WHAM Theory

SDI 2006 1
GHD Theory
Theory
Theory.............................................................................................................................................................................1
Neg Fiat Good.................................................................................................................................................................2
Neg Fiat Bad...................................................................................................................................................................3
Agent CP’s Good............................................................................................................................................................4
Agent CP’s Bad...............................................................................................................................................................5
PIC’s Good......................................................................................................................................................................6
PIC’s Bad........................................................................................................................................................................7
Dispositional CP’s Good.................................................................................................................................................8
Dispositional CP’s Bad...................................................................................................................................................9
Dispositional PIC’s Good..............................................................................................................................................10
Dispositional PIC’s Bad................................................................................................................................................11
Conditional Advocacies Good......................................................................................................................................12
Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.)......................................................................................................13
Conditional Advocacies Bad.........................................................................................................................................14
Consult CP’s Good........................................................................................................................................................15
Consult CP’s Bad..........................................................................................................................................................16
2NC Counterplans Good...............................................................................................................................................17
2NC CP’s Bad...............................................................................................................................................................18
Textual Competition Best..............................................................................................................................................19
Functional Competition Best........................................................................................................................................20
50 State Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................................21
50 State Fiat Bad...........................................................................................................................................................22
International Fiat Good.................................................................................................................................................23
International Fiat Bad....................................................................................................................................................24
Multiple Actor Fiat Good..............................................................................................................................................25
Multiple Actor Fiat Bad................................................................................................................................................26
Object Fiat Good...........................................................................................................................................................27
Object Fiat Bad.............................................................................................................................................................28
Utopian Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................................29
Utopian Fiat Bad...........................................................................................................................................................30
Performance Contradictions Good................................................................................................................................31
Performance Contradictions Bad..................................................................................................................................32
Severance Perms Good.................................................................................................................................................33
Severance Perms Bad....................................................................................................................................................34
Severance Perms Good (Representations)....................................................................................................................35
Severance Perms Bad (Representations).......................................................................................................................36
Intrinsic Perms Good....................................................................................................................................................37
Intrinsic Perms Bad.......................................................................................................................................................38
Vagueness Good............................................................................................................................................................39
Vagueness Bad..............................................................................................................................................................40
Test Case Fiat Good......................................................................................................................................................41
Test Case Fiat Bad.........................................................................................................................................................42
ASPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................43
AT: ASPEC....................................................................................................................................................................44
OSPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................45
AT: OSPEC...................................................................................................................................................................46
Floating PIK’s Good.....................................................................................................................................................47
Floating PIK’s Bad........................................................................................................................................................48
No Text to Alt Good......................................................................................................................................................49
No text to Alt Bad.........................................................................................................................................................50
Err Neg on Theory........................................................................................................................................................51
Err Aff on Theory..........................................................................................................................................................52
SDI 2006 2
GHD Theory
Neg Fiat Good

Long Shell
1. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole
resolution, reciprocally, It’s now only the negatives job to disprove the plan.
1. Its Recipricol, the neg should get fiat too
2. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan.
3. More real world, trains us to find the best policy option
4. It’s predictable and widely accepted in debate.
5. Turn- Increases aff ground they can read disads to the CP
6. You cant make the negative defend the racist, sexist status quo if a case might just be
true.
7. Aff gets to choose the topic of debate, has unlimited prep time, higher win percentage
and first and last speech, the neg needs counterplans
8. Lit checks fiat abuse
9. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
Short Shell
2. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan- if the aff passes then
we can no longer do the CP.
3. Reciprocity- the aff gets it so should the negative.
4. You cant make the negative defend the racist, sexist status quo if a case might just be
true.
5. Lit checks fiat abuse

SDI 2006 3
GHD Theory
Neg Fiat Bad

1. Kills aff ground- every problem has more than one solution
2. Time skew, we have show the harms in the squo and defend a plan of action, the
negative gets 8 minutes just to build on our work
3. No resolution mandate- fiat comes from the should in the resolution for the affirmative
4. No restriction on fiat- the aff only gets the USFG, the negative gets everyone else in the
world
5. Moots the 1AC, we argue whether or not the CP solves rather than should we pass the
aff plan.
6. Voter for Fairness

SDI 2006 4
GHD Theory
Agent CP’s Good

The Offense…
1. Key to negative ground, half of all CP’s run are agent CP’s
2. Tests the affirmative plan- 90% of policy is implementation, we prove their policy is
90% bad
Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605,
1980
The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by
policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter very little if the
mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "What
percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic
alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent,
leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.
3. Gives the affirmative ground- They can run any DA’s they have to our agent
4. Makes the aff defend their plan, why would they specify ____________ if we can’t have
a debate on it.
The Defense…
1. Its predictable, they’re constantly run and we didn’t pick some obscure actor
2. Lit checks abuse- There aren’t many agencies that someone will advocate should do the
plan

SDI 2006 5
GHD Theory
Agent CP’s Bad

1. The CP is topical, they’re affirming the resolution and taking out topical ground
2. Bad for education- kills critical thinking, and we argue courts v. congress every year
instead of the resolution.
3. Steals aff ground and forces us to debate against ourselves.
4. There are 140 agencies just under the USFG they can choose- unfair neg bias.
5. Justifies stupid arguments as time sucks- The FDA wouldn’t pass the plan get over it.
6. Voter for fairness and education

SDI 2006 6
GHD Theory
PIC’s Good
Offense:
1. Make the aff defend their whole plan, they’ve had infinite prep to find what would best
advantage them
2. Depth better than breadth: Plan focus makes better debate on key issues of the topic
3. Key to check extra-topical plan planks
4. Forces better plan writing- they’ll learn to defend against PIC’s
5. Education- Our literature proves that this is a legitimate option to learn about and its
most real world, this is how congressmen propose policy;
a. Real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that gets taken beyond
each round and
b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize
education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules
Defense:
1. Most counterplans are PICS anyway: They use the same agent in the USFG and are
enforced the same way.
2. Details are not trivial details: Separation of powers, federalism, etc are the key to the
country, not just random stuff
3. Net benefits check abuse: part of the plan has a disad to it—defend it, turn the net
benefit
4. Aff chooses the ground for debate- They get the plan we get everything else.
5. Not a reason we should lose: reject the counterplan, give us back that status quo
SDI 2006 7
GHD Theory
PIC’s Bad
1. Infinite regression: You can PIC out of my friend Ben, the aff has no reason that doesn’t
solve case and they get a linear risk of a disad to coercian
2. Time Skew: Moots the 1AC speech time
3. Education: Gets to the point where Depth is ridiculous, focuses on a trivial detail.
4. Strategy skew: We get no offense off of 90% of our case. Forces us to Debate ourselves.
5. Voter for Fairness and education

