2009-201016


Consult CP’s Bad

1. Consult kills education –

a. It’s infinitely regressive – we can’t predict all the different combinations of actors and policy changes to the plan which shift the debate from the resolution to irrelevant net benefits and insignificant policy differences.

b. Amendments bad – no one can predict what will be changed without specific lit which kills education and clash as the aff cannot research for answers because they simply don’t exist.

2. Kills Ground

a. Time and strat skew – they can steal all the offense from the 1NC by simply proposing that we listen to some random country’s opinion.

b. Not textually competitive: The counterplan merely adds the words in consultation with, to the original plan text. Textual competition is the only non arbitrary default on counterplan debates.

c. Not functionally competitive: The neg can’t produce evidence that <<insert actor>> would have specific modifications to our plan. Instead, they rely on moving-target fiat to fill in solvency, links, and uniqueness which are all core tests of competitiveness. That’s an independent voter for fairness.

d. Plan Plus: The counterplan is plan plus which justifies aff intrinsic and timeframe perms. This justifies an aff win because the negative can virtually concede case and just add an extra topical plank.


4. Voting issue – for ground, education, and fairness


SDI 2009-201017


Consult CP’s Go od

1. Counter interpretation – we can only do consult counterplans written about in the literature base.

2. Lit checks abuse – Checks squirrely “consult Trinidad” counterplans not central to the topic. There are only a few reasonably grounded counterplans which they should have prepare for which checks back all their ground and education standards.

3. Key to real education –

a. Real world - Crucial to understanding the details of international policy issues, relations, and how the United States frames multilateral issues which is a better internal link into education because it’s the point of debate.

b. Best policy option – consulting with another agent is crucial to testing whether the aff is the truly the best course of action.

4. Neg Ground

a. Predictable – only allowing reasonable consultation steeped in the core neg ground which the aff can prepare for.

b. Neg Flex – consult counterplans are key to negative flexibility and checking back unpredictable affirmatives.

5. Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.

6. Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.


SDI 2009-201018


2NC CP’s Bad

1. Interpretation – the neg may only read new turn, extensions or modules in the 2NC to check back unpredictable 2AC add-ons. The interp solves their education standards while leaving ground open for both sides.

2. Education

a. Depth over breadth – it’s best to compare policy options in depth because we can learn about the specific implantation and nuances of the plans and how they work in regards to the resolution.

3. Ground

a. Sandbags the 1AR – the neg can just ignore the all the 2AC responses and read new counterplans which means the 1AR will inevitably get thinned out which gives the neg an easy win in the 2NR.

4. No more constructives – the aff doesn’t get a 3AC to answer completely new 2NC arguments.


6. Voter for ground, education and fairness


SDI 2009-201019


2NC CP’s Good

1. Education

a. Forces critical thinking – makes the 1AR use specific, critical and in-round thinking which only makes debate more educational.

b. Breadth vs. depth – new counterplans allows a wider coverage of the various policy solutions to the alternative.

2. Ground

a. It’s reciprocal – new in the 2 is key to checking back new 2AC add-ons

b. It’s still a constructive – which means we can still introduce new arguments

3. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech and infinite prep

4. Reject the argument – not the team


SDI 2009-201020


Utopian Fiat Bad

1. Bad for education:

a. Not real world -- By definition, we can never learn about practical policy solutions. While nice to think about, an imaginary world is ultimately useless.

b. Education outweighs – Learning about real world is a better internal link into education because it’s the only bona fide product of debate.

2. Annihilates Ground -- We can literally never win a debate when the other team can just imagine away all of life’s problems.

3. No literature – aff/neg can’t research answers to utopian positions because they simply DON’T EXIST.


5. Voter for education, ground, and fairness


SDI 2009-201021


Utopian Fiat Good

1. We meet - Explain why you’re not utopian…

2. Better for education – utopic solutions to life’s problems can help us visualize actual policy solutions because they can stimulate physical change in the way policy makers think.

3. Ground –

a. Key to kritik alternatives which is key to negative ground.

b. Turn: If we are utopic, the alternative would likely be sweeping and affect all sectors of society meaning they can more easily garner some type of offense.

4. Lit checks – solvency advocates prove the plan/alt is legit

5. Reasonability – as long as we can prove that we are realistic you can’t vote on this.




SDI 2009-201022


Vagueness Bad

1. Vagueness kills ground

a. Moving target: Vagueness can make the aff a moving target which kills predictability– they can spike out of disads or change plan planks vital to the function of the counterplan.

b. Time and strat skew – all our arguments are predicated upon the plan text as per the 1AC. Later “clarifying” actual implementation is completely abusive.

2. It slays education

a. Sketchiness -- If the plan is unclear, we can’t learn about the specific results of the plan because the details of actual implementation are murky at best and which kills education about real world policies.

b. Generics – Unclear specification means stuck with running generic arguments to just guarantee a link.

3. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.

4. Voter for fairness and education.


SDI 2009-201023


Vagueness Good

1. No link -- The plan is not vague – ___________________

2. Increases education –

a. Breadth over depth -- it forces a discussion about more of the resolution which is the best way to evaluate the topic because we have a wider grasp of poverty and applicable social services.

