SCFI Theory

Document Sample
SCFI Theory Powered By Docstoc
					RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost


                                Theory
Theory                               1
                                                    ***K Theory***                              47
***Counterplan Theory***             2              Need Textual Alternative                    47
PICs Bad                             2              Don’t Need Textual Alternative              48
PICs Good                            3              Performative Contradictions Bad             49
Dispo bad                            4              Performative Contradictions Good            50
Dispo Good                           5
Conditionality Good                  6              ***Miscellaneous***                         51
Conditionality is BAD                7              Politics DAs Bad                            51
International Fiat Bad               8              Politics DAs Good                           52
International Fiat Good              9              Don’t Vote on Potential Abuse               53
Multiple Actor Fiat Bad              10             Do Vote on Potential Abuse                  54
Multiple Actor Fiat Good             11
Private Actor Fiat Bad               12
Private Actor Fiat Good              13
Test Case Fiat Bad                   14
Test Case Fiat Good                  15
Object Fiat Bad                      16
Object Fiat Good                     17
Covert Fiat Bad                      18
Covert Fiat Good                     19
Need Solvency Advocate               20
Don’t Need Solvency Advocate         21
Topical Counterplans Bad             22
Topical Counterplans Good            23
Can’t Kick a Counterplan             24
Can Kick a Counterplan               25
2NC Counterplans Bad                 26
2NC Counterplans Good                27
Consult CPs Bad                      28
Severance Perms Bad                  29
Severance Perms Good                 30
Intrinsic Perms Bad                  31
Intrinsic Perms Good                 32
Timeframe Perms Bad                  33
Timeframe Perms Good                 34
Multiple Perms Bad                   35
Multiple Perms Good                  36
Advocating Perms Bad                 37
Advocating Perms Good                38
Textual Competition Good             39
Functional Competition Good          40

***Topicality Theory***              41
Effects T Bad                        41
Effects T Good                       42
Extra T Bad                          43
Extra T Good                         44
Topicality is a RVI                  45
Topicality Isn’t a RVI               46



                               I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                     1
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                                        ***Counterplan Theory***




                                               PICs Bad
Steals aff ground – we can‟t argue directly against the counterplan, because it‟s the same as plan. We
can‟t debate against our own advocacy – the aff gets no ground.

Inflates trivial net benefits – the neg could counterplan “do plan minus one penny” with the net benefit
of a penny saved is a penny earned. This makes normally irrelevant issues round-winners, which
destroys case-focused education.

Infinitely regressive – there‟s always another part of plan the neg could sever out of or modify to get a
net benefit – we can‟t predict them all, and as soon as we research one they move onto another, so the
aff can never be prepared.

It leads to vague plan writing – affs will try to avoid PICs by writing one sentence, meaningless plans
then refusing to clarify in cross-x, which ultimately destroys all neg ground to aff shifts of advocacy or
reclarification.

It justifies severance perms – we can‟t do a legit perm because of their abusive counterplan –
severance permutations are our only way to compete with the neg‟s counterplan.

Vote on it for fairness and education.




                                         I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                             2
RHSM 2008                                                                               Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                             PICs Good
It‟s key to negative ground – without PICs we‟d get stuck defending a morally repugnant status quo,
so the neg has to defend positions like “racism good” and loses every round.

Encourages careful plan writing – affs will take care when they write their plan texts to do research on
all parts so they can generate offense against a PIC. That increases preparation and education in the
debate.

Determines best policy option – we can‟t see if plan is a good idea if we can‟t determine if it would
better with changes – the counterplan allows the most consideration on what would be the most
effective policy.

It‟s predictable – they wrote the plan, they should know everything about it and be able to argue it
perfectly. If they can‟t, it‟s their fault, not ours.

It‟s most real world – policies are frequently changed in small ways to make them more effective, for
example, amendments in congress. Counterplan is most realistic for this.

Increases education – we focus debate down to a single issue so that it can be discussed with greater
depth, so we learn more.

When in doubt, err neg on theory – the aff gets first and last speech, infinite prep, and statistically
wins more rounds. We need all the help we can get.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 3
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                           Dispo bad
   A. Multiple Worlds- Dispositionality forces the 2ac/1ar to debate in multiple worlds which
      creates a strategy skew effecting time allocation on every argument in the debate.
   B. Timeskew – The neg can erase the most time intensive part of the 2AC or pick one world
      have a time crunched 1AR.
   C. Its not reciprocal- we cant kick our plan if your counterplan (ie do part or all of the plan) you
      shouldn’t be able to kick your counterplan if permute it.
   D. Straight turn option doesn’t check- negative teams will always add extra competitive planks
      to their counterplan to force the affirmative into permuting it making your argument defacto
      conditionality.
   E. Strategy Skew- permutations and theory arguments are our best arguments against your
      counterplan which makes it defacto conditional because the affirmative cant win without
      making those arguments.




                                      I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               4
RHSM 2008                                                                    Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                     Dispo Good
   1. Straight turn option checks 100 percent of the abuse- the aff always has the option
      to avoid multiple worlds and spend the whole 2ac straight turning the counterplan.

   2. Key to strategic thinking- forces 2ac to debate in multiple worlds which increases
      critical thinking. This outweighs sall of their arguments to the ultimate impact to
      ground is education. And critical thinking is a better type of education because it
      can be applied to more fields.

   3. Key to negative flexibility- the alternative to dispositionality is the negative shave 1
      unconditional counterplan which is devastating to negative strategy giving the
      affirmative a massive advantage.

   4. Key to check against affirmative time advantages such as infinite preptime, first and
      last speech, and getting to pick the topic of the debate.