SDI 2006 8
GHD Theory
Dispositional CP’s Good

Offense
1. Increases breadth of TOPIC SPECIFIC education- we learn about a lot quickly if we
can talk about more.
2. Best policy option- If we can prove the CP is a better, competitive policy option- you
vote for it
3. Most real world- If a Senator proposes a bill he’s later convinced is bad he can stop
advocating it
4. Checks back aff advantage- We need some leverage against unforeseen parts of their
case- they’ve got infinite prep.
5. Perms are worse- They operate in more worlds
Defense
1. The ball’s in their court- all they have to do is not perm or say dispo bad and were stuck
with it
2. This equates to saying DA’s bad, we routinely kick disads, kritiks and case turns
3. Reciprocol- aff can kick advantages that aren’t strategic
4. 2NR checks abuse- We have one advocacy in the 2NR, they have an equal time to
disprove it in the last speech
5. Time and strat skews inevitable and unquantifiable- smarter, faster teams are out there
6. Err neg on theory- Aff gets infinite prep, first and last speech, and higher winning
percentage.
7. Reject the CP not the team

SDI 2006 9
GHD Theory
Dispositional CP’s Bad

Offense
1. Just conditionality in disguise- the neg knows we cant strategically straight turn it.
2. Kills in depth education- We don’t analyze 2 competing policies.
3. Reciprocity- The aff will only have one advocacy, the neg gets an infinite number of
combinations. Justifies affirmatie conditionality, severance and intrinsic perms
4. Infinitly regressive- Neg can run an infinite number of CP’s and defend the squo, they’ll
just force us to perm
5. Moving target- We cant test their advocacy if we don’t know what position they take,
kills predictability and fairness
6. Race to the bottom- If you want a debate where its just who reads the most impact
turns v. net benefits than accept dispo, forcing straight turns is bad.
7. Voter for fairness
Defense
1. Straight turns don’t check abuse- Its suicide not to perm the CP, we have not lit. base
for offense
2. Perms don’t check abuse- It’s a test of competitiveness not an advocacy, this justifies
severance and intrinsic perms
SDI 2006 10
GHD Theory
Dispositional PIC’s Good

Offense
1. Best policy option- If we can prove the CP is a better, competitive policy option- you
vote for it
2. Checks back aff advantages- We need some leverage against unforeseen parts of their
case- they’ve got infinite prep.
3. Make the aff defend their whole plan, they’ve had infinite prep to find what would best
advantage them
4. Key to check extra-topical plan planks
5. Most real world- bill amendments in congress are dispositional PICS, congressmen say
what they want out of the bill, but don’t have to stick to it
c. Real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that gets taken beyond
each round and
d. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize
Defense:
1. Not uniquely abusive, there’s no real reason why dispo pics are worse than regular
dispositional CP’s or unconditional PIC’s- They have to prove both of these are bad
before this is a legit argument
2. Not a voter- It’s an argument to reject the CP

SDI 2006 11
GHD Theory
Dispositional PIC’s Bad

1. Dispo PIC’s are conditionality in disguise, they do part of our plan so we have to perm-
conditionality bad it’s a time and strat skew
2. We can’t straight turn the CP because we don’t have the case offense against it- we’re
not going to put the debate on one defensive answer

SDI 2006 12
GHD Theory
Conditional Advocacies Good

Offense
1. Key to negative flexibility – which is key to fairness because it offsets aff infinite prep,
last speech and moral high ground like racism and genocide
2. Increases aff strategic thinking – the 2A has to decide where to best spend time
3. Finds the best policy option
4. Most real world – bills get rejected in congress all the time and the status quo is always
an option for any policymaker, no reasonable policymaker should HAVE TO cause
between 3 nuclear wars or 4 nuclear wars instead of doing nothing.
each round and
5. Counter interpretation- we should be allowed one conditional counterplan, we avoid
their regress abuse standards and capture our real world standards.
Defense
1. Err neg on theory, aff biases
2. Reject the argument, not the team
3. The 2NR checks abuse, we’ll go for one reason to reject the aff, they’ll have the last
speech to say why not.
AT Strategy Skew
1. Time and strat skews are inevitable; smarter, faster, more efficient teams are out there
2. Multiple perms check back abuse
3. Forces better aff decision making, hard debates are good debates that increase
education
AT Aff conditionality/not reciprocal
1. They get multiple conditional perms – it is reciprocal
2. Aff conditionality not okay – our 1NC strat is based on a stable plan text
AT Conditionality same reasons as infinite counterplans
1. Breadth is good because it allows application of education
2. Breadth can turn into depth because issues overlap and there are finite things that even
apply to the topic
3. Hyperspecificity bad, causes limited research base which kills clash and strategic
thinking – depth taken to its logical extreme destroys education
AT Counter Interp; Dispo
( ) Dispo is identical to conditionality b/c we could force perms, so we meet their counter
interpretation
SDI 2006 13
GHD Theory
Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.)

Offense
1. Key for negative flexibility – checks aff bias, last speech and moral high ground
ensuring fairness
2. Key to the search for the best option – if we weren’t allowed to run arguments at
different levels we would foreclose hundreds of educational possibilities
3. More real world – multiple bills to solve the same issue happen in congress, and
passing none of them is always an option,
a. real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that helps debaters
beyond the context of debate and…
b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize
education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed
Defense
1. It’s a perfectly reciprocal world – the aff has equal amount of offense, our
interpretation is we only get 1 counterplan and 1 critical objection
2. Framework arguments are not multiple advocacies – the 1AC has two portions to it: the
assumption that legislation is the best way to solve and the specific plan that it proposes
3. Conceding neg framework and going for impact turns would allow the aff to choose
which world to debate in which solves all their offense
4. Not a voter- reject the argument not the team

