ADI 1

Theory Blocks
Theory Blocks Index
Theory Blocks Index......................................................................................................................1
PICs Good.......................................................................................................................................2
PICs Bad.........................................................................................................................................3
Dispositionality Good....................................................................................................................4
Dispositionality Bad.......................................................................................................................5
Conditionality Good......................................................................................................................6
Conditionality Bad.........................................................................................................................7
Multiple Conditional Advocacies Bad..........................................................................................8
Textual Competition Good............................................................................................................9
Functional Competition Good....................................................................................................10
Floating PICs Bad........................................................................................................................11
Floating PICs Good......................................................................................................................12
Multiple Actor Fiat Good............................................................................................................13
International Actor Fiat Good....................................................................................................14
International Actor Fiat Bad.......................................................................................................15
Consult Counterplans 2AC Block 1/2........................................................................................16
Consult Counterplans 2AC Block 2/2........................................................................................17
Delay Counterplans Bad..............................................................................................................18
Severance Perms Illegitimate......................................................................................................19
Severance Perms Legitimate.......................................................................................................20
Timeframe Perms Illegitimate....................................................................................................21
Plan Must Be Done Immediately................................................................................................22
Affirmative Must Have a Plan Text............................................................................................23
Must Have A Plan/Solvency Advocate........................................................................................24
Critical Frameworks Good.........................................................................................................25
Fiat Good/Individual Action Bad...............................................................................................26
No Text to the Alternative – 2AC................................................................................................27
No Text to the Alternative – 1AR................................................................................................28
Performance Bad – Short Block.................................................................................................29
Performance Good – Short Block...............................................................................................30
2AC Answers to Agent Specification..........................................................................................31
 ADI 2
Theory Blocks
PICs Good

 Increases quality of plan writing: Forces the affirmative to defend their entire plan and only including
those actions that they can defend.

 Increases the depth of education: Allows debaters to closely examine all parts of the plan to learn more
about each part.

 There’s no ground loss. Affirmative can always prove their plan is better by turning the net benefit.

 We don’t force them to debate themselves: just to defend the part of the plan that is not done by the
counterplan.

 PICs promote the best policy. Only by dissecting mechanisms and evaluating multiple policies and their
net benefits can we establish the best possible option.

 Most real world. Policy makers constantly amend and change small portions of legislation before they can
find a satisfactory end. That’s key to education and predictability.

 Literature checks abuse. We have a solvency advocate defending the differences between the plan and
the counterplan.

 Resolves aff bias. Affs win more rounds, have infinite prep, a huge topic that kills negative predictability,
and first and last speeches. Any abuse argument they win only proves we increase overall competitive equity.

 All counterplans are plan inclusive. Alternate agent counterplans use the same solvency mechanism;
alternative solvency mechanisms use the same actor.

 Counterplans are key to negative ground.

a. Key to fairness. Forcing the neg to defend the status quo is an untenable position. Aff cases are
chosen on their desirability over the status quo. This would make the neg defend offensive policies like
racism good and the neg would always lose.
b. It’s reciprocal. The aff gets to pick the ground they defend, so should we.
c. Err neg on theory questions because counterplans are critical to overall fairness which is the
crux of their argument
ADI 3
Theory Blocks
PICs Bad
 Steals aff ground. We chose our case area and plan, they can defend anything else. Allowing the negs to
run plan inclusive counterplans strips us of our ability to make comparisons based on the merits of the plan we’ve
chosen because they would gain all of those advantages since they include our plan too.

 Limits discussion to the minor details: this decreases education about the larger issues of mental health
policy. Under their interpretation, they could counterplan to spend a penny less and compete off of a spending
disad, making our education more about trivial differences than macro policy issues.

 Forces us to debate against ourselves: because they concede all but a tiny part of plan, often stripping
us of our best offense.

 Disads alone would preserve their ground and check aff abuse. They still prove why the plan is
a bad idea without the ground loss of a plan inclusive counterplan.

 Net benefits don’t check abuse. The disad alone would test the merits of the plan and the fact that they
run a PIC means that we’re uniquely stripped of our offense against the disad.

 Infinite prep time argument is reciprocal. This topic provides plenty of prep time for the neg and
highly predictable ground for both sides. The so-called “time bias” isn’t a warrant for voting negative on a PIC.

