Theory File DDI

8/22/2019 Theory File DDI

1/59

Theory File Dartmouth 2K9

1

T-Money Whoa

1

Table of Contents

Conditionality Bad Frontline ................................................................................................................................................... 3

AT: Straight Turns Check ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

AT: Increases Strategic Thinking ............................................................................................................................................. 5

AT: Affirmative Side Bias ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

AT: Real World ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7

AT: Same as a Disadvantage ................................................................................................................................................... 8

AT: Dispositionality Checks Abuse .......................................................................................................................................... 9

AT: Negation Theory ............................................................................................................................................................. 10

AT: All Arguments are Conditional ........................................................................................................................................ 11

AT: Status Quo should be an Option ..................................................................................................................................... 12

AT: Theory is a Timeskew ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

AT: Timeskew Inevitable ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

AT: Well go for it .................................................................................................................................................................. 15

AT: Perms Check ................................................................................................................................................................... 16

AT: Dont Vote on Potential Abuse ....................................................................................................................................... 17

AT: Best Policy Option ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Conditionality Good Frontline............................................................................................................................................... 19

AT: Bad Advocacy .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

AT: Argumentative Irresponsibility ....................................................................................................................................... 21

AT: Time Constraints ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

AT: Perms Dont Check.......................................................................................................................................................... 23

PICs Bad Frontline ................................................................................................................................................................. 24

1AR PICs Bad ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25

1AR ext: Steals Ground ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

1AR ext: Kills Education ......................................................................................................................................................... 27

1AR ext: Unique Abuse ......................................................................................................................................................... 28

1AR ext: Dont Compete ....................................................................................................................................................... 29

1AR ext: Justifies Intrinsicness .............................................................................................................................................. 30

1AR ext: Justifies Vagueness ................................................................................................................................................. 31

1AR ext: Infinitely Regressive ................................................................................................................................................ 32


2/59


2

T-Money Whoa

2

1AR ext: Voter ....................................................................................................................................................................... 33

AT: Unpredictable ................................................................................................................................................................. 34

AT: Kills Ground ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35

AT: PICs Warrant the Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 36

AT: PICs Redundant ............................................................................................................................................................... 37

AT: Encourages Vague-Plan writing ...................................................................................................................................... 38

AT: Infinitely Regressive ........................................................................................................................................................ 39

AT: Kills Clash ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40

AT: Makes 1AC Irrelevant...................................................................................................................................................... 41

AT: Severs Extra Competitive Planks ..................................................................................................................................... 42

PICs Good Frontline .............................................................................................................................................................. 43

AT: Justifies Severance .......................................................................................................................................................... 44

Intrinsicness Good Frontline ................................................................................................................................................. 45

AT: Kills Negative Ground ..................................................................................................................................................... 46

AT: Moving Target ................................................................................................................................................................. 47

AT: Politics DAs Good ............................................................................................................................................................ 48

AT: Only Get Topical Intrinsicness......................................................................................................................................... 49

Intrinsicness Bad ................................................................................................................................................................... 50

AT: Conditionality Justifies .................................................................................................................................................... 51

50 State Fiat Bad ................................................................................................................................................................... 52

1AR ext: Reciprocity .............................................................................................................................................................. 53

1AR ext: Real World .............................................................................................................................................................. 54

AT: Justify Federal Government ............................................................................................................................................ 55

AT: Its Predictable ................................................................................................................................................................ 56

AT: Non-T = Negative Ground ............................................................................................................................................... 57

Not Uniform Action Card ...................................................................................................................................................... 58

50 State Fiat Good................................................................................................................................................................. 59


3/59


3

T-Money Whoa

3

Conditionality Bad Frontline

1. Moving Target: kills a stable advocacy throughout the round, justifies the negative kicking out ofa counter-plan to moot our offense.

2. Reciprocity: affirmative only gets to advocate plan, negative shouldnt get both the counter-planand the status quo, justifies affirmative conditionality.3. Time Skew: affirmative has to debate both the status quo and the counter-plan on arguments that

they can potentially kick, this kills education by stifling in-depth development of arguments.