SDI 2006 14
GHD Theory
Conditional Advocacies Bad

Offense
1. Not reciprocal- we cant run multiple plans to find the best example of the resolution
2. Time and strat skew: They could read 14 CP texts and we’d have to at least cover them
all so they don’t develop one in the block.
3. Moving Target bad- Hurts fairness as well as education, we don’t know what the issues
in the debate are until the 2NR.
4. Most real world- Policy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation and I’ve
never seen a senator unroll a list of 30 bills he/she might advocate that day
5. Makes for sloppy debate- Instead of creating effective strategies, negs can just guess
and check
Defense:
1. Who says neg flexibility is good, the already have a thousand kritiks and disads,
random T violations, and whatever CP they run as long as its dispo.
2. Perm doesn’t check abuse: It’s just a test of competitiveness, advocated perms justify
intrinsicness.
SDI 2006 15
GHD Theory
Consult CP’s Good

Offense
1. Real world Education- We increase the breadth of education- we shouldn’t be ignorant
of international politics and interactions between nations
each round and
2. Ground- Key to help the negative defend against cases that isolate true instances of
things like racism, sexism and injustice.
3. Generics key to check back squirrelly affs.
4. Key test of resolved, the CP is offense against the resolution
5. Ground preserved in the literature- Consultation gives them ground for solvency
deficits, DA’s, and impact turns to relations- they just have to research the consulted
actor
Defense
1. Counter Interpretation- Consult counterplans are uniquely justified by the literature of
the topic- if we win that our solvency advocate mandates the necessity for consultation,
the CP is legit. Solves back their infinite regression and education standards while
capturing our ground and education standards.
2. Literature checks abuse- No authors advocate we consult Gary Coleman on National

Service
3. Not delay- We won’t non unique or no link your disad based on timeframe- we defend
the immediacy of plan passage.
4. Research inevitable- We could’ve just run a relations disad with the same actor.
5. Err neg on theory- Aff gets first and last speech, infinite prep, and higher win
percentage

SDI 2006 16
GHD Theory
Consult CP’s Bad

1. Infinitely regressive- The aff cant predict an infinite number of consultable actors and
plan modifications
2. Time and strat skew- They moot every second of the 1AC, we only get one constructive
to generate offense
3. Multiple actor fiat illegit –The aff is stuck with only the USFG. This gives the negative
one more advantage.
4. Future fiat is illegit- This proves the CP is delay and magnifies why consult CP’s are
bad --the Neg can non-unique DA’s to the CP because its passed later after consultation
5. Conditional fiat creates a double bind—if we argue that they’ll say no, the negative can
concede the CP and use our evidence as a relations DA. Forces us to debate against
ourselves
6. Modifications bad- Unpredictable standard for competition and no one has literature
for solvency- killing clash and educational debate.
7. Education- Consult CP’s void the round of topic specific education to debate non
germane net benefits from thousands of potential actors.
SDI 2006 17
GHD Theory
2NC Counterplans Good

2NC counterplans are legitimate because it’s a constructive and key to offset unfair 2AC
add-ons and to finding the best policy
First is Defense
1. It’s a constructive
2. Time and strat skews inevitable, faster, smarter teams exist
3. Argument development answers aren’t responsive, otherwise the aff would always get
the last word on impacts
4. It’s reciprocal strategy skew- They introduced new argument development in the 2AC
5. Not uniquely abusive, another DA or solvency takeouts would be as much of a burden
6. Not a voter- It’s an argument to reject the CP not the team
Next is offense
1. Key to prevent sandbagging – 2NC counterplans check affs that save their best
advantages for the 2AC and skew neg strategy
2. Key against vague plan texts- you can’t know what the aff includes until they’re second
constructive
3. Key to finding the best policy option, seeing how the debate develops leads to the best
proposal, which is the vital internal link to education
4. Education outweighs fairness because it’s intrinsically good and the point of debate, if
we discover how to increase education, the rules can be restructured
5. Most real world. If Bill Frist says wait don’t vote on ANWR I know how we can solve
global warming, Senate won’t say shut up Bill you’re too late. (Ted Kennedy and they
might.)
SDI 2006 18
GHD Theory
2NC CP’s Bad

First is Offense
1. Kills aff strategy- We cant read new add ons or arguments to leverage against the CP in
the 1AR
2. Time Skew- We have to answer a brand new off case argument along with everything
else from the 1NC
3. Bad for education- They throw out 33 minutes of this debate we could spend developing
comparisons between the policies- You cant develop analysis well in the 1AR
4. Moots our entire 2AC, they could just change their CP to get out of our DA’s and solve
better.
5. Not reciprocal- It’d be like us changing our plan text in the 2AC.
6. Voter For fairness
And the Defense

1. Sandbagging hurts the aff, we cant develop our advantage for the judge
2. Not key to finding the best policy- They could’ve read the CP in the 1NC and we’d have
more time to analyze it.
3. Fairness outweighs education- if debate had no rules education would be about

nonsense, and debates still a game, you know you want to win.
4. Not justified by 2AC add-ons, a new impact to their CP is justified, not a new advocacy.
5. Give the 1AR leeway

SDI 2006 19
GHD Theory
Textual Competition Best

1. Predictable- Plan is the focus of the debate. Text is most predictable because it is the
only stable, distinct advocacy, argument changes everything else
2. Fairness- Functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from intent creating an

unpredictable moving target.
3. Forces better plan writing—better for negative ground on all issues and better debate to
avoid procedural and vagueness debates.
SDI 2006 20
GHD Theory
Functional Competition Best

1. Textual Doesn’t test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldn’t compete because the aff
could just write not into their perm text to prove lack of competetiveness
2. More real world- Congressmen fight over how bills will function, not the words theyre
written in
3. Predictable- The function of the CP is limited by normal means and the literature, if our
ev. Says the CP competes, the aff should defend it
4. Textual encourages vague plan writing. Affs would write their plan texts vague enough
to interpret that any CP isn’t textually competitive
5. Any CP can textually compete- you could literally rephrase the plan text and it would
function the same in the real world.
SDI 2006 21
GHD Theory
50 State Fiat Good