 Infinite prep time arguments would nullify all theory discussions. Nothing would ever be
abusive if we have limitless prep time get ready for it. In-round actions prove that’s not a reasonable expectation for
either side, and that abuse still exists.

 Plan inclusive counterplans lead to vague plan writing: affs try to minimize the number of things
that the negs can exclude or do differently through a counterplan. This ultimately hurts neg ground more and
warrants rejection of PICs altogether.

 It’s a voting issue because of existing and potential abuse.

ADI 4
Theory Blocks
Dispositionality Good
 It’s like a disad link takeout. The perm proves that the counterplan doesn’t compete. Thus, it’s not a
reason to reject or accept the plan, making the turns irrelevant to the judges decision

 It places the strategic ball in the affs court. The aff gets to choose whether we can kick the
counterplan by the answers they make. That checks abuse by allowing them to stick us with the counterplan or grant
out of the disads

 Checks back infinite prep and aff flexibility: a huge topic which reduces negative predictability, the
right to choose the case area and plan wording, infinite prep time, the first and last speech, and the lopsided win
advantage all favor affirmatives

 Counterplans don’t require more time allocation. Topicality and disads use a lot of 2AC time
also, but that’s not a reason to reject those arguments

 Permutations check abuse. Just as we can advocate the status quo or the counterplan, they can advocate
the plan or the permutation provided they’re theoretically justified

 Kicking the counterplan only reverts us back to the status quo: Their entire 1AC is a defense
against

 2NR solves abuse. If we go for the counterplan, it will be our only policy option and we’ll advocate it

 Our interpretation is best. We disallow multiple, contradictory, or conditional counterplans while

preserving counterplan options for the negative

 Strategy skew isn’t a warrant for rejection:

a. The aff has no right to any given 2AC strategy
b. Counterplans aren’t distinct—a world view is implied even in topicality and disads and we
don’t lose just because they can’t turn our disads

 Time skew isn’t a warrant for rejection:

a. It justifies affirmative action for slow people and punishes teams that do speed drills
b. Time skew is inevitable: natural variations in speed, short DA and topicality shells, length of
cards, broken timers, etc

 It increases education by promoting in-round strategic thinking, time management, and argument
selectivity while allowing the debate to evolve by those choices
ADI 5
Theory Blocks
Dispositionality Bad

Decreases education: Allows multiple policy worlds which decreases negative advocacy and depth of policy
discussion.

 Time skew: Unique to dispo because we have to defend against two entire worlds in the 2AC. Whichever
one gets the most answers they’ll just jettison.

 It’s conditionality in disguise. The process of proving a counterplan non-competitive can just as easily
be accomplished by granting substantive arguments as by granting a permutation. Both prove the counterplan is not
net beneficial.

 Conditionality is categorically bad. It makes counterplans the only substantive argument in debate that
the affirmative cannot stick the negative with. This radically skews advocacy, time, and encourages contradictory
policy options at the expense of fairness

 Counterplans are not the same as disads. They are policy stances which have a unique strategic
interaction with every other argument in the round, proving unique abuse to kicking a counterplan relative to a disad

 Net benefits don’t check abuse. The availability of disads to compete on does not speak to the question
of whether jettisoning the counterplan or status quo after the 2AC is fair

 Skews 2AC strategy. We can’t read our best offense against generic disads because the counterplan could
claim to solve those, meaning we’re doomed to have bad offense in a world in which they don’t go for the
counterplan or we’re forced to waste precious 2AC time making arguments that the counterplan remedies. If we
can’t re-give the 2AC, they can’t run the counterplan dispositionally

 It’s a voting issue. Reject the theory and the negative for the abuse articulated above and the precedent it
establishes
ADI 6
Theory Blocks
Conditionality Good

1. Increases critical thinking – If the negative has multiple strategy options in different worlds, the
affirmative has to think about how to answer all of those arguments, which increases critical thinking

2. Increases education – it allows for more arguments to be brought up in the debate

3. All arguments are conditional – not all arguments made in the 2AC are brought up in the 2AR, so
conditionality is reciprocal

4. Conditionality is more real world – you can repeal an amendment, or do away with a bill, or get
rid of an unconstitutional law

5. Best Policy Option – With negation theory, we should be able to test and try different options and find
the best policy

6. Fairness - The affirmative has infinite prep to prepare their case and the negative has to come up with
their arguments on the spot, so they need flexibility in the arguments presented to compete

7. Reject the argument not the team – even if you believe this, you should reject the counterplan, not
the negative team

8. Punishment paradigm bad –

a. Leads to judge intervention: these arguments are poorly developed and difficult to wade
through, making it more likely that a judge will end up voting on their opinion rather than the
debate.
b. Sets precedence: voting on theory arguments sets a precedence, encouraging teams to go for bad
theory debates in the future – no one wants that.