                                  I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                         5
RHSM 2008                                                                    Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                               Conditionality Good
   1. Key to strategic thinking- debating in multiple worlds offers a unique educational
      skills like critical thinking and time management that are more important than their
      types of education because they can be applied to more fields.

   2. Inherent affirmative advantages check: first and last speech, infinite prep time, and
      picking the topic means that in a world without negative conditionality the
      affirmative would win every debate.

   3. Dispo is worse- Dispo takes away our ability to make our best arguments against
      the counterplan like permutations and theory arguments. If we win that dispo means
      the affirmative would have won this debate theres is no alternative to conditionality.

   4. Most real world/makes sense test: Policy makers should always look at as many
      alternatives as possible in coming to the right answer. Our interpretation best
      resembles congressional debate.

   5. Debate should be a search for the Best Policy Option- Topic education is ultimately
      about searching for the best answer to the resolution. Argument restrictions
      inherently limit the topic discussion.

   6. We only justify what we do: Our interpretation is that negative teams get one
      conditional counterplan. Which answers all of your multiple counterplan arguments.

 Your straight turn arguments are a farce- dispositionality doesn’t make any sense in terms
of disad theory. Permutations are just tests which means they aren’t real no link arguments.
(example permutation congress and courts do the plan doesn’t mean the counterplan is not
 possible or that the SC disads don’t still link.) And if dispo theory is true you should have
   to concede theory arguments to get out of the counterplan which is bad for aff ground.




                                   I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                        6
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                  Conditionality is BAD

Justifies multiple contradictory counterplans- in this world the affirmative can never win because
negative teams would always just run the anarchy and totalitarianism counterplan in the same debate
and use arguments on one to help them on the other. (if going for this argument you will need to
isolate “links more” tension btw the cp and one of their arguments)

Theres no straight turn option-
   A. Time Skew- unlike disads that we can straight turn condo means no risk negative offense.
       Which means that every second of 2ac time on this position is in round abuse.
   B. Forces us to debate in multiple worlds which causes 2ac/1ar strat skew.

    A. Not reciprocal- affirmatives can not jettison their plan which is what negation theory justifies.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                              7
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                  International Fiat Bad
It‟s an impossible research burden – there are 192 countries in the world, any of which could make an
ocean policy. We‟d have to research all of them to be prepared for international counterplans, which
shreds our ground.

It‟s outside the jurisdiction of the judge – the judge is put into the role of a US policymaker or person
in Congress, and they can‟t decide issues beyond the United States. That‟s the best interpretation for
debate, because it‟s most real world for roles the debaters could play in the future.

It‟s non-reciprocal – we only get the United States, the negative shouldn‟t get more, and reciprocity is
the only objective way to decide fairness in debate.

Vote on it for fairness and ground.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               8
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                 International Fiat Good
It‟s negative ground – the aff gets the entire topic, and we get everything outside it for counterplans
and other arguments – that‟s fair.

We‟re not the center of the universe – hard to believe, but the US isn‟t the only country in the world
that does stuff. We should evaluate policy internationally, not just locally.

Best policy option – we can find the best way to do the plan if we look to other countries as well as the
United States.

It‟s real world – there are real world choices made in the UN and NATO to determine which country
should take a particular action, so we should evaluate that in debate as well.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                  9
RHSM 2008                                                                                Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                  Multiple Actor Fiat Bad
It‟s not reciprocal – we don‟t get multiple actors, they shouldn‟t either.

It‟s unresearchable – authors advocate many single actors taking an action, but rarely many acting
together. Unless they can show a solvency advocate for their text, it‟s abusive.

It‟s artificially competitive – there‟s no single actor that could choose to do their plan, so it doesn‟t
prove an opportunity cost to the plan, so there‟s no reason to vote for it.

It fiats a solvency burden – we have one actor and if we want more, we need solvency for modeling –
it‟s unfair that they can fiat that all those actors work together, so we lose all our ground for solvency
arguments.

It‟s unpredictable – guessing one agent is hard enough, but if they can have several it gives an infinite
number of possible combinations which makes research or preparation impossible.

Vote on it for fairness and ground.




                                         I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                  10
RHSM 2008                                                                           Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                               Multiple Actor Fiat Good
It gives them more ground – every new actor is a new disad, solvency, or critique argument for them
to make.

Every plan has multiple actors – they use the US federal government, which is made up of three
branches, hundreds of agencies, and thousands of individuals, which are all actors for the affirmative.
We‟re no worse than that.

More real-world – agents cooperate to achieve goals frequently; almost no project is done only by one
actor. This proves multiple actor fiat is researchable and realistic.




                                      I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               11
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                   Private Actor Fiat Bad
It‟s completely unpredictable – there are 6 billion people on the planet. Private actor fiat justifies them
using any person on earth to do plan, which we can never hope to research or prepare for, so we can‟t
have a good debate.

There‟s no opportunity cost – a member of congress won‟t give up a bill because there‟s some person
in Texas who might be able to do plan. Private actors aren‟t competitive with government ones, so
there‟s no reason to vote for the counterplan.

There‟s no solvency advocate – no one advocates doing exactly their plan, so there‟s no competing
literature or ground and we can‟t expect to find evidence on the counterplan to generate offense.

Vote them down for fairness and ground.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               12
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                 Private Actor Fiat Good
It‟s real world – private companies and organizations do political activism all the time, and it‟s often
considered as an alternative to government action, so we should consider it in debate.

It‟s researchable – our evidence on the counterplan proves there‟s evidence out there on private
actors, and the aff has infinite prep time so there‟s no excuse for them not having answers.