Offense:
1. Less fiat abuse- The aff fiats a federal policy and state compliance, no program is
isolated from the states. We just take out one stage of fiat
2. Increases education on interactions between state and federal governments and

federalism
3. The resolution says the USFG should, this is a key test of whether or not the USFG
should act.
Defense:
1. Predictable: The topic mandates it, the states are heavily involved in national service
2. Fiat checks moving target- We defend the immediate plan passage through the states
3. Its reciprocal- We fiat policy on one level, so do they
4. Fair enough- Were using a domestic actor on a domestic topic- International fiat is
much worse by comparison
5. Its real world- Governors meet at least twice a year to dicuss implementation of
national policy at the National Governors Conference.
Daniel J. Evans, 1974, Governor of Washington, EXECUTIVE ORDER 74-08, Advisory Council on State
Government Productivity, http://www.governor.wa.gov/actions/orders/eoarchive/eo74-08.htm
The National Governors' Conference first met in 1908. The Conference has played an increasingly vital
role in vigorously representing the interests of the states in the federal system. At the last meeting of the
Governors in Washington, D. C., on March 6-7, 1974 it was determined to revise the operations of the
National Governors' Conference to strengthen even further the conference by reorganizing it to better meet
the needs of the states and by allocating to it increased state resources in order to enhance its capacity to
implement national policy objectives of the nation's governors. As an instrumentality of the State of
Washington and of all the states, the work of the National Governors' Conference is also the work of
Washington State government. The time for state government to acquire its rightful status as a full
partner in the federal system will never be more opportune. I totally support the moves to strengthen the
National Governors' Conference and I share the conviction of my fellow governors that the National
Governors' Conference is the best vehicle to guarantee a role for the State of Washington and for all the states
in the determination of national policy.

SDI 2006 22
GHD Theory
50 State Fiat Bad

1. Multiple actor fiat is illegit- The aff only gets one actor, the USFG, and the neg can get
advantage off of the unanimous state decision- we don’t fiat that everyone is congress
has to vote for the plan.
2. Justifies object fiat- If you can fiat 50 states you can fiat that the 50 most dangerous
countries disarm
3. 50 State fiat is utopian fiat- Every state has never acted all at once like the CP before
<Insert Utopian fiat bad>
4. No literature base kills education- No one advocates all 50 states making one action at
the same time.
5. Moving target- No guarantee on simultaneous and consistent state action- meaning

disads apply to some states but not others
6. Kills education on the resolution- if you tolerate process education every year, we learn
nothing new

SDI 2006 23
GHD Theory
International Fiat Good

Offense;
1. Resolution basis- You have to defend that the USFG should act
2. Most real world- Congress doesn’t debate an action if Britain will do it for them
3. Come out from under that rock- The US isn’t the only country that does things, this is
key to real world education.
4. Their ignorance justifies imperialism and racism- The US isn’t the only actor in the
world, its not our job to fix everything.
Defense
1. Not outside judges jurisdiction- The theory of opportunity cost, the US can’t do it if
another country already did or will
2. Not the same as object fiat- we don’t fiat the country causing your harms
3. Its reciprocal- the aff defends one actor, so do we
4. Lit checks abuse- No one writes that the Vatican should do your plan
5. Perm checks abuse- If the policy isn’t competitive, the perm takes away all abuse,
otherwise its fair anyway.

SDI 2006 24
GHD Theory
International Fiat Bad

1. Impossible research burden- There are 192 countries that could pass the plan that we’d
have to research
2. No resolution mandate- The judge is meant to be in the position of a US policymaker,

he/she has no jurisdiction over what Swaziland does.
3. Not real world- No policy maker has ever had the choice of whether the US or
Cambodia should pass a policy
4. Not reciprocal- the aff only has the USFG
5. Justifies object fiat- If they can fiat other countries, they can just fiat our war scenarios
away

SDI 2006 25
GHD Theory
Multiple Actor Fiat Good

Offense:
1. Were handing them ground- every new actor is new disad links and reasons why we
might not solve
2. Most real world- Even Napoleon worked together with others, we increase education
about how actors interact.
Defense:
1. Negative ground: Who cares if it’s a lot of ground, neg has a right to everything outside
the resolution
2. Every policy has multiple actors- Agencies in the USFG as well as implementing agents
at the state and local levels.
3. No infinite regress: Reject it when it happens- were not saying Zimbabwe and my
friend Howie should do the plan
4. Counter interpretation- There’s no abuse if the substance of the CP would normally be

processed through multiple actors.
5. Reject the argument not the team

SDI 2006 26
GHD Theory
Multiple Actor Fiat Bad

1. Not reciprocal- We only have the USFG, they get huge advantage ground we can never
access.
2. If we want to get advantage off of two actors- we have to have evidence on modeling
3. Unpredictable- There are hundreds of agencies in the US as well as hundreds more in

each of 192 countries, that’s an infinite number of combinations we’d have to research
4. Artificially competitive- Since there’s more than one actor there’s no standard of
opportunity cost, meaning the CP isn’t a reason to reject the affirmative
5. Voter for fairness and competitive equity

SDI 2006 27
GHD Theory
Object Fiat Good

Note: First say why you don’t use object fiat, cuz it pretty much sucks-you aren’t going to win
this theory
Object fiat isn’t so bad

1. Its still negative ground- we have all advocacy outside the resolution
2. No bright line- The aff can’t say what too much fiat is
3. Forces affirmative critical thinking- best for education learn to think under pressure
a. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize
4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative

SDI 2006 28
GHD Theory
Object Fiat Bad

1. Aff never wins: The neg can just fiat away the aff harms with guaranteed solvency then
have a risk of a politics disad.
2. Not reciprocal- Aff can’t fiat away disads, we have one advocacy
3. It fiats solvency- We lose our best offense against the CP because they automatically
solve 100%
4. No standard of opportunity cost: They say the USFG shouldn’t act to stop genocide
because that war shouldn’t be happening in the first place.
5. Vote down the Neg for fairness, otherwise counter planning “no war” is a no risk
option.
SDI 2006 29
GHD Theory
Utopian Fiat Good