9.Negation theory – The negative only has to negate the affirmative, not advocate a policy option – the
counterplan functions as an example of an opportunity cost of adopting the affirmative, not as an advocacy of
the negative team
ADI 7
Theory Blocks
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is uniquely bad for the following reasons

1. Skews time allocation:

We make strategic choices where to invest time based on what we predict they will go for, this destroys those
strategic choices. We should be able to stick them with an argument by straight turning it.

2. Destroys argumentative responsibility:

They should be held accountable for the arguments they make – this justifies kicking out of advantages that are
turned or kicking portions of the affirmative plan in later speeches.

3. Moving target:
We have no idea what we need to refute until the 2NR. At a minimum, you should give huge leeway to the
affirmative because you know what we are defending throughout the round.

4. Dispositionality checks:
Dispositionality gives them the benefits of flexibility without the abuse that conditionality creates – this is the
default status of all other arguments in debate, counterplans should be no different.

5. They don’t test anything:

They allow for contradictory arguments and disposal of arguments which means comparisons of arguments can not
be made. They need a stable competitive alternative against which to test the aff.

6. Infinitely regressive:
This creates a world where there is no check on negatives running multiple contradictory arguments up to the 2NR.
This explodes the ground available to the negative, destroying competitive equity.

This is a voter for reasons of ground, fairness and education.

ADI 8
Theory Blocks
Multiple Conditional Advocacies Bad

1. Counterinterpretation – one dispositional advocacy and status quo: Our interpretation

gives the negative gets one dispositional advocacy and the status quo, multiple conditional
advocacies are illegit.

2. Multiple conditional advocacies is a voter.

A. Time and Strategy skew- the 2ac loses all potential strategy to straight turn net benefits or
strategically allocate time when they can kick one advocacy without answering our arguments.
B. Ground- we have no consistent strategy meaning that the neg block can moot all aff ground by
reading new counterplans and/or kicking one of their multiple advocacies.
C. Infinitely regressive- there interpretation justifies us reading multiple affirmative plan texts and
not choosing our advocacy until the 2AR.
D. Reciprocity- the affirmative is stuck with one consistent advocacy – the negative should have access
to one alternative advocacy and the status quo.
E. Burden of rejoinder – they should have to respond to our arguments or those arguments should
be considered as accepted by both sides. Allowing debaters to ignore arguments destroys clash and
argumentative responsibility decreasing education and competitive equity.
ADI 9
Theory Blocks
Textual Competition Good
 All other standards are arbitrary: The mechanics or functions of the plan and counterplan are up for
interpretation, while the texts of the plan and counterplan give a concrete source of comparison.

 Best division of ground: Textual competition as a standard always allow for permutations, which is the
only way to truly test the competitiveness of the plan. Functional competition reduces us to only debates about
exclusivity.

 PICS check abuse: Plan inclusive counterplans are allowed under the textual competition standard, just
not THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAN, which is what textual competition checks against.

 Avoids judge intervention: subjective interpretations of how to evaluate the plan only encourage the
judge to inject themselves into the debate.

 Forces the affirmative to defend all words in the plan text: This encourages more responsible
and educational creation of policies and careful plan writing.
ADI 10
Theory Blocks
Functional Competition Good
 Fair division of ground: Allowing textual competition means the affirmative can advocate doing the
opposite of their original plan – e.g. “ban the plan” would not compete textually. This is a ridiculous
standard for proving competition.

 It's key to garner offense. If we only looked at textual competition, the neg could just change some
miniscule word in the plan text that doesn't actually mean anything in regard to what the plan actually does,
like changing "of" to "for". We shouldn't have to defend every word in plan text, just the words that have
any functional meaning.

