Aff Theory Essentials

5/10/2018 Aff Theory Essentials - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aff-theory-essentials 1/36

Evazon 1

Tournament Essentials Aff Theory

Aff Theory Essentials

Aff Theory Essentials......................................................................................................................1

***Conditionality Debate***..........................................................................................................3

Conditionality Bad 2AC..................................................................................................................4

Conditionality Bad 1AR..................................................................................................................51AR: Increases Critical Thinking....................................................................................................6

1AR: Dispo=Condo.........................................................................................................................7

1AR: Always Need Squo.................................................................................................................81AR: K Check Condo Perms/Perms Worse.....................................................................................9

1AR: Err Neg.................................................................................................................................10

1AR: Real World...........................................................................................................................111AR: Best Policy Option...............................................................................................................12

1AR: Reciprocal- Adv’s Prove......................................................................................................13

1AR: Counter-interp: One Condo Only.........................................................................................14

***Other 2AC’s***.......................................................................................................................15

Procedurals Before the K...............................................................................................................16 No Text to the Alt 2AC..................................................................................................................18

Floating PIK 2AC..........................................................................................................................19Alt Condo Bad 2AC.......................................................................................................................20

Int’l Fiat Bad 2AC.........................................................................................................................21

Agent CP’s Bad..............................................................................................................................22Multi-Actor Fiat 2AC....................................................................................................................23

Consult 2AC...................................................................................................................................24

Multiple Perms Legit 2AC.............................................................................................................25K/DA Contradiction 2AC..............................................................................................................26

Conditioning Bad 2AC..................................................................................................................27

2NC CP’s Bad 1AR.......................................................................................................................282NC Frameworks Bad 1AR...........................................................................................................29Framework 2AC.............................................................................................................................30

Alt Must Be Structural 2AC..........................................................................................................31

Alternative Illigit 2AC...................................................................................................................32Contradiction Bad 2AC..................................................................................................................33

Future Fiat Bad 2AC......................................................................................................................34

Attitudinal Fiat Bad 2AC/1NC......................................................................................................35Aff Must Have a Plan 1NC............................................................................................................36



Evazon 2




Evazon 3


***Conditionality Debate***



Evazon 4


Conditionality Bad 2AC

Conditionality is bad and a voter for fairness and education-

A. 2AC Time- the 2AC is the first place that we can lose the debate,

condo makes aff argue multiple worlds, which devastates 2ac timeand strat.

B. Not Reciprocal- we are stuck with the aff and only the aff, thenegative should have a single world.

C. Dispo Solves Offense- they can have 2 worlds, but the 2AC shouldhave the option of sticking them with the counterplan. Thisincreases aff strategic choice, which is key to education.



Evazon 5


Conditionality Bad 1AR

Conditionality is Bad-

A. Skews 2AC Time- 2AC is the most important speech in the debate,

first place the aff can lose the debate.

B. Destroys Comp Equity- we’re stuck with the plan, should get tostick them to an advocacy, this increases their structuraladvantages for the neg.

C. Not Real World- argumentative irresponsibility is not logicalreality, politicians are held responsible for their voting records andpolicy choices, 2004 election ads prove.

D. Couterplans Are Like Other Args- if you straight turn a disad or

advantage it’s a strategic choice to move the debate towards thatissue. CP kicking is super bad because they solve the aff- means youerr aff.

E. Defense- dispo solves their multiple worlds offense, they canincrease critical thinking, but our 2AC time and aff choice args arestill DA’s to always having SQ as an option.



Evazon 6


1AR: Increases Critical Thinking

1. No Critical Thinking- discourages 2AC’s from going in depth onany one issue, or reading da’s to the cp, makes 2AR offenseimpossible.

2. Dispo Solves- aff choice in 2AC is best place for critical thinking,first place we can lose the debate, you make the 1AR strategyirrelevant.



Evazon 7


1AR: Dispo=Condo

1. Not Our Interp Of Dispo- if the 2AC straight turns the CP, thenegative can not kick it, unless the negative reads theory otherthan dispo bad. Means that this cp is not conditional automatically.

2. Err Aff- 2AC needs to read DA’s to CP, because it moots 1AC, anyrisk we get more ability to do this in our interp means we get ourcompetitive equity args.



Evazon 8


1AR: Always Need Squo

1. Not Logical In Debate- ignores side and time constraints and aff burdens, like defending the case through the debate.

2. Reciprocity Answers This- not fair to aff, we can’t alter ouradvocacy, they can steal ours, but we can’t replan in the two. Thismeans you err aff, because 2AC strategic flex outweighs 1NC flex inthe era of the K and PIC.

3. Aff Presumption is a DA- unique strain on the 2AR versus the 2NRbecause the 2AR is forced to answer a world not mentioned in the2NR. This allows judge intervention, because the judge has toconsider the quo.