1. Utopian thinking is good- Imagining Utopia makes progression possible.
Streeten 1999 (Paul, Econ prof @ Boston, Development, v. 42, n. 2, p 118)
First, Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analysis. Just as physicists assume an
atmospheric vacuum for some purposes, so policy analysts can assume a political vacuum from which they
can start afresh. The physicists’ assumption plainly would not be useful for the design of parachutes, but can
serve other purposes well. Similarly, when thinking of tomorrow’s problems, Utopianism is not helpful. But
for long-term strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the Utopian vision gives a sense of direction, which
can get lost in approaches that are preoccupied with the feasible. In a world that is regarded as the
second-best of all feasible worlds, everything becomes a necessary constraint. All vision is lost. Third,
excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo. In negotiations, it strengthens the
hand of those opposed to any reform. Unless the case for change can be represented in the same detail as
the case for no change, it tends to be lost. Fourth, it is sometimes the case that the conjuncture of
circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of forces, unexpectedly, turns out to be
favourable to even radical innovation. Unless we are prepared with a carefully worked out, detailed
plan, that yesterday could have appeared utterly Utopian, the reformers will lose out by default. Only a
few years ago nobody would have expected the end of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the
disappearance of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany, the break-up of Yugoslavia, the marketization
of China, the end of apartheid in South Africa. And the handshake on the White House lawn between Mr
Peres and Mr Arafat. Fifth, the Utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure group, countervailing
the self interested pressures of the obstructionist groups. Ideas thought to be Utopian have become
realistic at moments in history when large numbers of people support them, and those in power have to
yield to their demands. The demand for ending slavery is a historical example. It is for these five reasons
that Utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their proposals and from thinking the unthinkable,
unencumbered by the inhibitions and obstacles of political constraints. They should elaborate them in the
same detail that the defenders of the status quo devote to its elaboration and celebration. Utopianism and
idealism will then turn out to be the most realistic vision. It is well known that there are three types of
economists: those who can count and those who can’t. But being able to count up to two, I want to
distinguish between two types of people. Let us call them, for want of a better name, the Pedants and the
Utopians. The names are due to Peter Berger, who uses them in a different context. The Pedants or
technicians are those who know all the details about the way things are and work, and they have acquired an
emotional vested interest in keeping them this way. I have come across them in the British civil service, in
the bureaucracy of the World Bank, and elsewhere. They are admirable people but they are conservative, and
no good companions for reform. On the other hand, there are the Utopians, the idealists, the visionaries who
dare think the unthinkable. They are also admirable, many of them young people. But they lack the attention
to detail that the Pedants have. When the day of the revolution comes, they will have entered it on the wrong
date in their diaries and fail to turn up, or, if they do turn up, they will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
What we need is a marriage between the Pedants and the Utopians, between the technicians who pay
attention to the details and the idealists who have the vision of a better future. There will be tensions in
combining the two, but they will be creative tensions. We need Pedantic Utopian Pedants who will work out
in considerable detail the ideal world and ways of getting to it, and promote the good cause with informed
fantasy. Otherwise, when the opportunity arises, we shall miss it for lack of preparedness and lose out to the
opponents of reform, to those who want to preserve the status quo.
2. Education and activism outweigh fairness- its what helps debaters beyond the context
of the debate. And if we find a way to maximize education and make the world better
than the rules should be changed.

SDI 2006 30
GHD Theory
Utopian Fiat Bad

1. Least real world argument in debate: they fiat a serious of actions and actors that
would never happen-
2. Ground- we don’t get to argue alternative solvency.
3. Aff would never win- every round we’d hit a kritik of biopower, the state, capitalism,
racism, sexism, and Michael Jackson and the neg would just fiat it all away,
4. Their unrealistic use of fiat justifies literally fiating a utopian world- WE CANT
COMPETE AGAINST UTOPIA- we could stop a thousand nuclear wars and still not
beat the perfect world.
5. Voter for fairness, education, and the fact that its just a bad idea.
SDI 2006 31
GHD Theory
Performance Contradictions Good

Offense:
1. Negation theory- Debate has changed the affirmative doesn’t defend the whole
resolution so we only have to prove the plan is a bad idea.
2. Both arguments are reasons why the affirmative is bad, even if one proves the other is
bad, nothing shows the affirmative is good
3. Increases education-
a. They can argue both arguments independently and we learn twice as much
b. Most real world- congressmen give multiple reasons why a plan could be bad
c. We educate on all the reasons why the plan’s a bad idea
4. Key to our ground- We need to debate with contradictions to show the affirmative is a
bad idea on multiple fronts.
5. Its an “even if” situation, we argue that the affirmative is bad because of the K, but
even if they win that argument the CP proves they’re bad. Were not going to put all our
eggs in one basket.
6. Increases critical thinking- Both teams have to think strategically about how to attack
each position most effectively
Defense:
1. The 2NR checks back any abuse and defines the negative strategy
2. If there’s really a perf con they could just concede one side and cross apply those
arguments to the other, but there’s no double turn in the negatives postions.
3. No abuse- We don’t prevent the aff from making arguments on either flow that would
make sense
4. They can straight turn and stick us with one postion.
5. Aff bias checks abuse- They’ve had infinite prep to block each position individually.
SDI 2006 32
GHD Theory
Performance Contradictions Bad

1. Kills education
a. Forces us to debate against ourselves with contradictions- makes debate sloppy
and thoughtless
b. Neg can invest very little time in one position just to solidify the link on their
other
2. Strategy skew, the negative can kick one position and cross apply our arguments as
affirmative suicide
3. Makes us grant a link even if we don’t and we have to argue for their CP to argue the
K.
4. False advocacies bad- This proves they don’t believe their arguments, makes for bad
debate as well as bad political activism
5. Concedes perm solvency on the K, if the CP is justified, then so is the plan
6. Their positions are conditional

<insert conditionality bad F/L>
7. 2NR doesn’t check abuse- We base our offense off of the 1NC, by the 2NR were already
screwed.

SDI 2006 33
GHD Theory
Severance Perms Good

Note: Don’t admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isn’t
Offense
1. Best policy option- If the best policy is the aff minus one minute detail, you still affirm
2. Key to check neg block bias- we need to protect the 1AR
3. If its topical its our ground
Defense
1. The perm’s legit as long as we don’t sever out of planks of the plan necessary for
solvency.
2. More Real world, bills always have parts stricken from them.
3. Reciprocal- If the neg gets to change the status quo, their entitlement, we get to change
our plan.
4. Topicality checks abuse- we still have to be topical and that’s our ground.
5. Not a voter, it’s an argument why we shouldn’t get the perm

SDI 2006 34
GHD Theory
Severance Perms Bad

1. If you have to take out part of the plan, the CP competes
2. Moving Target bad- They avoid clash and change the debate by severing out of DA links
and the CP’s net benefits- huge time and strat skew, we base our 1NC strat off of the
plan text.
3. This allows the affirmative to just advocate the CP in the 2AC, they have to win CP’s
are bad to win the perm
4. Kills education- they can avoid any clash in policy comparison
5. The perm isn’t an advocacy, if you sever its no longer a test of competetiveness
6. If aff can advocate the perm, they no longer have to be topical.
7. Voter for Fairness

SDI 2006 35
GHD Theory
Severance Perms Good (Representations)