 Key to establishing best policy option: Under textual competition, they could change "should" to
"did" and it would compete

 Infinetely regressive: they could change any of the text and make it so it's not physically possible with
a critical net benefit, and we couldn't check its competition because we're just looking at textual
competition, which is key to check abusive counterplans.
ADI 11
Theory Blocks
Floating PICs Bad
1. Infinite regressive: Argumentative responsibility should be viewed holistically. The Affirmative cannot be
expected to know every single word (of thousands) used in one of their speeches.

2. Sacrifices topic education: Focuses debate into an incredibly narrow spectrum that does not relate to the
topic instead of debating about the important aspects of the affirmative plan action.

3. Skews Ground:
 Allows the negative to “steal” the affirmative plan with out providing a text with which to test competition.
Textual competition is best (read block).
 It is impossible for the Affirmative to effectively debate an alternative that has no text or solvency
advocate.

4. PICs Bad [Read Block]

ADI 12
Theory Blocks
Floating PICs Good
1. Argumentative responsibility: The affirmative has infinite prep time – they should be responsible for all
words in their plan.

2. Better plan writing: This leads to better plan writing – affirmatives are forced to defend anything they
choose to include in the plan text, protecting against abusive plan texts.

3. Increases Education: Forces the affirmative to think about the implications of their plan wording, not just
the function of it. This makes individuals aware of the effect their language choices can have and forces them to
defend those language choices.

4. Ground: The plan text is the focus of debate – arguments against any and all of plan are predictable and fair.

5. PICs Good [Read Block]

ADI 13
Theory Blocks
Multiple Actor Fiat Good
 Infinitely regressive: All actors, including congress, are made up of multiple actors. This argument
becomes infinitely regressive, with no plan or counterplan ever able to meet the standard.

 Literature checks abuse: As long as we read evidence saying these actors would cooperate and act
together it is a predictable and debatable argument. There is no reason to reject.

 Increases education: Forces debaters to research all of the different means and research different actors
for implementing plan – this increases education on competing policy options.

 Checks all parts of the affirmative plan: The affirmative has infinite prep to construct a policy that is
the best policy option. This argument allows for a checking of every part of the plan.

 More real world: In the real world there are often policies adopted using multiple actors.

 Increases aff ground: this multiplies the links that affirmatives have to counterplan action.
ADI 14
Theory Blocks
International Actor Fiat Good

1. KEY TO TEST THE RESOLUTION—forces the AFF to justify Federal action in the resolution

2. KEY TO NEG FLEXIBILITY—AFF has infinite prep, speak first and last, and a higher win
percentage. Furthermore the AFF picks the ground. Proves NEG flex is critical and you should err NEG on
theory.

3. IT’S PREDICTABLE—we have a foreign topic. It makes sense that the NEG should be able to
debate the viability of foreign actors. Furthermore, the literature surrounding UN PKOs deals with
international agents. Proves that international FIAT is both real world and at the core of the topic.

4. KEY TO RECIPROCITY—the AFF gets to FIAT one government, NEG should be able to FIAT
one government.

5. KEY TO NEG GROUND

a. generic counterplans are key to run against different versions of AFFs or new AFFs. They are key
to small schools which don’t have the resources to find case-specific counterplans.
b. on an international topic, NEG only has options of agent CPs and consult CPs. Consultation CPs
are worse. They use conditional FIAT which destroys AFF predictability and creates an
irreversible timeskew

6. INCREASES EDUCATION—international action allows us to learn more about different political

systems and forces better solvency comparisons
ADI 15
Theory Blocks
International Actor Fiat Bad
1. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE—they can pick any actor to do the plan and claim some tiny net
benefit that we can never predict—crushes ground and education

2. DOESN’T NEGATE THE AFFIRMATIVE—just because X country could do the plan doesn’t
mean the U.S. shouldn’t. Crushes all 2AC strategy and makes it impossible to be affirmative If they can
only compete through a net-benefit, it is artificially competitive.

3. KILLS REAL WORLD EDUCATION—policymakers never suggest having another country do

the plan. Debate should be modeled after real world policymaking.

4. VOTING ISSUE for competitive equity

ADI 16
Theory Blocks
Consult Counterplans 2AC Block 1/2

Consultation CPs are illegitimate and a voting issue -

1. They literally steal 100% of the affirmative plan - it is impossible to generate offense against the net
benefit b/c the CP does ALL of the original plan. Our only offense is based on unpredictable questions of
immediacy and certainty.

