Tohono Affirmative – ddi 2015 sws

Download 0.73 Mb.
Date conversion15.05.2018
Size0.73 Mb.
1   ...   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23


1. Aff is a disad to the alt –rejection of the aff leaves a government unpunished for the deaths of thousands of indigenous and cultural genocide

This only fuels the desire of the government to wage invisible wars for their own self security – means their war impacts are inevitable.

Also means the alt fails - even in a world outside of desire, structural hierarchy and bordered thinking is inevitable and corrupts all analysis done through a nihilistic lens


International Fiat Bad [0:32]

International CPs are illegitimate—

1. Shifts focus of debate from whether or not the plan should happen to arbitrary decisions on who should do the plan—this destroys education.

2. No real world applications—policymakers can’t just assume other countries will enact the plan in real life.

3. The CP artificially inflates the net benefit—international DAs mean we can still talk about international actors.

4. Moots the 1AC—disregards 8 minutes of affirmative speech time—the aff’s only offense is their case and the neg steals this.

5. Unpredictable—there’s an infinite number of international actors—it’s impossible to research all of them.

6. Kills aff ground—debating against the CP is debating against the aff—it forces the aff to debate against itself.

7. Interpretation: The neg cannot have foreign states as actors to provide reciprocity.

2AC Condo Bad [0:13]

Condo is bad and a voting issue—

A. Ethical Coherence—their interp precludes ABSOLUTE and UNCONITIONAL responsibility to the Other—that’s the key advantage to the aff

B. 2AC Time and Strat skew—risks the rope-a-dope and disincentivizes offense

Counter interpretation—they get ONE UNconditional option or the Status Quo

1AR CI [0:06]

Conditionality is bad—

The negative gets ONE unconditional option or the status quo

This HAS to be a voting issue because rejecting the argument IS WHAT CONDITIONALITY IS.

1AR Ethics [0:22]

Ethical Coherence—the whole value of the aff is that it takes an ABSOLUTE, and thus UNCONDITIONAL responsibility toward the Other. Advocacy skills are uniquely key here—you should incentivize 1NC CONSISTANCY so we’ll become effective advocates for material change—that’s the most real world and is the ONLY portable skill.

[Outweighs/turns their best source of offense]

This is an impact turn to all their NEG FLEX arguments—empirics prove teams don’t need multiple condo worlds and using TRICKS to discourage ethical responsibility is a massive DA to their interp.

1AR Skew [0:20]

The 1NC irreparably skewed the most important aff speech and our only chance for offense—

A. Strategy—we can’t read addons to answer the K because the CP would solve them—disincentivizes substantive offense and even prevents us from straight turning DAs—internal link turns 2AC skills

B. Time—negative flexability means the 2AC needs to prepare for a virtually infinite number of possible block combinations—exascerbates time disparities and makes the 2AC impossible.

[Outweighs/turns their best source of offense]


Severance Perms

1. [Explain why your perm isn’t severance]

2. Severance perms are a still a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy of the affirmative.

3. Key to aff ground – all perms other than “do both” would be severance and that’s unfair to the aff because they’re key to checking back unpredictable cp’s/k’s.

4. They’re reciprocal – neg gets to run pics, severance perms are key to checking this.

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

6. Not a voter – reject the argument and not the team


2ac Consult CPs Bad [0:23]

Consult counterplans are illegitimate –

  1. they are plan plus and steal the entirety of aff ground by adding an extra condition or action to the plan

  2. Conditional fiat – we don’t know whether the neg will defend “yes” or “no” which reduces our ability to generate offense which justifies severance perms

  3. Timeframe fiat – the counterplan implements the plan later than the affirmative which allows them to spike out of disad links by delaying – makes timeframe perms reciprocal

  4. Infinite regression – the negative could consult any country they wanted

  5. Voting issue for fairness, predictability and ground

PICs Bad [0:19]

  1. Destroy significance of 1AC: pics refocus the debate on the tiny difference between the plan and a slightly different cp

  2. Undermines education- allows generic agent CP’s to be run respectively. It would be more educational if the neg had to clash with the substance of specific aff cases

  3. Trivializes debate-if the neg can cp with part of the aff plan, then they could virtually capture 100% of the plan. Debate focused now on narrow procedural question rather than distinct policies

Conditions CPs Bad [0:21]

Conditioning fiat is a voter—

A. Ethics first—CP distracts from our overall ethical model—doesn’t matter how it’s enacted

B. Predictability—we could research all lit relevant to our aff without ever reading about this alternate process—bad for research

C. Infinitely regressive—infinite number of possible conditions and we can’t get offense vs all of them

D. Artificially competitive—only competes on things they’ve arbitrarily added to the plan

CI—the neg gets these arguments as DAs and/or needs a prescriptive solvency advocate in the context of our aff

No Solvency Advocate Bad [0:37]

Destroys education

Unpredictable texts – without a solvency advocate, the neg can fiat anything which kills real world education because they can just create an artificial counterplan which is bad for debate because they fiat competitiveness.

Not real world – the cp would never be presented before congress if no one agreed it was a good idea.

Ground –

Moving target – without a stable plan text the neg can always shift advocacies by the 2NR which kills aff strategy from the 2AC.

Steals aff answers – we can’t indict their solvency evidence because there is none specific to their counterplan which is key to impact calc and determining whether the counterplan solves.

Not reciprocal – aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the literature base of the resolution. Not forcing the neg to present a counterplan with a solvency advocate is unfair to the aff.

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

Voter for fairness, education, and ground.

Functional Compet Good [1:33]

Counterplans should be functionally competitive

Our interp is that the net benefit to the CP must be predicated off of the result of the plan – turns and o/w edu

Textual competition in which the nb is are bad – it allows for word pics

a. Aff strat- We have to debate against our own plan- this makes it impossible to make strategic 2AC decisions-moots the 1AC and 8 minutes of our speech time.

b. Critical Thinking- We never will learn anything new if we debate the same plan over and over

d. Infinite regression- They justify infinite number of net benefits and word PICs

  1. Stops the neg from stealing the entirety of the aff- for the neg to be functionally competitive, they cannot steal the 1ac, making sure that the 1ac stays un-mooted

  1. Most real-world- bills aren’t amended to change punctuation, they are amended to change the function

  1. Limited number of CPs- the CP must compete based on a function of the plan.

  1. Ground- There is always offence on how the function of the CP differs from the function of the plan

  1. Functional competition is better than the alternative-

    1. Textual competition destroys debate

      1. STRAT SKEW: Textual comp. allows for the 1ac to get mooted

They can pic out of the word THE and make us lose every time – worse lit base

    1. EDUCATION DESTRUCTION: Textual competition turns the topic of the debate to grammar, rather than the res.

Grammar is a worse standard – less real world bc policymakers can alter typos in bills and there is no impact


  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.

Textual Compet Good [0:15]

  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.

1   ...   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page