3. Increases neg ground – A vague plan allows the neg to run more disads or kritiks because we link to more arguments and we won’t spike out of their specific links.

4. C-x checks – you had three minutes to clarify anything you didn’t understand after the 1AC, it’s not our fault you think we’re vague.

5. Not a bill – it is just a plan text with resolved intent, we don’t have to specify ever minute detail.




SDI 2009-201024


No Solvency Advocate Bad

1. Destroys education

a. Unpredictable texts – without a solvency advocate, the neg can fiat anything which kills real world education because they can just create an artificial counterplan which is bad for debate because they fiat competitiveness.

b. Not real world – the cp would never be presented before congress if no one agreed it was a good idea.

2. Ground –

a. Moving target – without a stable plan text the neg can always shift advocacies by the 2NR which kills aff strategy from the 2AC.

b. Steals aff answers – we can’t indict their solvency evidence because there is none specific to their counterplan which is key to impact calc and determining whether the counterplan solves.

3. Not reciprocal – aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the literature base of the resolution. Not forcing the neg to present a counterplan with a solvency advocate is unfair to the aff.


5. Voter for fairness, education, and ground.


SDI 2009-201025


No Solvency Advocate Good

1. Education –

a. Over limits -- discourages analytical debate and encourages aff critical thinking which is key to policy debates.

b. Real world – people propose different solutions to problems every day.

2. Ground

a. Moving target good – key to negative flexibility and strategy.

b. Common sense - Aff can still make common sense methodological answers to the counterplan

3. Reasonability – we shouldn’t be forced to have evidence for every argument we make.




SDI 2009-201026


No Alt Text Bad

1. Ground -

a. Time and strategy skew- We don’t know what the alternative actually is until the rebuttals, wasting our only constructive to create offense against the K.

b. Moving Target – we’ll never know what the K does until the 2NR which is uniquely abusive because a stable text is key to 2AC answers and they can just spike out of all our specific alt turns. This is an independent voting issue.

2. Education – We can’t learn about the specific alternatives to plan action if there is no text to compare to.

3. Can’t prove competitiveness- We don’t know what we can perm if there’s no text, and they’ll just change their alt accordingly

4. Reciprocity – if we should have to defend a stable text, so should they.


6. Voter for education, ground, and competitive equity.


SDI 2009-201027


No Alt Text Good

1. Ground –

a. Kills neg flex – our entire kritik cannot be limited to single sentence, kills negative block’s strategic options.

b. Breadth – the less specific we are the more ground they get for turns and they can still perm.

c. No moving target – our alternative is still grounded in the alt card.

2. Education --

a. Cross-x check abuse – they could have gotten us to clarify a specific part of the kritik if they didn’t understand it in our speech. We would have defended it.

b. Critical thinking-- Condensing the critique into a one sentence alternative allows the affirmative to not critically think about what were critiquing




SDI 2009-201028


Textual Competition Good

1. Most predictable – plan is the focus of the debate and is the most stable advocacy in the round.

2. Fairness – functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from anything.

3. Forces better plan writing – better for general education and ground as well as avoiding procedurals and vagueness arguments




SDI 2009-201029


Functional Competition Good

1. Education

a. More real world – congressman fight over implementation, not how the bill is specifically worded

b. Best policy option – tests a wider variety of solutions to the resolution and different ways to solve versus small, incremental textual differences.

2. Ground

a. Textual comp encourages bad plan writing – they will just make the text vague enough to limit out textual competition which destroys negative ground.

b. Any CP would be legit – you can just rephrase the plan text and it would compete the same way.




SDI 2009-201030


Lopez CP Bad

1. Justifies multi-actor fiat— the cp uses multi actors which jacks predictability and allows the neg to selectively pick actors to out solve the aff.

2. No literature – there is zero evidence on a Supreme Court ruling to devolve power to the states and then have complete uniformity. Lit is crucial for predictability and aff offense.

3. No test case – they can’t fiat a test case occurring otherwise it’s object fiat which is an independent voter because it means they can essentially fiat anything.

4. Artificial competition – the counterplan is only artificially competitive by banning the plan, which destroys fairness and doesn’t test opportunity costs of the plan.


6. Voter for fairness and ground.


SDI 2009-201031


Lopez CP Good

1. Multi-actor fiat is default – the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman, the president, and the courts alone. No reason why one more actor is any worse.

2. Increases aff ground – they can read a courts disad.

3. Increases education – we can learn about how the judicial branch and the constitution interact with federal policy.

4. Err neg on theory - aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.



SDI 2009-201032


Multiple Perms Bad

1. Time skew – they can just read 11 perms in 20 seconds and force us to answer all of them which is hugely unfair.

2. Strat skew – if we want the cp to stay in the round we have to spend all our time answering the perms and we can’t adequately cover the net benefits.

3. Multiple conditional advocacies bad – it’s a no risk answer to every k or counterplan because they can just kick out of all the perms we answered and extend the ones that we barely covered.