2. Kills topic education - which is should be priveleged because it encourages students to learn indepeth about
new and important public policy issue EACH YEAR. The CP just promotes asinine education about "resolved"
which is the same year to year.

3. Infitinitely regressive - there are 180+ international actors or organizations the affirmative could consult.
Given the low standard that judges require for "genuine consultation" evidence, there is almost no limit to these
counterplans.

4. Counter-interpretation - the negative can read any counterplan that is advocated in the literature and does
not do all of the affirmative plan. This balances affirmative and negative ground and promotes topic based
education.

5. Infinite Ground Skew –180+ nations and a massive number of NGOs and international organizations that
the negative can consult make it impossible for the aff to prepare

6. Implementation questions are infinite – they decrease education and critical focus on the topic areas,
decreasing topic specific clash and research.

7. Artificially inflates the net benefit – advantages to the counterplan aren’t intrinsic to the plan. Germane
net benefits should be disads.

8. Preempt – our theoretical position does not exclude all consultation counterplans – it only
requires that the negative have literature advocating that the U.S. consult __________ over the affirmative plan.

9. Permutation – do both – engage in binding consultation with __________ over the plan mandates and do
the plan. The permutation does not sever or delay any part of the original plan – it guarantees solvency.

10. The negative is in a double bind – If __________ says yes to the plan it proves that our permutation is
no different than the counterplan. If __________ overwhelmingly likes the plan, they won't care that they are not
being given a veto in the consultation. However, any risk that __________ says no to the plan proves that the
counterplan has a solvency deficit. Even a small solvency deficit outweighs and turns the negative's net benefit.

11. Time delay risks a massive solvency deficit – consultation is a time consuming process – the U.S.
will have to wait till the next time the __________ meets and generate a consensus for the plan by lobbying other
members. This delay will trigger impacts outlined in the 1AC.
ADI 17
Theory Blocks
Consult Counterplans 2AC Block 2/2
12. Consultations and Incentives can’t solve because major powers don’t agree on rules,
and it leads to ineffective policy
Haass 99 (Richard N. Haass, Chair in International Security at the Brooking Institutions. What to do with American
Primacy? http://americanfuture.net/?page_id=139)

Still, consultations alone—even consultations buttressed by incentives—will not bring about consensus in every
area. Persuasion has its limits. The major powers may not agree on general rules; even when they do, they may not
agree on how to apply them in a particular situation. In such circumstances, it makes little sense for the United
States to work in vain for the emergence of international consensus, guaranteeing only inaction or a lowest common
denominator and hence ineffective foreign policy

DON’T READ THE NEXT ARGUMENT IF YOU ARE GOING TO IMPACT TURN THE NET BENEFIT!

13. Turn – Rising Expectations – one-time consultation sets a precedental hope for future
consultation – but the one-time nature of the consultation in the counterplan – especially on an issue of minor
importance – holds the potential to undermine relations when the Bush administration returns to its unilateral policy-
making of ignoring the __________ the next time an important issues does arise.

Here is empirical support for our turn

The National Journal – 9-14-2002 (Clive Crook, "One Thing That Did Not Change: How the World
Sees America," vol. 34, no. 37)

Sometimes, admittedly, it is tempting to accommodate critics even when their thinking is

wrong. In international relations, smoothing things over often seems best. But failing to say
what you mean is usually a bad tactic. In the end, you get found out.
President Clinton's support for the Kyoto accord on global warming was a much-praised
instance of international cooperation. He took foreigners' concerns seriously. He backed the
agreement, knowing it was unworkable and would never be implemented, to appease critics
at home and abroad and to affirm his multilateralist outlook. Did the pretense serve
America's longer-term interests? Just the opposite. In due course, when America stepped back
from its commitments under the plan-as it was bound to do-it was reviled all the more furiously
for reneging on its promises
ADI 18
Theory Blocks
Delay Counterplans Bad
 Intellectual plagiarism: The negative steals the ENTIRETY of the affirmative plan text. This is
absolutely abusive. (read some PICS bad stuff here).

 Ground: In order to answer any part of the counterplan, the affirmative is forced to argue against itself,
proving that the negative has taken away any affirmative ground in the debate.

 Artificially competitive: The forced choice is rigged by the negative – the only reason delay is
considered competitive is because they rigged the counterplan to delay OUR PLAN. They have no
literature indicating that there would ever be an option of delaying our legislation in this context.