Offense
1. Best policy option- You vote for our advocacy aka the plan text, not our representations
2. Key to protect the 1AR from neg block bias
3. We still operate in topical ground, you’re still affirming if you vote on the perm
Defense
1. The plan text is our advocacy, the reasons we advocate don’t have to stay fixed
2. We don’t justify racist discourse- reject it when it happens, speaker points and judge
intervention check.
3. It’s reciprocal- The neg gets to kick DA’s, K’s and reasons to not advocate the plan, we get to
kick justifications for the plan.
4. No ground loss- If their links are true they can prove our representations either still stand, or
would be replicated in a fiated plan passage.
5. Not a voter- at best it’s a reason we don’t get the perm

SDI 2006 36
GHD Theory
Severance Perms Bad (Representations)

1. 90% of K debates are representation based, they can sever out of any K links
2. Make them defend their entire 1AC, if they say 7 minutes of good things and then 3
minutes of racist slander you wouldn’t let them sever out of it
3. Just as bad as plan text severance- K’s are to representations as DA’s are to the plan
4. Encourages vague plan writing- If the negative is only stuck to their text they’ll write
vague plans that they can weasel out of DA and CP links
5. Don’t treat it differently because its kritikal- Its just like severing a soft power
advantage to get out of a soft power bad DA
6. The perm is no longer a test of competitiveness- it’s an advocacy.
7. They have to sever out of their plan- The text carries their representations
8. The 1AC is the justification for plan passage, they prove that congressmen too would
use this poor justification and lead to the impacts.

SDI 2006 37
GHD Theory
Intrinsic Perms Good

Note: Don’t admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isn’t
Offense:
1. Most real world- If the USFG sees that their defense budget hurts the economy, they
should still pass the defense budget to preserve the country then subsidize the economy-
that’s an intrinsic perm.
2. Neg ground- They get ground off of every new part we add to the plan
3. Promotes plan focus- The perm encourages the neg to stop running their solve all CP
and research plan specific strategies.
4. Key to find the best policy option, if its a topical clarification of the plan then you vote
aff
Defense
1. We still prove the plan is a good idea, all the plan is in the perm. The net benefit to the
CP isn’t intrinsic to the aff.
2. Its reciprocal- They add to the status quo with the CP to solve a disad, we add to the
plan with the perm.
3. Not a shift of advocacy- just a clarification and test of competitiveness.
4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the perm

SDI 2006 38
GHD Theory
Intrinsic Perms Bad

1. Not a perm, it’s a shift of advocacy. The perm is an add on to the plan not a test of
competitiveness.
2. The aff can do anything to add an extra advantage- like perm do plan and feed the
starving kids in Africa
3. Kills clash- The affirmative doesn’t have to defend an action just find another way to
solve for disads.
4. They can always perm out of our net benefit, the neg never wins a counterplan
5. Creates a moving target- the 2AC can moot the first two speeches and change the focus
of the debate.
6. Neg ground- Few if any disads are intrinsic to the affirmative plan.
7. If they get intrinsicness arguments then so do we- there are a thousand things in the
squo that could solve for the affirmative harms, they just handed us a thousand winning
conditional counterplans with no text.
8. Vote on it for fairness or let us have intrinsicness arguments too.

SDI 2006 39
GHD Theory
Vagueness Good
<First explain why you aren’t vague>
Offense
1. Education- We increase the breadth of topic specific education, we learn about a lot
quickly with a bigger plan
2. Forces critical thinking- We make the negative listen to the entire 1AC to find the point
of the case rather then just waiting for the plan text.
Defense
1. The plan is a resolved text, not a bill in front of congress
2. No in round abuse- Don’t let them tell you what they couldn’t run, if they ran it with
this theory it would be suicide for us to “clarify” out of links
3. Topicality checks abuse- If we add an untopical action to our plan in the 2AC, they can
run T in the 2NC
4. If were topical, you vote aff and affirm the resolution, we can be vague and still affirm
5. Were still topical- we can never meet their interpretation of resolved because they’d just
say they have doubts about the plan
SDI 2006 40
GHD Theory
Vagueness Bad
1. Moving target bad- Vague plans allow the affirmative to weasel out of DA and CP links
in the 2AC by “clarifying” their plan
2. Ground- We lose links to the affirmatives plan mechanism and links like spending that
depend on a stable plan text. Also, CP competitiveness is impossible to interpret
because we don’t know what the aff actually does.
3. Limits- The aff can claim a topical action but clarify later in the debate they do more.
4. Strat skew- Its irreversible damage; we base our 1NC strat off their disclosed plan text.
5. Not Topical under Resolved means to remove or dispel (doubts) American Heritage Dictionary in
2000 fourth addition accessed via dictionary.com
6. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 41
GHD Theory
Test Case Fiat Good

Offense
1. Education- We increase education on the process of certiorari and how the court
functions
2. They overlimit- They don’t allow any cases under the resolution because none of them
are currently in front of the Supreme Court.
3. Double bind- If they had links to a certain test case they could run them and say this
would be the next available test case through normal means, otherwise there’s no abuse.
Defense
1. Just like any other fiat- A bill has to be in front of congress for them to vote and
someone has to draft the executive order for the president to sign.
2. This would be like saying an aff with a congress actor has to tell the bill that will be
drafted as well as vote counts, sponsors, and co sponsors
3. No fiat abuse- The resolution mandates a should/would question that allows us to avoid
procedure problems like test cases
4. Reciprocity- We don’t require your CP’s to give bills, test cases, or grounds for rulings
5. Not relevant in the real world- The court can pick and choose cases for what it wants to
rule on, they’ve ordered parties to re-litigate when they don’t feel they get ground for
what they want to rule.
David O’Brien, Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Storm Center: The
Supreme Court in American Politics, 2000, p. 227-228.
The current Court’s power to pick the cases it wants from a very large docket enables it to assume the
role of a super legislature. The overwhelming number of cases on the docket involve indigents’ claims and
issues of criminal procedure. Yet, as is indicated below, few are selected and decided on merits. Cases raising
other issues of constitutional law have a better chance of being selected; so do cases involving statutory,
administrative, and regulatory matters. These are all areas in which the government has an interest in
legitimating its policies. The Court thus functions like a roving commission, selecting and deciding only
issues of national importance for the governmental process.
WILLIAM J. Quirk, Professor of Legal Research at University of South Carolina Law School
and R. RANDALL Bridwell, Professor of Law at University of South Carolina Law School,
JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP, 1995, p. 29- 30.
We would answer that the Court is the “least dangerous” branch as Alexander Hamilton said; it has no
executive or legislative authority; it doesn’t make rules; it just decides cases that come before it. The trouble
with our answer is that the Court is able to select the cases that come before it from a large number of
them. The Court, at its 1992-93 term, refused to hear 7,233 cases while it decided to hear ninety- seven,
or 1.3 percent. In 1950, on the other hand, the Court heard 10 percent of the cases brought to it which
indicates it was then acting as a court of appeal over the lower federal courts. The Court’s power to pick
from among such a large number of cases gives it the practical ability to rule on issues it thinks
important, to act, in effect, as a Court of National Policy.
SDI 2006 42
GHD Theory
Test Case Fiat Bad