It‟s at the center of the topic – private organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are a huge
part of environmental protection. Not letting us use actors like these destroys important and
predictable negative counterplan ground.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                  13
RHSM 2008                                                                                Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                      Test Case Fiat Bad
It destroys our ground – we can‟t predict exactly how the test case will be ruled on and enforced, so
we can‟t find evidence on why it would be bad, so we get no offense.

It‟s not real world – courts rule on specific issues, not general policies, so the plan would never be
done in the status quo, so they can‟t show there‟s any opportunity cost to the plan.

It requires a private actor – they fiat some individual will bring a case to the court, which is horrible
because there are 6 billion private actors and we can‟t hope to research them all, so we have no
ground.

Timeframe – a test case would have to work it‟s way up through all the lower courts first, which not
only means they don‟t solve as well, but also makes it impossible for us to generate offense against
them because we don‟t know what will be going on ten years down the road.

Vote on it for fairness and ground.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                   14
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                    Test Case Fiat Good
It‟s reciprocal – the aff gets to pretend their case is a bill in Congress, we should be able to pretend a
case has been brought before the courts to rule on. Reciprocity is the only objective way to determine
fairness and is the best standard for debate.

It‟s key to our ground – without test case fiat we can‟t run any courts counterplans, which is a third of
the federal government and one of the most predictable and researchable counterplans out there.

Announcement checks – the court can say that it will rule in a specific way if a case is brought before
it, and test cases will be brought to it, so we don‟t have to fiat a private actor.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               15
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                        Object Fiat Bad
It fiats solvency – we can‟t argue solvency if they fiat complete compliance, which destroys all our
ground.

It justifies ridiculous counterplans – for example, a “people will never fight again” counterplan to solve
a war advantage. These are horrible for debate because they aren‟t real world and hurt education.

There‟s no opportunity cost – it‟s like saying the US shouldn‟t have entered World War 2 because
Germany shouldn‟t have invaded Poland. They can‟t prove any forced choice between the plan and
counterplan, so there‟s no reason to vote on it.

It makes the aff always lose – the neg could always run some kind of non-topical object fiat
counterplan to capture all our advantages and have better solvency because it‟s fiated. The aff can‟t
compete with that and will always lose, which destroys debate.

Vote on it for fairness and ground.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               16
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                       Object Fiat Good
No link – the counterplan isn‟t object fiat. The object of the plan is ________________. The counterplan
only fiats ___________ in a limited area.

Even if object fiat is generally bad, our specific counterplan is good –

A. Our interpretation – the Neg can only fiat official government laws in China. This solves their
“utopian fiat” and infinite regression claims and means we couldn‟t fiat out of all war. Its also wholly
non-topical and non-plan inclusive so they can leverage all of their Aff pressure and U.S. key warrants
against the counterplan.

B. Predictable – they should be prepared to defeat “Africa does not need our help” arguments. Their
inherency are arguments against the CP

Key to test the resolution – forces the Aff to prove the U.S. is a crucial actor versus any others and
tests whether “assistance” is necessary or if African unilateral action is sufficient to solve the case.
Two impacts –
    1. Defense – the Aff can use their 1AC to provide built in offense why US assistance is good and
         read relations add-ons or U.S. soft power turns
    2. Offense – testing the resolution is critical to an educational assessment of the topic. We
         challenge the notion that the US has to help African nations to solve the 1AC harms.
         Education outweighs fairness because it‟s the terminal impact to debate.

Increases Aff ground – they could read disads to unilateral African action or impact turn the net
benefit.

Perms check abuse – they can have both the U.S. and _________ act to solve better and avoids our
net-benefit

Increases education – allows debates to focus on the African political system and independent action
which is core topic literature

Key to negative flexibility – we should have any possible option to negate to test all angles of the Aff.

Best policy option should be the framework for the debate – most real world, which is key to education

Err neg on theory – the Aff gets structural advantages like first and last speech, the ability to choose
their Aff and advantages, and infinite prep time

Not a voting issue – at worst reject the argument, not the team




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               17
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                        Covert Fiat Bad
It kills our ground – we can‟t get links to disads or solvency arguments if no one knows about the
plan, so we can never win.

It‟s not real world – large public policies are never passed in secret. We can‟t expect to research
something that is never done in the real world, so there‟s no ground.

It‟s impossible – investigative media reporting will uncover the plan, so it can never be truly covert.
That means that they either (a) have no net benefit because the plan gets leaked out, or (b) they fiat
that doesn‟t happen, which is abusive because it‟s magic-wand fiat and destroys our ground. Either
way vote them down.

They link harder to the net benefit than we do – when something hidden is uncovered, it gets more
attention than if it were out in the open all along – attention given presidential scandals and cover-ups
proves this. That means they have more total perception than we do, so they link harder.

There‟s a solvency double-bind – either (a) no one knows about the plan, so it can‟t be enforced and
they have no solvency or (b) the plan leaks out and they have no net benefit. Again, either way they
lose.

We can‟t research covert action – if it really is covert, no one knows about it so there‟s nothing written
on why it‟s good or bad. That makes it by definition impossible to research, so we can‟t get any
offense.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 18
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                       Covert Fiat Good
It‟s real world – policies are passed in secret all the time, military plans for example. They should be
prepared to debate about it.

It gives them more ground – they get new solvency arguments based on no one knowing about the
plan, which makes up for any other ground they might have lost.

It‟s key to political process ground – covert fiat is one of the few ways to generate a good political net
benefit. Politics is good for debate because it encourages research and staying up-to-date on current
events.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               19
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                Need Solvency Advocate
Proves there‟s literature on their counterplan – if they can‟t find a single published work to support
their counterplan, it‟s unreasonable to force us to find answers to it, because we‟ll never be able to get
any ground.

