1) Mutually exclusive – CP is less than the plan.

AFF plan does troop withdrawal in all worlds; CP only

withdraws troops in the world where conditions are met. CX proves plan is unconditional. The perm
requires severing this certainty, severance destroys fair competition – vote NEG.
2) Aff plan must preclude the possibility of a prior, genuine condition:
a) Topicality – “should” indicates obligation, “resolved” indicates a fixed purpose. CP’s contingency
is the exact opposite of this certainty. The only way the perm isn’t severance is if the original
plan wasn’t topical to begin with. T is a voter for reasons of equity and education.
b) AFF fiat is limited to 1AC text – allowing 2AC to claim fiat over implementation details not in the
original text destroys predictable NEG ground, advocacy shifts destroy fairness.
3) CP’s contingent on conditions being met as a prerequisite to troop withdrawal. Allowing AFF to
perm the CP legitimates 2AC advocacy shifts to specify plan happens after midterms or involves
prior consultation to answer Allied Prolif. Affirmative action must be immediate other wise
they could simply endlessly delay and spike out of disads.
4) Worst-case scenario, the only legit perm is “do both” side by side, which loses the net benefit when
the unconditioned plan action is accepted as a no-strings attached concession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Intrinsic Perms Bad
8. Kills Education – shifts the debate away from the plan and to extra topical portions

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

10. Ground

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

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

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

Justifies infinitely conditional advantage counterplans for the neg.

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

Voter for fairness, ground, and education

Improper Grammar Bad

Debate is an academic activity. The judge shouldn’t award bad grammar.

From a policy perspective, misspellings or improper grammar lead to misunderstandings.

Projected Image. Spelling and grammar are part of one’s projected image. Like it or not, they are
one of the means used by society to judge a person’s literacy. Think of how the US’s projected
image to the WORLD would be if we passed the plan.

Attention To Details. A commitment to spelling and grammar teaches us to have high standards
and pay attention to details. AFF plan ignores the attention to detail that would be needed to pass
such a high stakes plan.

Don’t reward careless mistakes by voting aff.