4. Potential Abuse is a voter: sets a precedent for debates, a loss here prevents abuse in other rounds.


4/59


4

T-Money Whoa

4

AT: Straight Turns Check

1. Not the choiceMakes us give our best arguments to make them go for it.2. Not reciprocalWe cant make them go for a position3. Fiat means CPs differ from disadsmeans that the same ideology doesnt apply.


5/59


5

T-Money Whoa

5

AT: Increases Strategic Thinking

1. Non uniqueAll debate requires time management and strategy2. Fairness outweighs unfair advantages in a game make teams think harder, but create

illegitimate wins.


6/59


6

T-Money Whoa

6

AT: Affirmative Side Bias

1. The negative block would check back the first and last speeches.2. Counterplan ground itself would check back infinite aff prep time.3. You vote for reciprocity because even if there is a small aff side bias, it would shift to 100% wins if

you allowed conditional Counterplans.


7/59


7

T-Money Whoa

7

AT: Real World

1. Debate isnt real world Time and side constraints prove2. Conditionality/Dispositionality isnt real world Congress doesnt attempt to spread each other

out.

3. Conditionality isnt real world- if politicians switched positions, itd be suicidal.


8/59


8

T-Money Whoa

8

AT: Same as a Disadvantage

1. Not truedisadvantages advocate a different world.2. They kick a disad and we go for the offense, but if they kick a CP, the whole world disappears.


9/59


9

T-Money Whoa

9

AT: Dispositionality Checks Abuse

1. Its the same thing They get to kick the counterplan at any time. Our 2ACs shouldnt matter orchange their strategy

2. Dispo is worse It is the negative disposition as to how they could win the most rounds. Theycould allow us only one perm, one turn, one defensive argument, ECT. We would never knowwhat arguments to make in the 2AC


10/59


10

T-Money Whoa

10

AT: Negation Theory

1. Justifies running multiple CPsvoter for fairness2. Kills educationWe cant learn about anything without having an advocacy to base it offVoter

for fairness and education.

3. You still vote for reciprocityvoting for this argument prevents any other CPs, because there isno negative resolution, meaning no fiat.


11/59


11

T-Money Whoa

11

AT: All Arguments are Conditional

1. Conditional advocacy is different from conditional argumentation The aff has to prove the planis better than two different policy worlds, instead of winning the argument is wrong.

2. All args arent conditional- conceding a double-turn proves that the neg has to continue thosearguments, while if I concede a disad that links to a CP, they can just ignore the CP.


12/59


12

T-Money Whoa

12

AT: Status Quo should be an Option

1. No logical reason why this is true because advocate the CP, which is different from every otherargument in debate.

2. Its not reciprocal The affirmative cant get two options reciprocity is a better standard thanwhat should be an option.

3. Justifies multiple CPs by saying its just another option. This kills all clash and debate.


13/59


13

T-Money Whoa

13

AT: Theory is a Timeskew

1. No, it evaluates competing interpretations of debate, what should and shouldnt be allowed.2. The CP itself began the time skew by being runIf they didnt run a conditional CP, we wouldnt

read conditionality bad in the 2AC.


14/59


14

T-Money Whoa

14

AT: Timeskew Inevitable

1. Proves that fairness is essential to compete with skews.2. 2AC wouldnt have wasted time on the counter-plan if they hadnt run it.3. They worsen the SQ skew by killing previous allocation that we wouldve had.


15/59


15

T-Money Whoa

15

AT: Well go for it

1. Thats whats abusive about the CP, the fact that the negative can chose to go for the CP.2. Irrelevant We had no idea if they would go for it or not, proves that the only reason we would

lose is because of the CP.


16/59


16

T-Money Whoa

16

AT: Perms Check

1. The only reciprocal perms are severance or intrinsic ones that could shift out of original advocacy.2. Still kills educationAbusive CPs versus abusive perms is still a bad debate that risks education

about the topic.


17/59


17

T-Money Whoa

17

AT: Dont Vote on Potential Abuse

1. Its not potential The fact that we couldnt get our best arguments out proves that we can neverwin rounds. It proves the in-round abuse.