 Education: The educational focus on US policymaking is lost and we begin to focus only on the
timeframe of implementation – this offers no depth or breadth of education.

Textual competition best standard (read block)

Read your pics bad block

ADI 19
Theory Blocks

Severance Perms Illegitimate

1. Fails to test desirability of the CP: The only permutation that truly tests competition must include all of
the plan – this permutation proves that counterplan competes and is non-responsive.

2. Moving target: The changing of the affirmative case in the 2AC makes the affirmative a moving target and
is akin to a 2AC replan. This makes the 1AC conditional and steals all negative ground.

3. Skews strategy: Severence perms are abusive because they devastate the ability of the negative to plan
strategically by allowing the affirmative to pick and choose which negative arguments will actually have weight in
the round, after seeing those arguments.

4. Makes affirmative non-topical: The part of the plan that the affirmative severs out to make the
permutation makes them non-topical – this is a voter for reasons of fairness and ground.

5. Infinitely regressive: Justifies 2ACs jettisoning the plan based on arguments made by the 1NC and
replanning with a strategically more advantageous plan.

This is a voter for reasons of fairness and ground.

ADI 20
Theory Blocks
Severance Perms Legitimate

1. Its just a test: As long as the permutation includes topical actions, it is a legitimate test of competition.

2. Dispositionality/Conditionality justifies: Reciprocal burdens suggests that if the negative team gets to
advocate dispositionally or conditionally than the affirmative is justified in using severance perms to test
competition.

3. Its not a moving target: We don’t change the plan text from the 1AC, we simply change the text of the
permutation. They should have to prove that our severance is major enough to change the function of our original
plan.
ADI 21
Theory Blocks
Timeframe Perms Illegitimate

1. Fails to test desirability of the CP: The only permutation that truly tests competition must include all of
the plan – this permutation proves that counterplan competes and is non-responsive.

2. Destroys all negative CP ground: Even the most contradictory arguments can be made consistent
through sequencing.

3. Infinitely regressive: Justifies doing the plan than removing the plan to do the counterplan.

4.This is voter for fairness and ground.

ADI 22
Theory Blocks
Plan Must Be Done Immediately
1. ANY OTHER STANDARD IS ARBITRARY. If they don’t do the plan immediately they could
always move it to some point in the distant future that we could never find uniqueness or links for. Doing plan now
guarantees a fair debate on the uniqueness and link level.

2. THE RESOLUTION IS IN THE PRESENT TENSE. This proves that they have to do the plan now
and that future action is negative ground.

3. NORMAL MEANS ARE IRRELEVANT. Normal means describes HOW a plan can get implemented,
not WHEN. Fiat is by definition a non-normal act – it is making congress do something that they wouldn’t normally
do and is used for the purposes of debating the costs and benefits of enacting the plan in the current system.

4. NECESSARY FOR TOPICALITY. They have to prove the plan is an increase; we can only do than by
comparing it to levels of national security RIGHT NOW. Future changes in national service might be different and
therefore they may not be an increase. This means that topicality becomes probabilistic at best, which is a voting
issue.
ADI 23
Theory Blocks
Affirmative Must Have a Plan Text

1. PLAN IS THE FOCUS OF DEBATE:

a. Procedural evaluation – it is impossible to evaluate the topicality of the affirmative without having a
concrete plan text from which to evaluate their being a subsection of the resolution. This is a necessary
argument to test debatability, fairness and division of ground in the debate.
b. Moving target – without a stable advocacy in the 1ac, the affirmative becomes a moving target,
allowing for shifts in their argument to avoid links in the 1nc. This is abusive, skewing both time and
argumentative clash.
c. Ground – without a specific policy action, it is impossible for us to generate and for you to evaluate
specific links to disadvantages and critiques or offer alternative policy options that are competitive
with the affirmative. This steals all predictable negative ground.
d. Voter – This is a voter for the reasons of fairness, ground and debatability identified above.

2. POTENTIAL ABUSE IS A VOTER:

Even if they don’t shift advocacy in the 2AC in this round you should vote against them because they
strategically set themselves up to be ABLE to do this in every round. Don’t make us run dumb procedural
arguments in order to protect ourselves every time we debate them!
ADI 24
Theory Blocks
Must Have A Plan/Solvency Advocate

A. Standards – the affirmative must present an advocate for their plan action.

1. Research limits. If there isn't a single author who advocates the specific policy action there isn't
a definable body of literature on the case. It makes doing predictable research against the plan
impossible.
2. Ground. Without a single real-world advocate that commits the affirmative to a set course of
action they are free to fill the plan with extraneous things or leave out necessary actions killing
our counterplan and disad ground.