Key to predictability – the neg could run any kind of crazy non-topical counterplan and we could never
predict them enough to research. If there is at least one person who advocates their counterplan, then
we know we can research it.

If they can‟t show an author who advocates exactly what they put as their counterplan text, they
should lose on fairness and ground.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               20
RHSM 2008                                                                           Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                          Don‟t Need Solvency Advocate
Blocks out authors that aren‟t in the mainstream – not all good authors are published, often because
they‟re too extreme. Requiring us to have an advocate for all our positions means we can‟t run radical
arguments, which blocks out an entire spectrum of thought. That‟s bad for debate, which is supposed
to be a free exchange of ideas.

Gives them more ground – lacking a solvency advocate means we need to do more work to prove that
we solve. If the aff was strategic they‟d take advantage of that. It‟s not our fault if they don‟t.

That‟s an arbitrary theory rule, which is bad for debate because it encourages whining about whether
or not something is fair instead of trying to debate against it. Reject their ad hoc rule-making.

We have a solvency advocate, it‟s the swartz evidence in contention V
They don‟t define what a solvency advocate is, does it need to have the exact plan text in a card? No
aff meets that interpretation.




                                      I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                             21
RHSM 2008                                                                           Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                              Topical Counterplans Bad
It‟s our ground – the resolution belongs to the affirmative. The negative shouldn‟t be able to claim it
as well. Letting the neg go aff defeats the purpose of switch-side debating and hurts education and is
a voter for education.

The counterplan doesn‟t prove the resolution false – they just give another example of where the
resolution would be a good idea. The counterplan is another reason to vote aff.




                                      I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                              22
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                             Topical Counterplans Good
They‟re more predictable – there are infinite non-topical counterplans, but only so many topical ones.
We make it easier for the aff to research for the counterplan.

Parametrics justify – once the round starts, the debate becomes focused on the plan, and everything
else becomes functionally negative ground.

Key to focused debate – If they get the whole topic as their ground, the aff has to defend anything at
all that‟s topical, not just the plan. That destroys topic focus and makes negative arguments
unpredictable so we can‟t have a good debate.

If they choose to defend the whole topic at this point in the debate, it destroys negative ground – we
don‟t have any more speeches to make new arguments to link to the whole topic, so the aff should be
held exclusively to their plan, which makes everything outside the plan negative ground, so the
counterplan is legit.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 23
RHSM 2008                                                                           Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                               Can‟t Kick a Counterplan
It skews our time – the 2AC has to spend a lot of time answering the counterplan, which puts us in a
lose-lose situation. Either we spend too little time and they go for the counterplan, or we spend too
much so the neg can go for something else very easily. Either way the aff loses.

It‟s a moving target – we don‟t know until the 2AR whether the neg will defend the counterplan or the
status quo, so all our answers can be made irrelevant, so the aff can‟t debate effectively.

Vote on it for fairness and ground, and the damage has already been done – we‟ve had to assume in
our 2AC strategy that they could kick the counterplan and adjust our strategy according to that, so
even if they don‟t kick it the damage has already been done. Vote aff.




                                      I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 24
RHSM 2008                                                                               Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                 Can Kick a Counterplan
It‟s reciprocal – the aff won‟t go for every argument the 2AC made. We shouldn‟t have to go for every
argument the 1NC made.

Non-unique – all other arguments, like T or disads, are kickable if the neg doesn‟t think they‟ll be
strategic. There‟s no unique abuse.

The counterplan isn‟t an advocacy – it‟s an opportunity cost disad, or a better alternative that you
can‟t do if you do the plan. We can drop the counterplan like we can drop any other disadvantage.

The status quo is always an option – the judge shouldn‟t be forced to vote for the plan just because
another option would be worse. You can always vote for no action at all to avoid a lose-lose situation.

Perms check – they get their own conditional advocacy to test competition.

Rebuttals check – as long as the 2NR has a coherent strategy, they won‟t be able to prove the abuse.

When in doubt, err neg on theory – the aff gets first and last speech, infinite prep, and statistically
wins more rounds. We need all the help we can get.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 25
RHSM 2008                                                                               Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                  2NC Counterplans Bad

Skews our strategy – a counterplan in the 2NC can take out our 2AC answers, and we can‟t predict
what we‟ll go for. That destroys our strategy going into the rebuttals, and it‟s too late to fix it now.

Skews 1AR time allocation – we don‟t have any constructives left to make new arguments, and we‟re
supposed to be clearing up the round to give the judge a clear decision, so we shouldn‟t have to deal
with a new policy world.

Counterplans are unlike any other argument – not only are they an entire new policy world to evaluate,
but they also are risk free for the negative – we can‟t turn it in a way that will stick them with it due to
conditional advocacies. That means the aff will always lose.

Our interpretation is that the negative gets new arguments, but not new advocacies, it preserves their
ground but we don‟t have to debate a new position

Justifies new 1AR arguments, and we get new responses to their responses in the 2AR, proves the
abusive nature of the CP

Vote on it for fairness and ground.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                  26
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                               2NC Counterplans Good
It‟s called a constructive for a reason – we can run new arguments in the 2NC, or it wouldn‟t be the
2NC. All their arbitrary theory will never change this.

A counterplan is no different from any other argument – it‟s an opportunity-cost disad, and other
arguments, like short DAs can be just as disruptive to the 1AR as a counterplan. If you don‟t allow
counterplans in the 2NC, you can‟t allow any new arguments there at all, which defeats the purpose of
a second negative constructive.

New in the 2 is key to negative strategy – we have to be able to respond to any news shifts made in the
2AC. Otherwise we‟re left helpless going into our last rebuttal.

