THEORY CRIB SHEET CONDITIONALITY BAD 1.

Skews 2AC strategy theres no way of allowing the 2AC to make consistent offensive arguments against multiple worlds 2. Not reciprocal Aff must defend the plan through the entire round allowing the Negative to discard its policy options is unfair for the affirmative and causes argumentative irresponsibility 3. Justifies contradictions Conditionality allows to force us to make arguments that us on other issues e.g. running an economy d/a and capitalism bad 4. Kills debatability because theres no way of determining what the other team will go for in the next speech 5. No unique right to a conditional CP running the net benefit alone or a dispositional CP allows the negative plenty of flexibility without killing aff ground 6. Voting issue competitive equity CONDITIONALITY GOOD 1. Strategy skew inevitable and it teaches debaters to think strategically and improve efficiency in round. Harder debate keeps the activity educational and challenging 2. Key to negative flexibility Being able to test the Plan at multiple levels is essential to Neg strategy and ground,

which outweighs any Aff ground loss 3. Best Policy Option It improves policy focus because it helps test and develop the most effective policy 4. Its reciprocal conditionality is key to checking multiple conditional perms The Affs unlimited number of conditional perms skews neg strategy and time allocation 5. Like a Disad Its no different than kicking any other Neg argument, no abuse or timeskew 6. Potential abuse isnt a voter they have to prove our specific conditional CP is abusive 7. Err Neg the Aff has overwhelming structural advantages like speaking first and last, so protect Negative ground DISPOSITIONALITY BAD 1. Skews 2AC strategy no way of allowing the 2AC to make consistent offensive arguments against multiple worlds 2. Not reciprocal they get 2 policy options the CP and the status quo; we only get the plan 3. Kills debatability because theres no way to anticipate what theyll go for in the next speech 4. Aff choice doesnt check because theyll always win in a world where they can dictate what arguments we can make. 5. Voting issue competitive equity DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD 1. Timeskew inevitable You skew your own time, otherwise youd always vote for the slowest team

2. Improves Affirmative Time allocation it makes them make smarter arguments more efficiently 3. Key to negative flexibility Being able to test the Plan at multiple levels is essential to Neg strategy and ground, which outweighs any Aff ground loss 4. Best Policy Option It improves policy focus because it helps test and develop the most effective policy 5. Its reciprocal is key to checking Perm Abuse Because the Aff has an unlimited number of perm worlds, plus plan; We need the CP and SQ as options 6. Like a Disad Its no different than kicking any other Neg argument, no abuse or timeskew 7. Aff choice checks Abuse the Aff can choose to force our option and straight turn the CP 8. All CPs are dispositional the advent of perms as tests of competition always leaves the Status Quo as an option..CP ground is critical to Negative strategy, competitive equity, and the educational value of debate 9. Potential abuse isnt a voter they have to prove our specific dispositional CP is abusive 10. Err Neg the Aff has overwhelming structural advantages like speaking first and last, so protect Negative ground PICS BAD 1. Steals 2AC offense since the CP does parts/all of the plan, Aff cant leverage 1AC as offense against the CP 2. Infinitely regressive & unpredictable they could do the plan minus one dollar and claim a spending net benefit

3. Leads to vague plan writing Affs will write vague plans to limit negative CP options 4. Decontextualizes the Aff by excluding or including parts of the plan at will, they bastardize the 1AC solvency evidence and make the CP impossible to research 5. Voting Issue Competitive equity PICS GOOD 1. Allow the search for the best policy option because they force the affirmative to defend the entirety of the plan 2. No unique Abuse - all CPs are plan inclusive because including parts of the plan is the only way for the CP to compete 3. PICS are key to neg flexibility and strategy PICs prevent the Negative from having to defend an unacceptable status quo 4. Net benefits and literature check abuse and infinite regression the Affirmative can read turns to our netbenefits FLOATING PIKS ARE A VOTING ISSUE 1. Fairness-steals the entirety of the 1AC. Theres no predictable offense against our own aff with different discourse. 2. Education-they discourage indepth critical debates if they can just isolate one representation and PIK out of it. 3. Also independently disproves the criticism. If our aff can be done through a different lensthen its a reason the perm is a good idea. 4. They dont have a solvency advocate. Having comparative evidence ensure debates have clash.