B. Violation – Their solvency authors do not advocate their plan action. They don’t read a
single piece of evidence that isolates the specific policy change they advocate in plan text. What
they are trying to do is like reading cards from the Republican platform claiming their orientation
is good for the country and then fiating "conservatism." The solvency is too generic to provide a
clear link to their plan action.

C. Impacts

1. Voter for reasons of fairness and ground.

2. 100% solvency takeout. Fiat stems from the resolution, but solvency can only be proven
through evidence. Since they don’t provide any specific solvency literature for their plan they
can’t claim to solve.
ADI 25
Theory Blocks
Critical Frameworks Good
1. Morality outweighs – The ethical and moral implications of advocacy need to be considered. The concept
of fiat allows for teams to advocate racist and/or sexist actions without having to deal with the implications of that.
Fiat shouldn't be a device that the aff relies on to cop out of existing implications. These pre-fiat implications must
be recognized because they are moral issues and it is our duty and responsibility to recognize and deal with these
implications.

2. Education - By recognizing pre fiat implications and arguing them we can learn about underlying assumptions
and philosophies behind policymaking. This education is best.

3. Advocate responsibility – As advocates, they should have to defend not only their stated plan and
advantages, but also any of the underlying assumptions or philosophical bases for their affirmative. To be
responsible advocates, you have to defend your advocacy in totality.

4.Real world – In the real world, policymakers consider the ethical and philosophical implications of their
policies or they pass bad policy – we are simply asking the affirmative to do the same.
ADI 26
Theory Blocks
Fiat Good/Individual Action Bad
1. Fiat good. [read theory block]

2. Fulfills purpose of policy debate: Policy debate by its name indicates debating about a policy; by
relying on individual action, we no longer debate whether or not a policy should pass.

3. Self-centered approach: Rather than focusing on the issues that face our country and the world,
individual action reverts to a self-centered approach.

4. Ground: The affirmative is limited to the ground established by the topic, which specifically calls for
federal government action. The negative team arguing that individual action should be the means of
passage is abusive to the affirmative team’s limits in terms of ground.

5. Greater impacts: The claim of the opposing team is that individual action has greater impacts, but
since this case rests on fiat bad arguments, cross-apply our fiat good cards. In this case, our plan has the
greater impacts.

6. Education: Rather than focusing on ourselves, debating the plan provides a means by which we can
learn about the government and the impacts of the plan we pass.
ADI 27
Theory Blocks
No Text to the Alternative – 2AC
A. Interpretation:
A binding text must be provided for positions that advocate a change from the status quo — tags and cards are
inadequate

B. Reasons to prefer
1) Non binding text justify intrinsic and severance moves in the 2NR nullifying an already
constrained 1AR — this moots the 1NC and 2AC
2) A binding alternative is key to affirmative offense — The alternative provides ground for kritik
uniqueness, competition, and solvency — The Aff cannot possibly win a debate unless a consistent
alternative is available
3) Floating PICs — No text justifies floating PlC’s nullifies the plan text and any advantages we
could claim making it impossible for Aff’s to win

C. Voting Issue:
In round abuse is irrelevant — vote to preserve competitive equity
ADI 28
Theory Blocks
No Text to the Alternative – 1AR

Extend our interpretation:

a) Only bright-line for debate: advocacy attached to evidence or tags are both non-binding and
inconsistent — they set a bad precedent for debate

b) Extend out first standard — without a binding text, the negative legitimates moves based on
evidence extrapolation to their advocacy: This sets a precedent that would allow text-less counterplans,
as well as affirmatives, urging unpredictable moves in the last rebuttals — the negative could potentially
add alternative solvency and mechanisms to outweigh critical turns or, kick alternatives to provide link
outs from positions — crushing competitive equity

c) If we win the alternative is the most important aspect of the kritik to debate, then
we win — extend that alternatives are the only avenue for affirmative offense since it provides the
uniqueness, competition, and solvency to the kritik — they could potentially create competition at any
point of the debate by not being held to a literal advocacy

d) Regardless of competition — good debates are an independent Voting Issue: good

debating arises from critical comparisons which can only be constructed through testing two advocacies
— disregarding a textual bind is the largest possible step away from that zone of education. Under their
interpretation: debate would turn into a never ending game of reading new plans and counter plans
ADI 29
Theory Blocks
Performance Bad – Short Block
1. Decreases education:
a. Decreases argumentative focus: Performative debates allow teams to stray away from the
issues at the heart of the debate. Instead of debating about the world we live in we spend time trying to
figure out how to comply with their framework.
b. Decreases depth of debate: Without predictable affirmative argumentation on topic, there is a
lack of clash and researchability available to the debaters.