Checks back vague plan texts – frequently we don‟t know all of what the affirmative even does until
after the 2AC due to vagueness in the plan text being exploited. We need new counterplans to avoid
losing all our ground to 2AC reinterpretations of the plan.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               27
RHSM 2008                                                                          Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                    Consult CPs Bad

   1. There no predictable- Negative teams could consult every country in the world. There is no
      way the affirmative could predict every possible actor.

   2. Consultation counterplans justify artificial net-benefits that are not predictable- For example
      they could consult japan and argue that consultation increases relations. This has nothing to
      do with the plan which means it is not in the scope of predictable affirmative research.

   3. Creates multiple worlds which is defacto conditionality- They can argue that the actor says
      yes no or makes any number of amendments to the plan. This means that the affirmative has
      to debate in infinite number of worlds which skews 1ar/2ac strategy. Which also makes them
      floating pics which are bad because the affirmative can never know which parts of the plan
      the counterplan will exclude: (insert pics bad block) They will argue this is inevitable because
      it is a question of solvency but this doesn’t answer our argument that the actual fiating of the
      implementation of the plan is in jeopardy which eliminates our ability to read disads to the
      counterplan.

   4. Insert conditional fiat bad block.

       Some generic permutations to make in every consultation round.

       Permute: consult and do the plan anyway- this is the lie permutation worded none
       intrinsically. Use this if they say x will say yes.

       Permute: Do the plan and then consult: USE this if they say X will say no. Argue that this will
       solve the NB better because X will know it was a direct result of the consultation. And the
       policy rollbacks are more perceived after a policy has been implemented than in policy
       formation. Answer their severance argument with arguments about why fiating through roll
       backs is bad for debate. And that you still implement all of the plan.




                                      I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                             28
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
***Perm Theory***
                                 Severance Perms Bad
Destroys our ground – the aff can sever out of whatever part of the plan we use to get disad links or
competition, so we can never run any arguments at all and the neg will always lose.

Makes them a moving target – the 1AC plan text is the basis for the entire round, when they change
that they make all our strategies useless because we‟ll never be able to predict how they‟ll shift,
destroying all our ground.

Vote on it for ground, and vote neg even if they don‟t go for the perm – voting them down discourages
running abusive perms as time sucks on the block.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                29
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                Severance Perms Good
Best policy option – we can find the best course of action to take if we can modify the plan.

Encourages case focus – if the neg can‟t always get competition for their counterplan, they‟ll be
forced to actually research the affirmative and come up with specific strategies, which gives better
debate and education.

Reciprocity – the neg can sever out parts of our plan for a counterplan, we should be able to do the
same.

Checks back unfair counterplans – we need severance perms so we don‟t lose to tiny exclusionary
counterplans that we can‟t effectively research.

Most real world – proposals in Congress frequently have parts cut out of them to improve their
functionality – severing parts of the plan gives the best view of real-world policymaking.

Conditionality justifies – if they can drop positions whenever they want, we should be able to drop
parts of the plan.

Link test prevents any abuse – we‟re not shifting our advocacy, just testing the counterplan. At worst,
they lose a counterplan, but the neg still has other strategic options.

Counterplans are illegit anyway – the neg has no fiat, which is created for the affirmative by the should
in the resolution. The counterplan goes away.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               30
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                   Intrinsic Perms Bad
Destroys our ground – if the aff gets intrinsic permutations we‟ll never be able to win counterplan
competition because they can always perm out of our net benefit by adding new parts to the plan.
Without counterplans the neg is stuck defending a morally repugnant status quo and always loses.

If they get intrinsicness arguments, so do we – that means we can add parts on to our advocacy of the
status quo if we want to. If we can do that, the affirmative has no harms or solvency, because there
are tons of other things that could be done in the status quo to solve for their case. They effectively
granted us infinite conditional counterplans that we don‟t need a text for. Thanks, they lose.

That puts the aff in a double bind – either they lose because their permutation is horribly abusive or
they lose because their case has no advantage now that we can make intrinsicness arguments to all
their harms. Either way you vote neg.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 31
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                   Intrinsic Perms Good
Encourages case focus – if the neg can‟t always get competition for their counterplan, they‟ll be
forced to actually research the affirmative and come up with specific strategies, which gives better
debate and education.

Most realistic – there are often simple things that would be done in the status quo to avoid problems,
which the perm takes into account. This gives the best view of actual policymaking.

Gives the neg more ground – they can get new links to anything we added onto the plan with the perm,
which makes up for any ground they lose elsewhere.

Reciprocity – if they can add new parts onto the plan with a counterplan, we should be able to add new
parts onto the perm too.

Best policy option – adding new parts onto the perm lets us see if they‟re a good idea which would
improve the plan, so we can find the best way to do a policy.

Counterplans are illegit anyway – the neg has no fiat, which is created for the affirmative by the
„should‟ in the resolution. The counterplan goes away.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               32
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                  Timeframe Perms Bad
Destroys all our ground – no matter what we run, they‟ll always be able to do it after the plan. There is
no way we can win competition, which proves the perm is a meaningless test on the counterplan.

It‟s intrinsic – nowhere in the plan or counterplan text did “do it after” come up, so the perm effectively
adds new text onto the plan to do the perm. That destroys all our ground because we‟ll never be able
to win a disad link or counterplan if they can add new parts onto the plan to take out our arguments.
That means no ground for us.

Vote on it for ground, and vote neg even if they don‟t go for the perm – voting them down discourages
running abusive perms as time sucks on the block.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               33
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                Timeframe Perms Good
Encourages case focus – if the neg can‟t always get competition for their counterplan, they‟ll be
forced to actually research the affirmative and come up with specific strategies, which gives better
debate and education.