FLOATING PIKS ARE GOOD 1. Education-defending representations is critical to policy makingcross/apply every presidential campaign and debate. 2. Key to check sexist and racist language. This is the most important in communication activities where we have to be aware of how we interact with others. 3. Theres only a limited number of representation criticisms that have realworld impacts. Small ones are check by policy making good and Reps focus bad arguments. 4. We still have to defend against the permutation which would put a check on trivial reps Ks that it would solve for. INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD 1. Doesnt test the agent disad proves U.S. action is bad Counterplan is extraneous 2. Unfair research burden - we have to research every country to find potential counteragents 3. Language barriers prevent adequate discussion the most indepth education literature on the CP isnt in English. At best, the literature represents a biased view of the policy, written from the viewpoint of the West 4. False judicial dichotomy no actor faces deciding between

whether one nation or another should do a policy. Sets up a false role for the judge, which isnt competitive with the Affirmative and destroys predictability 5. Voting Issue competitive equity INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD 1. Forces Aff to defend U.S. F.G. they wrote it in the Plan 2. Best policy option we should compare the abilities of other countries to do the plan 3. Literature checks abuse as long as we find literature on international action, it should be legitimate this prevents infinite regression because we are constrained to advocates and ensures fair aff ground because its debatable 4. T/ Eurocentric we can recognize that other actors can solve just as well, breaking away from the cycle of nativism 5. Resolution divides ground Aff gets topical ground and Neg gets Nontopical ground, including international fiat 6. Education learning about international actors increases education 7. Competition checks abuse international CPs are not mutually exclusive because the U.S. can function within in them; net benefits are debatable 8. Disad ground checks abuse they argue disads to international action or advantages to unilateral U.S. action 9. Not a voting issue reject the arg, not the team TOPICAL CPs GOOD 1. Counterinterpretation: only topical CPs are legit A. Plan becomes the focus of debate Aff gets infinite prep to choose their plan now they

have to defend it and resolutional focus would be bad it justifies counterwarrants and alternate justification, destroying clash B. increases topical education Topical CPs allow us to focus on and discuss the resolution C. increases predictability resolutional debate is more predictable than the infinite number of non topical CPs 2. Competition checks abuse 3. were only going to win the CP if we win a net benefit they can always debate that net benefit B) Aids the search for the best policy option topical CPs provide a better assessment of the best policy option and best agent of action TOPICAL CPs BAD 1. Kills Research Burden we have to research against other Affs to debate Affirmative as well as both topical and nontopical counterplans 2. Kills the resolution A) theyre not dejustifying the resolution because theyre topical Vote Aff B) Not reciprocal resolution is designed to give both Aff and Neg equal ground theyre trampling our ground that justifies non topical plans for reciprocity C) Justifies plan-plan debates which moot out the 1AC and dejustify Neg research 3. Aff biases dont check they have Neg block and kritiks to provide ground MULTIPLE ACTOR FIAT GOOD 1. Increases Aff ground the greater the number of actors, the more offense can be run one or more of these actors could be bad and attacked on a solvency/disad level

2. Education we learn about more actors, increasing education 3. Competition checks Abuse were still going to have to win the net benefits to the CP its the search for the best policy option 5. Key to Neg strategy and flexibility multiple actors enable the Neg to best test the Aff NEG FIAT BAD 1. Fiat derives from the word should there is no implied should not words are in and left out of the resolution for a reason 2. Reciprocity doesnt check 3. Aff fiat is limited because it is confined by the resolution Neg would always claim unlimited fiat 4. Reciprocity is a lie they have presumption and the block thats not reciprocal 5. Kills Aff research burden the Neg ability to fiat explodes Aff research burden because there are infinite amounts of topical/nontopical CPs 6. Skews 2AC strat Neg fiat exponentially increases the number of worlds the Aff has to answer the 1AC is crafted to answer the Status quo 7. No reciprocity Aff fiat is confined by the resolution Neg fiat isnt NEG FIAT GOOD 1. Key to Neg strategy and flexibility Neg has to have other options than an undesirable status quo 2. Reciprocity 3. Neg gets implied should not of the resultion If we dont get fiat, neither should they, which means you should vote neg on presumption 4. Plan becomes the focus of debate Aff gets infinite prep to

choose their plan now they have to defend it and resolutional focus would be bad it justifies counterwarrants and alternate justification, destroying clash FUTURE FIAT BAD 1. Solvency is probalistic we dont know when or if plan occurs 2. Violates T should should implies now voting issue fairness & jurisdiction 3. Violates T resolved proves plans not resolved on its intentions voter fairness & jurisdiction 4. Skews Neg ground denies us the ability to have uniqueness for our disads and case turns because plan could be postponed until our disads are nonunique 5. Vote Neg on presumption demonstrates Plan is not a good idea now defer to the status quo 6. No literature for future action means its non debatable 7. Voting Issue competitive equity SEVERANCE BAD 1. Moving target - allows the Aff to sever out of Neg disad links, destroying Neg ground 2. Not topical violates resolved which means firm because the Affirmative is not firm in their 1AC advocacy. Independent voting issue for jurisdiction