2. Functions as de facto censorship: You are no longer free to express your opinions in a standard manor,
you are confined to what the opposing team deems acceptable or important.

3. Encourages judge intervention. The focus on personal experience means that judges will make decisions
based on their identification with the stories/presentations of each team – this evaluation is totally based in judge
intervention.

4. Arbitrary evaluation: Debate is supposed to be a public speaking and advocacy activity. While a debater
may be comfortable speaking in front of an audience they may not be as comfortable singing or rapping.

5. Trivializes the issues we are debating about: They change debate from something that would belong
on C-Span to something that might be seen on Comedy Central – reject the focus on entertainment and vote for
informative, meaningful debate and discussion.

Voters for reason of:

1. Education
2. Ground
ADI 30
Theory Blocks

Performance Good – Short Block

1. Increases education:
a. Allows for an alternate interpretation of the material. Instead of being confined to language one can
experiment with music, dance, or poetry.
b. Allows for a better cultural understanding. In order to perform you must understand the art, therefore
you learn to interpret music and media better.
c. Not only are you researching a single topic, but you expand your search to include a variety of alternate
forms of expression.

2. Increases identification with the arguments: You can use different forms of expression to better
connect with the argument. If we allow songs and poems from or about individuals effected by the issue, we are
better able to understand and identify with them.

3. Makes debate a forum for expression and ultimate understanding. Each individual round can
allow you to experience the same arguments through a different interpretive form.

4. Increases debatability: The level of argument has more breadth when debaters can utilize multiple forms
of presentation. This increases the levels of debatability.

5. Rejecting performance is overlimiting: There is no reason why arguments can not be offered with
alternative forms of warrants. Traditional evidence can be evaluated alongside non-traditional peformative
claims and warrants.

6. Real world: The appeal of music, poetry, etc. within the context of politics is seen everyday – for example,
MTV’s Rock the Vote, rap artists who sing about the death penalty and class divisions, etc. Our form of
advocacy is not new nor unpredictable.
ADI 31
Theory Blocks
2AC Answers to Agent Specification

1. Cross X checks abuse. The negative team could have asked in cross-x for us to further clarify.
Because they did not their agent specification argument is illegitimate.

2. No resolutional requirement. Nothing in the resolution states that we have to specify beyond the
United States Federal Government. The resolution simply states that the USFG should do the plan. If the
resolution was meant to require further specification then greater specification would have been included
in the resolution,

3. Normal means checks abuse. In our plan we state that funding and enforcement are guaranteed by
normal means and we reserve the right to clarify intent. By stating that we use normal means we indicate
that our plan is passed as any real bill would be passed through the United States Federal Government.
This would implicate the Congress, Executive, and Supreme Court.

4. We increase ground. By not specifying our agent we give the negative better D/A ground. By stating
normal means they can run D/As against the Congress, Supreme Court, and the Executive. This is better
ground than the single D/A that they would gain by us stating our agent.

5. Counter-interpretation. The word “the” is a definite article, which modifies the noun that it
precedes. In this case it is the USFG. Resolutionally based, the USFG is the most predictable
interpretation and thus should be preferred in the round.

6. No abuse. The right of the 2AC to clarify should be maintained. It is still a constructive speech and
thus a clarification is ok and predictable. The negative still has plenty of speech time in their negative
block to answer back any clarification made by the 2AC. Thus, there is no abuse.

7. ASPEC is not a voter. for the reason that there is no in round or potential abuse. The affirmative team
takes uses the most grammatically correct and logical interpretation of the resolution and actually
increases the negatives D/A ground.

8. Infinitely regressive. If we specified our agent they would just read over-specification on us – reject
these infinitely regressive arguments and judge us on the substantive debate.