4. Interpretation – the aff is allowed one perm per counterplan/k that must include the entire aff and all or part of the k/cp to check competition and anything else is an illegitimate advocacy.

5. Double bind: must be either severance or intrinsic

a. Anything other than our interp means the either the aff is no longer advocating the entity of the plan which is bad because it kills predictability OR

b. It’s intrinsic because they are arguing something completely new which makes them a moving target and untopical.

6. Err aff on theory- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.

7. Voter for fairness, education, and ground


SDI 2009-201033


Multiple Perms Good

1. Just a test of competition – the perm exists to see if the counterplan or kritik is competitive. If it still triggers the net benefit or the counterplan is mutually exclusive, then we lose argument. End of story.

2. Breadth over depth – multiple perms allows us to check the competitiveness of the k/cp under a multitude of circumstances which is key to understanding various solutions and is key to aff ground.



5. Insert severance perms good / intrinsic perms theory.


SDI 2009-201034


Severance Perms Bad

1. Education – We no longer learn about the specifics of the aff plan because they can just kick out of it with the perm.

2. Destroys fairness- they can just spike out of any net benefit by kicking out of strategic areas of case.

3. Ground – Severance perms allow the aff to fiat a win by avoiding our offense.


5. Voter for ground, fairness and education.


SDI 2009-201035


Severance Perms Good

1. [Explain why your perm isn’t severance]

2. Severance perms are a still a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy of the affirmative.

3. Key to aff ground – all perms other than “do both” would be severance and that’s unfair to the aff because they’re key to checking back unpredictable cp’s/k’s.

4. They’re reciprocal – neg gets to run pics, severance perms are key to checking this.


6. Not a voter – reject the argument and not the team


SDI 2009-201036


Intrinsic Perms Bad

1. Kills Education – shifts the debate away from the plan and to extra topical portions

2. Makes the aff extra topical which kills all disad links.

3. Ground

a. Makes the aff a moving target because the perm can always just add things to their perms.

b. Not predictable – they can just add anything to the plan they won’t and it removes the debate away from the resolution

c. Kills all disads – they could just add an intrinisic perm to any disad to solve the impacts.

d. Justifies infinitely conditional advantage counterplans for the neg.


5. Voter for fairness, ground, and education.


SDI 2009-201037


Intrinsic Perms Good

1. [Explain why your perm isn’t intrinsic]

2. Education

a. Key to finding best policy option – most real world. Real policy makers wouldn’t exclude a potential solution if it wasn’t in the original bill.

b. Key to testing the competitiveness of the disad/kritik

3. Ground – each new step is more ground for the negative to read offense against us.

4. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments

5. Not a voter – reject the argument not the team


SDI 2009-201038


Intrinsic DA Perms Bad

1. Destroys neg ground – they can just destroy all our links with a 5 second perm which is complexly abusive because it takes out any chance of the neg ever winning a disad.

2. Hurts education – if we can’t ever debate the links, we can never learn about the potential side effects of the policy options.

3. Time skew/strat skew – they can just perm any disad and force us to answer it with theory and just kick out of it later.


5. Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.


SDI 2009-201039


Intrinsic DA Perms Good

1. Interpretation: the neg only gets disadvantages that are intrinsic to the aff

2. Doesn’t kill disads – only non-competitive disads which are not opportunity costs to the plan can be permed

3. Plan is still unconditional – the perm is just a test of competition as long as the aff does not sever

4. Not extra T – if the best course of action includes the aff then it means we the aff still wins

5. Checks infinite advantage counterplans


7. Not a voter – reject the argument not the team


SDI 2009-201040


Perf Con Bad

1. Kills education – forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory answers

2. Strategy skew – neg can just kick one argument and cross apply our answers to the other flow.

3. Negation theory bad – justifies affirmation theory so that we can just find a harm in the status quo and vote aff on presumption.

4. Voter for education and ground.


SDI 2009-201041


Perf Con Good

1. Interpretation: we’ll only take one in the 2NR and won’t cross apply contradictory answers.

2. Negation theory – we just have to prove that the plan is a bad idea.

3. Multiple worlds good – key to negative ground and negative flexibility and increases strategic thinking.


5. Not a voter – reject the arg not the team.


SDI 2009-201042


Advocating Perms Bad

1. Unpredictable – The affirmative should only advocate the plan and nothing else. Not doing this kills predictability which is key to clash.

2. Makes them untopical – not advocating just the aff makes them extra topical and is an independent voting issue for ground an education.

3. Kills education –

4. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speeches plus unlimited prep.

5. Voting issue for fairness, ground and education


SDI 2009-201043


Advocating Perms Good

1. Doesn’t steal ground - The neg can still win that the aff is a bad idea by weighing the DA’s against the perm.

2. Reciprocal – the neg gets to advocate the counterplan, we should be able to advocate the perm. They can have the status quo and the counterplan, we can have the perm or the plan.

3. Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments

4. Not a voting issue – reject the argument and not the team.


great theory

Documents