2. You still vote on potential abuse because it prevents them from running this abusive position inthe future which will prevent good future debates and a 100% risk of negs always winning.


18/59


18

T-Money Whoa

18

AT: Best Policy Option

1. Doesnt Justify Abuse Regardless of whether the fact it is the best option, it still skews the 2ACtime allocation and strategy.

2. Wont know if it is because of the potential to always kick the advocacy.


19/59


19

T-Money Whoa

19

Conditionality Good Frontline

1. Best Policy Option: Determines whether the counter-plan is a good idea, if its not, then it shouldbe allowed to be kicked at anytime.

2. Most Real World: Rational policy makers are able to change decisions if they realize they dontlike an idea.

3. Key to Education: We need to learn about multiple policies, conditionality is key to explore moreways of policy making.

4. Permutations Check Abuse: No in round abuse and affirmative can defend the perm and the lan,we can defend the status quo.

5. All Arguments Are Conditional: Counterplans are like disads, our competition is our link. Ifthere is no competition, it goes away like any other argument.

6. Counter Interpretation: We Should Be Allowed To Have One Conditional counter-plan7. Not a Voter: At worst you reject the argument, but not the team, if conditional counterplans are

determined bad for debate then it should be rejected, but it is not a reason for us to lose the round.


20/59


20

T-Money Whoa

20

AT: Bad Advocacy

1. Not a bad advocacy: negative just has to prove that the plan is a bad idea, we can use multiplecounterplans to proved the opportunity cost of the plan.

2. We have an advocacy: We advocate the rejection of the affirmative plan, just like you havedifferent advantages to prove why your plan should be passed.


21/59


21

T-Money Whoa

21

AT: Argumentative Irresponsibility

1. Not a reason to reject all counter-plans: reject the bad counterplans, dont reject potentially badones though.

2. Not risk free: We still have to invest time through cards an analysis, and we always run the riskthat you capture our net benefits with link turns.


22/59


22

T-Money Whoa

22

AT: Time Constraints

1. Dont uniquely skew: The average number of answers to a counter-plan doesnt exceed thenumber devoted to a disadvantage, a kritik, or a topicality argument. It is actually easier because

you can make more unevidenced, theoretical arguments.

2. Depth sucks: By the logic of maximum depth, the negative could be held to one disadvantage,killing the intellectual value of learning about multiple disadvantages.

3. Not unique to counter-plans: its the number or arguments, not the type, thats key.


23/59


23

T-Money Whoa

23

AT: Perms Dont Check

1. Permutations Are Conditional: judge can vote for status quo and counterplan just as the judgecould vote for perm or plan, which is just as conditional as we are.


24/59


24

T-Money Whoa

24

PICs Bad Frontline

1. Steals affirmative ground: using 1AC ground to weigh against case unfairly strips the affirmativeof all pre-round prep and steals turn ground because we cant turn our own case.

2. Decreases education: using affirmative impact ground reduces clash and evidentiary comparisondestroying policy making benefits.

3. Uniquely abuses the affirmative: the only hedge against generic negative strategies is pre-roundprep and unique advantages to weigh against, we lose all impact ground.

4. Doesnt compete: the PIC still proves the desirability of plan action, justifies an affirmative ballot.5. Justifies intrinsicness arguments: intrinsic nature of the PIC justifies affirmative reciprocation,

nay reason intrinsic perms are illegit is a voting issue against the negative.

6. Infinitely regressive: they lead to PICing out of one cent and claiming a spending disadvantage,the only check is ev specificity which guarantees a solvency advocate for the entire counter-plan

text.

7. Voting issue for fairness and ground loss.


25/59


25

T-Money Whoa

25

1AR PICs Bad

1. Infinitely Regressivea. No fair PIC: there are an infinite number of PICs that could be run, makes preparing for

any specific one pointless. If you allow their counter-plan, affirmative will never be able to

winb. Potential abuse is enough to drop them, you have no way of determining what is and isnt a

fair PIC. Only way to ensure fairness would be to give them the status quo.

2. Good Debatea. Fosters boring and stagnant debate: prevents teams from thinking of different methods of

solving the harms instead of having a smaller version of the plan.