3. Rewards 1AC plan spikes allows the Aff to spike out of neg positions in the 1AC and sever those spikes in the 2AC 4. infinitely regressive there are an infinite amount of unpredictable changes that can be made to the Aff plan 5. voting issue competitive equity SEVERANCE PERMS GOOD 1. Best Policy Option The Affirmative should be allowed to the test the CP/K alternative on any level possible in order to debate the best issues, which increases education 2. Real World Congress people typically make changes to a piece of legislation through the process of law making the plan is not the text of the bill and thus subject to change. Real world analogies allow us to put debate in context and set boundaries. 3. Justified by conditional/dispositional CP we have multiple ways to test the competition of the CP the permutation is merely another test of the net benefit 4. Doesnt hurt negative ground the Permutation is a test of competition, not a new advocacy they still have the ability to weigh the net benefit against the permutation and the plan 5. Key to Affirmative ground the affirmative only has a finite way of weighing the plan versus the Cp, especially in the world of a PIC or Agent CP severance permutations only way to check back the infinite number of CPs 6. Counterperms Check Abuse the Negs ability to Counterperm ensures fairness 7. Preserves Resolutional purpose the purpose of the resolution is to initiate further discussion, the permutation

doesnt inhibit this goal; it furthers it in another direction 8. Not a voting issue the Negative has the block, kritiks, PICs, and 2NR strategy reject the perm, not the team TIME FRAME PERMS BAD 1. Its a severance and intrinsic perm its non operational for its original time frame and it adds temporal sequencing makes them a moving target and kills Neg ground 2. Skews Neg ground by the time plan is passed, our disads would be unique 3. Kills CP ground Itd always be possible to do plan, then CP or vise versa 4. they make solvency probabilistic we dont know when or if the actually is passed INTRINSIC PERMS BAD 1. Skews Negative ground allows the Affirmative to spike out of Neg disads or CPs by adding things to the plan 2. Unpredictable there are an infinite amount of unpredictable changes that can be made to the plan 3. Voting issue competitive equity MULTIPLE PERMS BAD 1. Multiple Perms are Bad and a voting issue for competitive equity: 2. Makes the Aff conditional since they can go for any, all, or none of the perms Affirmative Conditionality is uniquely worse since a stable Aff Advocacy is critical to Neg positions and testing whether the plan is a good idea 3. No straight turn to check we cant stick them with the permutation through a straight turn 4. Not reciprocal or predictable they get 3 worlds to choose

from we dont know which theyll choose

MULTIPLE PERMS GOOD 1. Reciprocity Counterplan has multiple parts multiple perms key to test these parts 2. The Perm is a test its not advocated A. Its like a no link argument a test to see if the CP is germane whereas the Cp can be advocated B. The Perm is a combination its just the plan and the counterplan or some combination of the two which makes it no new world

TEXTUAL COMPETITION BAD 1. Promotes Vague Plan writing Affs could write Vague plan texts to spike out of counterplans this destroys Neg ground because it also denies us disad links, solvency debates, and encourages 2AC clarifications 2. Kills Neg CP ground no counterplan is ever textually competitive Ban Plan CPs arent textual competitive Neg counterplan ground is key to neg flexibility and strategy and not having to defend an undesirable status quo 3. Forces grammar CPs, which trivialize debate and decrease education over actual policy options 4. Functional Competition Good A. Real world policy makers care about the substantive benefits of bills and policies, not the exact text B. Best policy option functional competition allows the search for the best policy option by allowing a true comparison of net benefits

C. Doesnt lead to infinite regression literature and clash check

5. Its more predictable by allowing the focus on plan, and is grounded in preround plan disclosure _____________________

TEXTUAL COMPETITION GOOD 1. Leads to better competition evaluation it sets a better brightline for when a CP is competitive by limiting it to textual precision. It allows fairer, less biased evaluation of competition 2. Textual competition key to limiting out bad PICs which improves Aff ground A. They allow any plan minus type of CP, like plan minus one penny, or plan minus anything, leading to bad debate and gutting ground B. That destroys predictability because it allows an infinite number of tiny modification CPs which Affs could never predict 3. Improves Plan focus because it forces a concise debate over what the plan says it does, improving ground and education 4. Solves Vague Plans when everything is listed explicitly in the plan, it cant shift what it does Vague Plans are Bad: A. allows Aff 2AC morphing where 2ACs interpret plan operation to dodge links, destroy Neg ground B. guts Neg link ground by making plans so small and abstract the Neg cant win a link to anything

POLITICS IS NOT INTRINSIC 1. Logical policy maker could do the plan and decide to pass or reject any agenda item 2. This is Fair-Decisions are limited by the agent of the resolution-they just have to prove opportunity cost. 3. This is educational-this interpretation guarantees debate skills are translatable to real world. POLITICS IS INTRINSIC 1. We read links that prove the plan will have political consequences that affect agenda items. Congress isnt a single actor. 2. Their interpretation kills negative ground-they can cross apply the same argument to trade-off and spending arguments. 3. Empirical intrinsicness checks-running arguments that a congressperson WOULD pass both is fine-but you cant advocate that it SHOULD or COULD happen.