Most realistic – there are often simple things that would be done in the status quo to avoid problems,
which the perm takes into account. This gives the best view of actual policymaking.

Gives the neg more ground – they can get new links to anything we added onto the plan with the perm,
which makes up for any ground they lose elsewhere.

Reciprocity – if they can add new parts onto the plan with a counterplan, we should be able to add new
parts onto the perm too.

Best policy option – adding new parts onto the perm lets us see if they‟re a good idea which would
improve the plan, so we can find the best way to do a policy.

Counterplans are illegit anyway – the neg has no fiat, which is created for the affirmative by the
„should‟ in the resolution. The counterplan goes away.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               34
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                    Multiple Perms Bad
It‟s not reciprocal – the neg can advocate either the status quo or a counterplan, and the aff gets the
plan and the perm. Allowing multiple perms unbalances it towards the affirmative and makes the
debate unfair.

 It skews our time – the aff can spit out perms in just a few seconds each, while we have to treat each
of them as a completely new policy world and read evidence and theory on them or we lose. That
forces us into horrible time tradeoffs and makes good coverage in the block impossible.

It makes them a moving target – if we beat one perm, they can shift their advocacy to a different one,
so we end up playing hide-and-go-seek with the aff advocacy and lose all our ground.

Vote on it for fairness and ground, and the damage has already been done – I still have to go answer
all the perms and skew my time, so if you let them kick the perms now it just proves the abuse. Vote
neg.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                  35
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                  Multiple Perms Good

They‟re link tests – perms are to test the competition of the counterplan. They‟re not new advocacies.
That takes out all their arguments because we don‟t actually advocate any of the perms – they just
show the plan and counterplan can be done together.

Real world – multiple amendments to a bill are proposed in Congress all the time.

It‟s reciprocal – the neg gets to run many strategic options against the affirmative. We should be able
to do the same back.

Best policy option – multiple perms let us find the best combination of plan and counterplan by testing
several solutions.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                             36
RHSM 2008                                                                               Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                  Advocating Perms Bad
It‟s a moving target – they are no longer advocating their plan, but something else plus plan. That lets
them slip out of all our arguments and destroys all our ground.

Perms are a link test – the purpose of a perm is to test the competition of the counterplan; it‟s a
hypothetical option, not a true policy alternative. There‟s no theoretical justification for letting them
have a new advocacy.

It skews our strategy – their system allows the perm to be either a hypothetical test or a new policy
option, which skews our strategy because we don‟t know which of those they will go for until the
rebuttals. That destroys negative block effectiveness and unbalances the round.

Vote them down on it for fairness and ground, and letting them kick it now just makes the abuse
worse, because it skews our strategy as stated above. Vote down the team, not just the argument.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                   37
RHSM 2008                                                                               Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                 Advocating Perms Good
Best policy option – the point of debate is to find the best solution to a problem. Taking some of the
negative‟s ideas and combining them with the affirmative best accomplishes this.

They should be prepared – the counterplan is their ground which they have infinite time to prepare,
they should be ready for any kind of perm to the counterplan. It‟s not our fault if they‟re not.

Encourages argumentative responsibility – without aff ability to advocate the perm, the neg has no
strategic risk at all in the counterplan – the worst that happens is they have to kick it. However, if a
counterplan opens up a new affirmative option, the neg is forced to stick to the counterplan harder
and make strategic choices, which increases education and analytical thought.

It‟s reciprocal – the neg gets a new policy option besides the status quo, the counterplan. The aff
should get the perm in addition to the plan.

Conditionality justifies – any reason they give that it‟s bad for the affirmative to be able to get a new
advocacy is also a reason why it‟s bad for the negative to be able to ditch their current advocacy at
any time. The negative is equally bad.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                   38
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                               Textual Competition Good
Most objective standard – you can look at the plan text, the counterplan text, and see if they can be
combined, which is completely objective and fair.

Doesn‟t require mixing burdens – to see if a counterplan functionally competes you have to examine
all the effects of both plan and counterplan, which is mixing burdens by making solvency an issue for
competition.

Checks back abusive counterplans – textual competition forces the negative to choose counterplans
that aren‟t lame “do plan minus a penny” style, which are bad because they detract from case focus
and make debates overly generic.

Encourages careful plan writing – if both sides know that the text of the plans they use will be critical
there is more incentive to write good ones, which increases education and the quality of debate.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               39
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                            Functional Competition Good

Most realistic – in the real world, when comparing whether two things can be done together people
always evaluate the effects, not just the texts of the two plans.

Textual competition makes cross examination pointless – there‟s no reason to ask questions about
what the plan does if the text is the only part that matters, so subtle variations would be missed.

Encourages strong plan writing – there is more incentive to write good plans to specify all the
functions if it will have an impact on the round. Textual competition leads to meaningless, 5 word
plans that don‟t say anything, which makes them unpredictable and forces wasted CX time.

It‟s key to counterplan ground – functional competition is the only way we can get any competition at
all, because no counterplan can compete textually. For example, we could run “do not do the
affirmative” and the aff could perm “do not do” onto the front of their text and it would be legit. This
proves textual competition is a ridiculous standard.

Best policy option – we can better evaluate effects of policies if we consider them functionally instead
of just in the text.

Allows for debates on perm solvency – textual competition destroys cost-benefit analysis because it
doesn‟t matter how little the perm solves as long as it‟s a combination of the texts. Functional
competition gives a reason to see if the perm is actually a good idea instead of just being possible.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               40
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                                      ***Topicality Theory***




                                         Effects T Bad
Our argument is that the affirmative plan must on-face increase protection of marine resources. Any
other interpretation is bad because:

It unlimits the topic – anything could potentially be topical effectually. For example, Plan: give Bush a
haircut, which makes him happy so he decides to protect the environment. Effects topicality allows
those ridiculous cases and makes the topic infinite and research impossible.