3. Conditional PICs uniquely bada. Cant read an add-on in the 2AC to combat against your disadvantage impacts because the

PIC would moot it out. Creates a double-bind, either we read the add-on and become

better against the status quo and worse against the counter-plan, if we dont read it, were

vulnerable to the status-quo.

b. Damage is done: 2AC strat has been skewed, its a critical affirmative speech, choosingyour strategy now ensures that the affirmative will never win.4. Voter: not fair that they can moot the entirety of our case by copying our plan, wasted the entire

1AC and places the negative so far ahead tha the affirmative can never catch up. Vote affirmative

to ensure fairness and competitive equity.


26/59


26

T-Money Whoa

26

1AR ext: Steals Ground

Extend that PICs strip the affirmative of our ground

1. Destroys Preround Prep: all our case time is mooted out by the 1NC, we have no hedge against itbecause weve lost all weight.

2. Lose Offensive Ground: We cant link any offense to the counter-plan action, leaving solvencydeficits that are unfairly outweighed by the disadvantage and any disadvantage would link to thecase.


27/59


27

T-Money Whoa

27

1AR ext: Kills EducationExtend that PICs destroy education

1. Annihilates clash: PICs eliminate negative burdens to evaluate impacts. Without clash, the debateloses all direction which causes judge intervention on the net benefit/solvency defecit.

2. Stops Evidentiary Comparison: When negative doesnt compare warrants, claims and quals, noeducational activity takes place.

3. Evidence key to education: without indepth analysis, we learn nothing of the issues and debaebecomes meaningless.


28/59


28

T-Money Whoa

28

1AR ext: Unique Abuse

Extend why PICs are uniquely worse than any other counter-plan

1. Pre-Round Prep: without any hedge against negative strats, we cant outweigh, skewing theplaying field.

2. Level playing field key to debate: without competitive equity, affirmative teams cant competewhich hurts ground, education, and the activity itself.3. No right to PICs: well still defend policy making giving them policy options and without a unique

reason why they need this PIC there is no justification for it.


29/59


29

T-Money Whoa

29

1AR ext: Dont Compete

Extend that PICs dont compete:

1. Plan is desirable: PICs still call for action in the case area proving the resolution true for theaffirmative

2. Resolutional debate best: A predictable resolution is key to ground on both sides of the debate, itdesignates pre-round prep for affirmative and negative.


30/59


30

T-Money Whoa

30

1AR ext: Justifies Intrinsicness

Extend that PICs justify abusive perms:

1. Makes minor modifications:: this avoids disads and reciprocation is the only check which allowsintrinsic clarification in the 2AC.

2. Voting issue: any theoretical objection to the perm becomes a voting issue because they justifiedabusive action in the first place, punish them.


31/59


31

T-Money Whoa

31

1AR ext: Justifies Vagueness

Extend that PICs justify vague plans:

1. Creates Incentive: overly vague plans leave little to PIC out of.2. 2AC shifts: vague plans allow 2AC spikes out of 1NC positions because they arent outlined in the

plan, leads to a direct ground loss for the negative.


32/59


32

T-Money Whoa

32

1AR ext: Infinitely Regressive

Extend that PICs are infinitely regressive:

1. Justifies small net benefits: with no solvency deficits, negatives outweigh us with any risk of animpact, destroying all 2AC ground and issue selection.

2. Ev specificity checks: without specific solvency evidence there will always be infinite regression,giving the counter-plan zero solvency.


33/59


33

T-Money Whoa

33

1AR ext: Voter

Exten the 2AC voting issue: PICs uniquely strip affirmative ground and srip education by destroying

evidence evaluation. Without unique reasons why PICs are key to counter-plan ground they can win

zero-defense against our voting issue. Reject the team because it creates a disincentive for the negative

team to read arguments like this again in which they can abuse future affirmatives, killing educationaland fair debate.


34/59


34

T-Money Whoa

34

AT: Unpredictable

1. Answer the Net Benefit: Just answer the net benefit which answers even the least predictablePICs.

2. PICs are the only predictable counter-plans, they are both the most common counter-plans, androoter on the plan, which the affirmative knows and should be able to defend.