1. Predictability- We can’t predict agents outside the resolution that are necessary to bring
the case to lower courts and up to the Supreme Court
2. Ground- We can’t run specific links to test cases if they don’t specify what case they
rule on
3. Limits- There are enough cases currently in front of the court- there are an infinite
number that could possibly work up to the supreme court
4. Topicality- Aff can claim extra topical advantages off of the agent of action in lower
courts etc.
5. Voter for fairness and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 43
GHD Theory
ASPEC
A. Interpretation- The aff must specify the agent
First, the government consists of three branches: the legislative, the executive, or the
judicial, Dictionary of Politics ‘79
Second, Resolved - To reach a decision or make a determination, American Heritage

Dictionary 2000
B. Violation- The aff didn’t specify
C. Reasons to prefer
1. Predictable limits - There are dozens of executive agencies that can regulate the authority
of their personnel to search without probable cause and there is a split between congress
and the courts in terms of legally restricting the authority. The literature on each of the
agents is unique from other agents making later specification render a specific negative
strategy null.
2. Ground–Specification key to DA links like politics and courts as well as process

counterplans
3. Education- 90% of policy is implementation

1980
4. Aff conditionality- They can skew our strategy by dodging out of DA links and CP
competition we present in the 1NC
5. Most real world- The USFG isn’t an actor- all three branches cannot pass a policy as one.
6. Irreversible time skew - Granting us whatever links we presented doesn’t remedy the
time skew - there was no way we could have predicted that they would have granted us
these links and reading the shell was the only way to deter abuse. Punish them for altering
our time and strategy.
D. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 44
GHD Theory
AT: ASPEC
Counter-interpretation: normal means solves issues stemming from agent specification
a. Solves offense, the negative can read evidence that says the plan will be done in
certain way and then link to it
b. Normal means solves the Elmore evidence, under normal means policies don’t
lack direction or implementation.
c. Solves all education about agents arguments, we just argue that the neg has to
engage us first- they can go ahead and present links they have
Offense
1. Forcing specification gives the negative the right to agent and process counterplans.
This creates bad, un-educational debate- there is never any discussion of the aff we just
talk about their narrow net benefit and whether or not the perm solves.
2. Infinitely regressive- There is no reason why specifying funding or personnel is less

relevant than ASPEC- The only bright line is what the resolution mandates.
3. Encourages over specifying- This kills limits and predictability because there are
thousands of case combinations. And they lose ground because random agents are
perceived in politics DA’s.
Defense
1. No Resolution mandate- The resolution says the USFG, it doesn’t mandate that we have
to specify a single branch. All issues could be solved if the resolution specified the agent-
then it would be a relevant question
2. Fiat is a should/would question designed to let us debate what would happen post plan
and avoid procedurals like aspec
3. There’s no reason the negative cannot win without us specifying, the topic gives them
huge links to things like spending, militarism, and objectivism.
4. If there is amazing topic specific literature on a certain agent, there will be incentive for
teams to spec. their agent.
5. No in round abuse- If you were to run a specific DA link to one agent, we would not no
link your disad.
6. Cross-x checks- You could’ve asked us but you just wanted to run ASPEC
7. Disclosure checks abuse- They had our plan text before the round to root it out for DA
links and CP’s
8. Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never
a reason to reject the aff
SDI 2006 45
GHD Theory
OSPEC
A. Violation:
The affirmative over-specifies how the plan will be implemented by giving the specific
agent who will do the plan.
B. Reasons to prefer
1. Predictable limits: There are over hundreds of different agents in the Federal
Government. Allowing the aff to choose makes the topic 500 times larger, killing
predictability.
2. Ground: When they overspecify it kills disad ground because we can’t get our generic
politics links and they can squirrel out of other generic disads by claiming they implement
plan differently than the disad assumes.
3. Non-Topical: The affirmative doesn’t fiat the entire United States Federal Government
as a whole body, this violates the term Government:
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979 [5th edition, page 625]
The whole class or body of officeholders or functionaries considered in the aggregate, upon
whom devolves the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative business of the state.
C. Vote on OSPEC for fairness, predictable ground and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 46
GHD Theory
AT: OSPEC
Counter interpretation: USFG is one of the three branches.
A. Solves their predictability and limits arguments.
B. Reasonable compromise between affirmative solvency and negative link
ground.
Defense
1. ____________ is uniquely predictable, its one of the three major branches
2. No ground loss- They can still run generic links to the USFG, it encompasses the plan
3. Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never
a reason to reject the aff
Offense
1. Ground- We give them ground to specific agent links, politics, and procedural
counterplans
2. Specific literature- The best policy literature is written in the context of the government
branch in question, not the USFG as a whole. This is key to both affirmative advantage
literature and negative link ground
3. Education- 90% of policy is implementation

1980
4. They overlimit—no plan affects every single part of the USFG—there are over 900
agents and no case involves all of them. This allows for no topical affirmative plans or
negative positions under their interpretation.
5. Aff conditionality- If we don’t specify, we can dodge out of your disad links and
counterplan competitiveness by saying we don’t defend that agent.
SDI 2006 47
GHD Theory
Floating PIK’s Good