It mixes burdens – to determine topicality through effects you have to look to solvency, which is
crossing the stock issues and is theoretically illegitimate.

It makes topicality probabilistic – if you have to look to solvency to see if they‟re topical, there‟s
always the chance they don‟t solve and don‟t fall in the resolution. That removes topicality as a rule of
the game and destroys debate as we know it.

The plan text is key – the aff plan is they only clear determination of aff advocacy that we can stick
them to for offense. They shouldn‟t be able to claim parts of the plan that we can‟t effectively attack to
make them topical, because it destroys the purpose of topicality as a means to maintain fair ground,
so the neg would always lose.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               41
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                        Effects T Good
There‟s no bright-line – how many steps is too many? There‟s no clear standard.

Every case requires steps – the plan has to be drafted, passed through Congress, signed by the
president, enforced, each of which could be considered a separate step. That makes effects T
inevitable.

The resolution doesn‟t prevent it – there‟s no reason the resolution wouldn‟t include effectually topical
cases – they‟re making up rules. Ad hoc theory is bad for debate because it rewards the neg for
complaining instead of going out and researching the case, which destroys the educational value of
debate.

It gives them more ground – every new step by the plan is a new link for the neg and makes our
solvency more difficult. That gives them more ground.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                              42
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                            Extra T Bad
It destroys our ground – the aff can always add extra-topical plan spikes to take out our arguments, for
example “do plan and don‟t do tariffs,” to avoid a protectionism disad. That gives the neg nothing to
run.

It proves the resolution insufficient – if they have to go beyond the resolution to prove the plan is a
good idea, it‟s obvious the resolution alone isn‟t enough, so there‟s no reason to vote aff.

It‟s unpredictable – there‟s no way for us to predict what new plan spikes the aff might have each
round, so we can‟t adequately prepare or get any ground.

It makes the negative always lose – with extra-topical plan planks, the aff can get huge non-topical
advantages that we will never be able to outweigh. For example: do plan and send food aid to Africa.
That makes the neg always lose because we can‟t outweigh.

Severing out the non-topical parts isn‟t enough – our strategy has already been skewed, and letting
them sever out gives no incentive to avoid future extra-topicality, because the worst that would
happen is they‟d be back with just the plan. Vote them down to send a message and prevent future
abuse.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 43
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                          Extra T Good
It gives them more ground – every new plan plank we add is a new disad link or counterplan for the
negative. They should be thanking us.

It‟s inevitable – parts of plan, like enforcement and funding, will always be outside the resolution.
Don‟t punish us for something we can‟t avoid.

Severance is enough – just don‟t consider any advantages from parts of the plan that are extra-topical.
That remedies any ground they might have lost.

Exclusionary counterplans – if we get advantages from extra planks, the neg can always sever out that
plank and get a net benefit, which will prevent affs from being too abusive. For example, severing
sending food aid to Africa with a deficits net benefit.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               44
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                      Topicality is a RVI
Time suck – they can read topicality faster than we can answer it. Letting them run it without any risk
allows them to destroy our time allocation and strategy.

Reciprocity – if the aff can lose on T, the neg should be able to also. Reciprocity is the only objective
way to determine fairness in debate.

They trivialize topicality – because teams run topicality strategically without any risk, judges don‟t
take it as seriously. Having topicality run when the aff is really non-topical is better for debate
because then teams obviously outside the resolution will lose more often, but obviously topical cases
won‟t be punished by tricky topicality debaters.

Decreases education – instead of going to the library to look up evidence on our case, the neg just
pulled out a dictionary. That decreases research and education from debate.

It‟s linguistic violence – their argument is that we shouldn‟t be allowed to discuss our case, which is
putting violent borders on what can and can‟t be talked about. That‟s horrible discourse and they
should be discouraged from using it.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 45
RHSM 2008                                                                                 Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                     Topicality Isn‟t a RVI
It‟s a gateway issue – we have to know if they‟re topical before we evaluate any other issues in the
round. They made it through that gateway, but that doesn‟t mean they automatically win.

We need to test – the neg needs to be able to test the affirmative‟s topicality to make sure teams
always stay within reasonable bounds so both teams get ground.

That trivializes substantial issues – even if the aff is topical, it doesn‟t prove the plan is a good idea.
Them being within the resolution isn‟t enough to justify giving them the ballot.




                                         I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                    46
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                                       ***K Theory***




                                Need Textual Alternative
Prevents moving target – if they don‟t state precisely what their alternative is, they can shift it to get
out of our arguments. Inherent vagueness in terminology makes this even more dangerous; for
example, if they were running anarchy and we said “anarchy alternative fails” they could say “oh, but
we don‟t advocate that type of anarchy…” which means we can‟t get any ground.

The text is key – it‟s the only certain statement of their advocacy we can get, and we need to know it to
get stable ground for offense.

Ground – if we don‟t know exactly what they do, we can‟t be certain of links to any of our positions,
which means we have no ground.

Reciprocity – the aff reads a plan specifying our advocacy, the neg should have to as well.
Reciprocity is the most objective standard for fairness in debate.

Vote them down on it – the damage has already been done because we don‟t have any new
constructives to make up the strategic skew, so vote them down for fairness and ground.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               47
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                           Don‟t Need Textual Alternative
It‟s an unrealistic standard – philosophical ideas can‟t be broken down to a single sentence plan.
Forcing us to do that destroys the spirit and value of the critique and makes the whole advocacy
pointless.