3. Limited number of PICs: very few potential PICs could sustain a net benefit.4. Fairness: Affirmative team knows the plan better than the negative and should be able to prove

the reasons to prefer the plan over the counter-plan


35/59


35

T-Money Whoa

35

AT: Kills Ground

1. Affirmative steals negative ground: they use the status quo mechanisms like funding andenforcement for plan implementation

2. No reason why plan is exclusive affirmative ground: no warrant why part of the plan isnt ourground

3. Kills all counter-plans: negative often has to use plan enforcement, funding, and adoption, alllegitimate under their interpretation

4. Affirmative burden to defend entire plan: counter-plans check flaws in affirmative advocacy5. Competition checks: most effective and least arbitrary way to determine affirmative ground


36/59


36

T-Money Whoa

36

AT: PICs Warrant the Plan

1. False: net benefits warrant counter-plan text2. Affirmative should defend all of the plan: they have infinite prep on their own plan, if they lose to

this counter-plan, theyll do more research.

3. No impact: maybe the plan is good, but the counter-plan is still better4. No voter: risk of net benefits discredits voting for the plan.


37/59


37

T-Money Whoa

37

AT: PICs Redundant

1. So is Taylor Swift: lots of generic arguments are run, not an impact and doesnt make them illegitaffirmative should just be prepared

2. PIC isnt generic: specific net ben evidence proves the counter-plan is tailored.3. Turn: PICs reduce generic debate by focusing on less examined portions of the plan4. Competition prevents it from being generic: no counter-plan competes with all cases.5. No impact: dont vote for the plan because the reasons not to do it might be generic.


38/59


38

T-Money Whoa

38

AT: Encourages Vague-Plan writing

1. PICs encourage specific plan texts: makes the affirmative responsible for all things in the text, lesslikely to be competitive if the plan is worded well

2. Cross-X clarifies: whatever the vagueness is can be worked out in cross-x.3. Other things mandate affirmative specificity: solvency advocates, agent-specific arguments, andvagueness mandate that affirmatives write specific plans.


39/59


39

T-Money Whoa

39

AT: Infinitely Regressive

1. No specific abuse: we arent running a ridiculous exclusion, our evidence warrants the distinctionso dont vote us down

2. Potential abuse isnt a voting issue: in round abuse arguments always check abuse, when teamsrun minus a penny, they lose and the problem is solved.

3. Reciprocal: perms trim down PICs so abuse is on both sides and not a voter.4. Reasonable expectation: affirmative should be able to defend plan implementation, funding, and

all other key levels.


40/59


40

T-Money Whoa

40

AT: Kills Clash

1. Just an excuse: not our fault they arent prepared2. Competition ensures clash: counter-plan provides reasons to reject the plan, some would call it

the net benefit

3. Ground equity is more important: the affirmative has unlimited prep time and frames thisround, we need our PICs4. No impact: making us debate theory is worse than any PIC debate5. Its not our fault they read generic theory instead of clashing on the policy level.


41/59


41

T-Money Whoa

41

AT: Makes 1AC Irrelevant

1. Makes the negative strategy good: the point of our argument is to make the 1AC irrelevant, not areason to vote affirmative.

2. Their fault: they chose to word the plan this way, could have made the 1AC relevant.3. Perm checks: they could make the PIC irrelevant.4. Competition proves relevance: proves why the 1AC can be defended against the counter-plan.5. Lots of good arguments make the 1AC irrelevant: T, Ks, disadvantages, and inherency all make

the 1AC irrelevant because the judge wont vote for it.

6. Not irrelevant: we agree that its just part of the policy comparison 7. Makes the 1AC relevant by making them defend the entire plan.


42/59


42

T-Money Whoa

42

AT: Severs Extra Competitive Planks

1. Still competitive by net benefits: even if theres overlap, making the two not mutually exclusive,its competitive because excluding a part means that its better to do a part of the plan alone.

2. Kills counter-plans: funding and enforcement and federal option become uncompetitive, makingevery counter-plan unable to solve.