Offense
1. We functionally compete and functional competition is best and checks abuse
a. Textual Doesn’t test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldn’t compete because
the aff could just write not into their perm text to prove lack of competetiveness
b. More real world- Congressmen fight over how bills will function, not the words
theyre written in
c. Predictable- The function of the CP is limited by normal means and the
literature, if our ev. Says the CP competes, the aff should defend it
d. Textual encourages vague plan writing. Affs would write their plan texts vague
enough to interpret that any CP isn’t textually competitive
e. Any CP can textually compete- you could literally rephrase the plan text and it
would function the same in the real world.
2. Education- Depth is better than breadth- policymakers screw up when they miss
loopholes that are exploited later.
3. Representations matter- If the affirmative said good things for 7 minutes but a minute
of racial slurs you shouldn’t intellectually align yourself aff. It’s the difference between
freeing the slaves because they should be equal and freeing them to send them back to
Africa.
4. Forces better case writing- They’ll watch what they say next time
5. The 1AC tells the judge why the USFG should pass the plan, fiat assumes the plan has
been passed and according to aff it’s a good thing because of the rest of the speech.
6. Double bind- Either they have offense because they had a reason for representing
__________ in their 1AC, or you vote neg because we found the best policy option and
the aff couldn’t defend their case
Defense
1. No infinite regression- You don’t set a standard, reject it when it happens.
2. No moving target- We don’t change what representation we don’t support
3. No abuse- They had infinite prep to decide what went into their case
4. Not a voter- it’s an argument to reject the alternative

SDI 2006 48
GHD Theory
Floating PIK’s Bad

1. The judge doesn’t vote aff to say the USFG should pass the aff for a certain reason- they
just intellectually support the plan, fiat doesn’t mean the same representations carry
over
2. Ground- Worse than PIC’s we literally have zero offense against the alternative.
3. Infinitely regressive- We go through a thousand representations in one speech. In one

college round, the neg team found the word “Shilock” in a metaphor of the un-
underlined portions of a solvency card and won on a floating PIK
4. Time skew- the negative can moot our entire 1AC to change the course of the debate
towards debating one representation
5. Moving target- Since they’re piking out of a representation, we never know what
they’re really advocating
6. Negation theory says they have to prove the plan is a bad idea, they don’t they’re not
only advocating the resolution they advocate the plan
7. Fiat means that the polices are identical- they don’t textually compete
8. Education- There’s a point where depth of education gets to be ridiculous- they ruin
topic specific education
9. Voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction

SDI 2006 49
GHD Theory
No Text to Alt Good

Offense
1. Shatters the critique- Our criticism can’t be embraced in one sentence, it would make
the entire advocacy pointless to hold it to this unrealistic standard
2. Critical thinking- Condensing the critique into a one sentence alternative allows the
affirmative to not critically think about what were critiquing.
3. Ground- The less specific we are, the more ground they get
Defense
4. Cross-x checks abuse- If they didn’t understand the alternative we could have explained
it to them
5. The tag is the text, just because we didn’t label it doesn’t mean its not there.
6. No moving target- We have a stable advocacy, we just don’t contextualize it- it’s still in
the evidence
7. They still could have permed the K, its not our fault they didn’t choose to.

SDI 2006 50
GHD Theory
No text to Alt Bad

1. Reciprocity- You’d laugh at an aff that proposes a plan but didn’t write a text
2. Moving target bad- Text is the only stable advocacy, otherwise they can dodge out of
turns and solvency attacks by changing their alternative in the next speech.
3. Time and strategy skew- We don’t know what the alternative actually is until the
rebuttals, wasting our only constructive to create offense against the K.
4. Can’t prove competitiveness- We don’t know what we can perm if there’s no text, and
they’ll just change their alt accordingly
5. Voter for fairness- Its irreversible damage.

SDI 2006 51
GHD Theory
Err Neg on Theory

1. Aff has first and last speeches.
2. Aff has historically higher winning percentage
3. They have infinite prep time to write answers to all of our arguments.
4. Total Argument Choice – If we drop one answer on a disad, we lose it.
5. Fiat eliminates half the real world arguments we can make on the political process.
6. Issue Choice – We’re forced to debate whatever case they chose.

SDI 2006 52
GHD Theory
Err Aff on Theory

1. The aff no longer has the advantage- negative win percentage is up, and most teams
choose to be neg off the coin flip
2. They have the block, 13 minutes that we have to answer in 5- theory is key to protect
the 1AR
3. We have the burden of T, the neg is unrestrained
4. They Get Issue Choice – We have to answer every position, they can just pick their
strongest ones and kick the rest
5. They Have The Last Constructive – After the 2NC the round is effectively over
6. Aff disclosure- Its commonplace for us to disclose, they can do whatever they want
7. Our prep time is finite- we’ve got lives, but their ground for counterplans and disads is
infinite

WHAM Theory

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WHAM Theory

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SDI 2006 1

Neg Fiat Good

1. Its Recipricol, the neg should get fiat too

2. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan.

3. More real world, trains us to find the best policy option

4. It’s predictable and widely accepted in debate.

5. Turn- Increases aff ground they can read disads to the CP

8. Lit checks fiat abuse

9. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

3. Reciprocity- the aff gets it so should the negative.

5. Lit checks fiat abuse

6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

Neg Fiat Bad

6. Voter for Fairness

Agent CP’s Good

4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

Agent CP’s Bad

3. Steals aff ground and forces us to debate against ourselves.

6. Voter for fairness and education

3. Key to check extra-topical plan planks

4. Forces better plan writing- they’ll learn to defend against PIC’s

2. Time Skew: Moots the 1AC speech time

5. Voter for Fairness and education

Dispositional CP’s Good

5. Perms are worse- They operate in more worlds

3. Reciprocol- aff can kick advantages that aren’t strategic

7. Reject the CP not the team

Dispositional CP’s Bad

2. Kills in depth education- We don’t analyze 2 competing policies.

7. Voter for fairness

Dispositional PIC’s Good

4. Key to check extra-topical plan planks

2. Not a voter- It’s an argument to reject the CP

Dispositional PIC’s Bad

3. Voter for fairness

Conditional Advocacies Good

3. Finds the best policy option

2. Reject the argument, not the team

4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.)

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

Conditional Advocacies Bad

6. Voter for fairness and education

Consult CP’s Good

3. Generics key to check back squirrelly affs.

4. Key test of resolved, the CP is offense against the resolution

2. Literature checks abuse- No authors advocate we consult Gary Coleman on National

6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

Consult CP’s Bad

2NC Counterplans Good

2. Time and strat skews inevitable, faster, smarter teams exist

5. Not uniquely abusive, another DA or solvency takeouts would be as much of a burden

6. Not a voter- It’s an argument to reject the CP not the team

2NC CP’s Bad

6. Voter For fairness

And the Defense

3. Fairness outweighs education- if debate had no rules education would be about

5. Give the 1AR leeway

Textual Competition Best

2. Fairness- Functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from intent creating an

Functional Competition Best

50 State Fiat Good

2. Increases education on interactions between state and federal governments and

3. Its reciprocal- We fiat policy on one level, so do they