They still get ground – their will be equally vague authors they can use to answer back our alternative.
Our authors aren‟t the only ones with broad advocacies, so they have equal ground.

Cross-X checks – they have time to ask about what happens after the critique during C-X. Don‟t blame
us if they didn‟t.

It gives them more ground – the less specific we are, the more arguments they will have that link. We
give them more to run.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                              48
RHSM 2008                                                                             Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                         Performative Contradictions Bad
It‟s like pre-meditated murder – they knew they were wrong but did it anyway, which makes them
worse than us, because we only linked unintentionally. Vote them down first.

It forces us to contradict too – if they contradict, we lose our stable advocacy as well, and our ground
because they can cross-apply our answers to take each other out, so we always lose.

False advocacies are bad for debate – they violate their own arguments, which proves they don‟t really
believe them. That‟s bad for debate because it promotes cynicism and destroys political activism.

Vote them down on it for ground and that they link more than we do.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                              49
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                       Performative Contradictions Good
Negation theory – our only job is to prove the aff is a bad idea. We don‟t need any stable advocacy of
our own. This is best for debate because it helps us find the best policy option.

Both arguments are reasons why the affirmative is bad – just because they disagree on some point
doesn‟t mean the affirmative is a good idea. They still lose.

It‟s key to our ground – we need to be able to run contradictory arguments to effectively test the
affirmative on all fronts. Forcing consistency limits our strategic choices and hurts our ground.

It gives them more strategic options – the way to deal with contradictions is to concede one side and
cross-apply them over to the other. It‟s not our fault they didn‟t do that.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                             50
RHSM 2008                                                                              Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                     ***Miscellaneous***
                                       Politics DAs Bad
They‟re repetitive – they run the exact same politics shell every round, which doesn‟t give good
education for the debaters.

They detract from topic focus – politics are super-generic, so the negative never needs to read on-
case or research ocean policy, which hurts education and is against framer‟s intent.

It moots the resolution – the resolution is supposed to be a guide to negative debating as well, they
defeat the purpose of having a new resolution each year by always running the same arguments.

The „should‟ in the resolution means plan is passed in a vacuum – should means that plan ought to
occur, not that it will, so we‟re effectively just debating over the plan, not what may occur while plan is
being passed, because passage is never assumed.

Encourages poor evidence quality – look at their cards, they all suck, there aren‟t any warrants and
most of them are taken out of context. This type of citing would not be acceptable for any forum
besides debate – people can get kicked out of college for misreporting sources, it shouldn‟t be
encouraged in debate.

It hurts political activism – their large but unlikely impacts wouldn‟t be used in any forum but debate,
for example, the city council won‟t be convinced that passing an ocean policy will lead to a republican
takeover that allows Bush to destroy the world. That makes us less effective at political activism in
the outside world.

Those are all reasons to vote aff, and reject the team, not just the argument to send a message that
this type of argumentation won‟t be tolerated and to discourage future violations.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                               51
RHSM 2008                                                                               Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                                      Politics DAs Good
Educational – we learn about political occurrences by debating about them, which gives applicable
education in the round.

Encourages research – politics arguments require teams to go look for recent evidence, so more
research is done, which increases education.

It‟s real world – there are political effects from policies, so it makes sense to examine political effects
in debate as well.

Best policy option – because political fallout would be a factor in real-world policy considerations, it
makes sense to examine these aspects as well to decide if the aff plan is a good idea or not. That lets
us find the best policy option.

It‟s key to ground – politics is a predictable and easily researchable position that links to a lot.
Generics are good for debate because they give some level of predictability and are fair to research.

Their arguments are ad-hoc theory – they‟re just making up random theoretical rules and saying we
don‟t meet them. Ad-hoc theory is bad for debate, because it encourages whining instead of
answering arguments and sets up unpredictable standards where teams never know if what they‟re
doing is fair or not. Reject their made-up theory arguments.

Encourages political activism – if we have a basic understanding of how things work politically, we‟re
more likely to be able to effectively campaign for issues we support in the real world, which is good
for political activism and progressive change.




                                        I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                                 52
RHSM 2008                                                                            Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                           Don‟t Vote on Potential Abuse
You‟re only here to judge this round – your responsibility does not extend to other rounds.

Encourages ridiculous theory arguments – if potential abuse is an accepted voter, neg teams will run
F, E, NM, and rep spec, which creates an impossible burden for the aff to meet and decreases
argumentation on substantive arguments.

Potential abuse is arbitrary – there are lots of arguments in debate that could be seen as abusive, and
there‟s no way to differentiate between legitimate and bad theory arguments if they‟re assumed to take
place in future rounds as well. That leaves no way to tell the difference, hence it‟s impossible to make
a decision.

It‟s most real world – judges in courtrooms don‟t throw cases out because they might unbalance
something in the future. Cases are only thrown out if the defense can show that in that particular case
it is flawed.




                                       I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                             53
RHSM 2008                                                                          Theory
Gus’ Ghost
                             Do Vote on Potential Abuse
Ballots set a precedent – accepted debate theory is made up of by what judges think is reasonable or
unreasonable. Your ballot on this issue moves us closer to where abusive practices will not be done.

In-round abuse is impossible to prove – it‟s hard to tell if a single argument unbalanced a particular
round, but you can judge if whether it were a general principle, it would unbalance rounds. That leads
to fairer theoretical rules for debate.

Most objective – in-round abuse makes arguments abusive sometimes and not abusive other times, so
teams can‟t predict whether they‟ll be abusive or not. A potential abuse standard sets a better
brightline for teams to follow.




                                      I mean, the ghost of Heath Leger.                             54

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:10
posted:5/23/2011
language:Indonesian
pages:54