3. Confuses jurisdictional and policy issues: severance is legitimate on topicality.


43/59


43

T-Money Whoa

43

PICs Good Frontline

1. Reciprocal: permutation includes all of the plan and part of the counter-plan is legit even thoughits partially inclusive of the counter-plan

2. Leads to better plantexts: prevents affs from reading plantexts that have negative implicationsbased on the rhetoric or implementation of the plan.

3. Every counter-plan is a PIC: they must include all or part of the plan.4. Voter: worst case you reject the counter-plan, not the team.


44/59


44

T-Money Whoa

44

AT: Justifies Severance

1. False: affirmative can still read disads to the counter-plan based off plan action thats not in thePIC

2. Equivalent to affirmative conditionality which is bad:a. Plan focus: key to predictable debate because it frames the entirety of the debate.b. Negation theory: negative just has to disprove affirmatives advocacy, shifting affirmative

advocacy creates a moving target in which the negative team is constantly trying to

disprove.

c. Voter for competitive equity


45/59


45

T-Money Whoa

45

Intrinsicness Good Frontline

1. Intrisicness tests competition: proves competition of plan and counter-plan is possible, renderingthe counter-plan noncompetitive

2. Increases negative ground: they can run disads that link to the new portion, justifies new offensein the block3. Proves plan is a good idea: perms in addition to the 1AC plan test which means that the plan is

still true

4. No advocacy shift: just clarifying 1AC intent, not changing our stance in round.5. Reciprocity: no different than counter-plans, test the germaneness of the link to the plan. If neg6. Not a voter: at best just reject the argument not the team.


46/59


46

T-Money Whoa

46

AT: Kills Negative Ground

1. Reciprocity: negative can read advantage counter-plans to test the link to our advantages,affirmative can test disadvantage links.

2. They can read a disadvantage to the test of intrinsicness, solves the offense.3. No right to that ground: intrinsicness weeds out bad arguments, we shouldnt be discussing

arguments that arent germane to the plan and kills real world education and policy making skills.

4. They have plenty of ground: they can read inflation, immigration, military, and other disads.


47/59


47

T-Money Whoa

47

AT: Moving Target

1. Not a moving target: its a no linkargument, not an advocacy.2. No different than a counter-plan: has a text and they can read disads to it.


48/59


48

T-Money Whoa

48

AT: Politics DAs Good

1. Not responsive: justifies negative not getting fiat because talking about generic affirmativeadvantages is good. Even if politics are good for debate, its not a reason why the plan is a bad

idea.

2. Kills topic education: debates turn into generic disadvantage debates that shift focus away fromreal world reasons to reject politics.

3. Fosters laziness: negs can get away with reading the same disadvantage every round without anytopic research or knowledge.


49/59


49

T-Money Whoa

49

AT: Only Get Topical Intrinsicness

1. Arbitrary: negative gets topical counter-plans, affirmative should get non-topical tests ofintrinsicness.

2. Doesnt solve our offense: any disadvantage with a non topical external impact avoids any test ofthe link, creates arbitrary policy making.3. No impact: doesnt affect research because the negative should be prepared to defend the link to

their laziness.


50/59


50

T-Money Whoa

50

Intrinsicness Bad

1. Abuses negative ground: destroys links to 1NC strategy, our 1NC and pre-round prep are basedoff 1AC, we lose 8 minutes of offense

2. Infinitely regressive: the perm will justify new and multiple 2NC counter-plans to generate offenseagainst the 1AR.

3. 1AC conditionality: same as replanning the affirmative in the 2AC, this destroys all negativeground and predictability.

4. Doesnt test competition: 2AC additions only prove that theres a 2AC addition, not that the textsare mutually exclusive, rendering the perm illegit.

5. Kills education: the perm undermines plan focus, which moves the debate away from itseducational direction

6. Utopian: justifies the affirmative fiating world peace.7. Voter for fairness and education.


51/59


51

T-Money Whoa

51

AT: Conditionality Justifies

Affirmative conditionality bad:

1. Plan focus: key to predictable debate because it frames the entirety of the debate.2. Negation theory: negative just has to disprove affirmatives advocacy, shifting affirmativeadvocacy creates a moving target in which the negative team is constantly trying to disprove.


52/59


52

T-Money Whoa

52

50 State Fiat Bad

50 state fiat is illegitimate and a voter

1. Not reciprocalThe aff fiats one federal government while the neg fiats 50 separate autonomousgovernments.

2. 50 state fiat is utopianThe states have never simultaneously enact the exact same policy. This isbad because it crushes education by preventing debate over real policy options and kills fairness

because the aff has no literature to refute the absurd situation the CP creates.

3. No literature to support the CP Theres no evidence that actually advocates all 50 states takingaction on the plan. This proves that its impossible for the aff to predict or prepare against it.

4. Infinitely regressiveIf the negative can fiat states, nothing prevents them from fiating countries,towns, or individuals.


53/59


53

T-Money Whoa

53

1AR ext: Reciprocity

Extend reciprocity:

1. Provides a guideline for dealing with arbitrary negative counter-interpretations like, only gettingthe states counter-plan

2. States arent reciprocal with USFG action, counter-plan takes extra steps to spike out of solvencyarguments like mandated uniformity or unevidenced planks that respond to the 1AC.3. Affirmative fiat is limited by the topic and cant be used to spike out of disads. 4. Spiking out of affirmative offense legitimizes intrinsicness.


54/59


54

T-Money Whoa

54

1AR ext: Real World

Extend not real world:

1. No real world policy maker exists to choose between the USFG or state action, its anti-educational to put the judge into that position.

2. No comparative literature is written that assumes uniform implementation by all states andterritories vs. the federal government.3. Since theres no evidence to support what the counter-plan does:

a. Theoretical objections gain more weightb. Judge should lean affirmative on solvency arguments.


55/59


55

T-Money Whoa

55

AT: Justify Federal Government

1. Burden proved by solvency: no comparative action between agents, no affirmative can justify theUSFG vs. everyone in the world.

2. Disads test the agent in a more fair manner3. Reciprocity: means they should test the agent by fiating a single state, modeling solvency evidenceis a precursor to a real debate.


56/59


56

T-Money Whoa

56

AT: Its Predictable

1. Even if thats so, its abusive and the numerous planks the states can use to spike affirmativeoffense kills predictability.

2. Evidence not debate practice should determine predictability, no evidence is written about thecounter-plan.


57/59


57

T-Money Whoa

57

AT: Non-T = Negative Ground

1. Topicality is a necessary but insufficient judge of fairness, anarchy and the world governmentcounter-plans are both non-topical.


58/59


58

T-Money Whoa

58

Not Uniform Action Card

Uniform state action never occurs.

Ribstein & Kobayashi, professors of law, 1996(Larry E. & Bruce H., Professor and Associate professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law and George Mason

UniversitySchool of Law, An Economic Analysis of Uniform State Laws, lexis)

In the setting examined here, a lack of agency costs would lead to the NCCULs generally proposingefficient laws that would be widely adopted by the states (case 1). An examination of the adoption

history of NCCUL proposals suggests otherwise. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the number of states that have

adopted the 103 uniform laws proposed by NCCUSL. n9 On average, an NCCUSL proposal is adopted by justover 20 (out of a possible 53) states or territories.The median number of adoptions is 17, and the mode

is zero. Further, only 8 of the [*135] 103 propsals have been adopted by 50 or more states (17.8 percent), and only 20(19.4 percent) have been adopted by 40 or more states. In contrast, 62 uniform proposals have fewer than 20

adoptions (60.2 percent), and 39 (37.9 percent) have few than 10. The large number of proposals with fewadoptions is consistent with the existence of agency costs in the uniform law making process.


59/59


59

50 State Fiat Good

1. Its Predictable The whole topic is built around the question of whether or not the federalgovernment should act. The states counterplan is necessary to test that part of the resolution.

2. Its Reciprocal We fiat one level of the government just like the aff. If not, then they use multi-actor fiat too, the president, congress, courts, and agencies all act.

3. Permutations Check AbuseThe scope of our fiat is reciprocal since they can permute to capturethe whole CP.

4. Increases Education50 state fiat is necessary for the best policy comparisons between state andfederal action. Such comparisons provide in depth on those actors and federalism.

Theory File DDI

Documents