Evazon 9


1AR: K Check Condo Perms/Perms Worse

1. Non-sensical- perms are a test of competition, can’t garnerartificial add-ons. No 2AR where the CP is kicked can perm beoffense.

2. Dispo Solves- dispo deters multiple perms because of stratoptions, means block doesn’t have to answer new aff worlds.



Evazon 10


1AR: Err Neg

1. Take a Stand- neg flex is out of control- aff loses 75% of debates,protect competitive equity to check structural neg advantages.

2. Err Aff- neg block, PIC and K ground devestate aff baises.

3. Choosing Topic Doesn’t Solve- aff choice irrelevant with genericagent, process and rez Cp’s, along with K’s that preclude ouroffense.

4. Neg Gets Infinite Prep- can prep generics or for probably aff’s-they have to know because they go aff too.

5. Speaking 1st and Last Irrelevant - if we lose in the 2AC the 2ARgoing last doesn’t matter, debate is already over.



Evazon 11


1AR: Real World

1. Less Real World- 2004 presidential campaign flip-flop ads provethat policymakers can’t just not advocate positions randomly, theyhave to pick one and stick with it.

2. Debate Not Real World- real world not the educational part of debate- I know I won’t be in politics.

3. No Impact- competitive equity before education- it is thefundamental basis of education in debate, other things in theactivity provide enough real world that you should err aff oncompetitive equity.



Evazon 12


1AR: Best Policy Option

1. Not Recipricol- aff doesn’t get to change plan to find the bestpolicy option, slants side bais totally to neg.

2. Lack of Depth Makes Search Impossible- allowing multipleconditional worldviews encourages late developing, or poorlydeveloped debates, which means we can’t compare the validity of all options.

3. Justifies Replanning- we can always replan an fiat utopia- alwaysbest policy option.



Evazon 13


1AR: Reciprocal- Adv’s Prove

1. Kicking Doesn’t Check- multiple conditional advocacies means weget no strategic advantage to kicking, neg sucks it up with CP’s thatsolve the aff. We need stable external offense to offset.

2. Not the Same- we are still stuck to one worldview, we just havemore than one net-benefit to the aff.



Evazon 14


1AR: Counter-interp: One Condo Only

1. Doesn’t Solve our Offense- still hijacks 2AC time, plus we don’tget two worldviews.

2. Arbitrary Interpretation- no theoretical reason that the neg getsto make a counter-interpretation- they should have to defend thepicture of debate they justify- they just artificially limit.

3. Allows Contradictions- can concede arguments arguments fromworldview to use as offense in the other, which uniquely magnifiesabuse- it not only steals 2AC strategy, but steals it and makes itoffense, without contradicting it.



Evazon 15


***Other 2AC’s***



Evazon 16


Procedurals Before the K

1. Debate is not violence- nothing that happens in the round is

actually violence- there is a big difference between having a similarmindset to someone who committed genocide and actually killingpeople.

2. Ev Not In Context- no offense- this evidence doesn’t talk aboutviolence in debate, but the broader world, it is at best metaphoricalviolence, which doesn’t outweigh real loss of worth in the debate.

3. Non-unique- their evidence proves this thought already occurs inthe squo, voting for a diluted instance of it would not changeanything.

4. No impact- they say no impact to voting for us- no true changevoting for the K.

5. A priori- if we win they did something procedurally wrong thenthe debate should never have happened and their abusive argumentshould go away. This means theory is a gateway issue for the K.



Evazon 17


6. Visibility Turn- claims that the invisible are powerless are wrong,the “otherized” are actually empowered, while the visible arecaught in colonialist/imperialist thinking.

Phelan in ‘93[Peggy, Chairman of the Arts School @ Stanford University, Unmarked: the Politics of

Performance, Pg. 6-7, Questia]

The current contradiction between "identity politics" with its accent on visibility,and the psychoanalytic/deconstructionist mistrust of visibility as the source of unity orwholeness needs to be refigured, if not resolved. As the Left dedicates ever more energyto visibility politics, I am increasingly troubled by the forgetting of the problems of visibilityso successfully articulated by feminist film theorists in the 1970s and 1980s. I am notsuggesting that continued invisibility is the "proper" political agenda for the disenfranchised,but rather that the binary between the power of visibility and the impotency of invisibility is falsifying. There is real power in remaining unmarked; and there areserious limitations to visual representation as a political goal. Visibility is a trap ("Inthis matter of the visible, everything is a trap": Lacan, Four Fundamental Concepts: 93); itsummons surveillance and the law; it provokes voyeurism, fetishism, the

colonialist/imperial appetite for possession. Yet it retains a certain political appeal.Visibility politics have practical consequences; a line can be drawn between a practice(getting someone seen or read) and a theory (if you are seen it is harder for "them" toignore you, to construct a punitive canon); the two can be reproductive. While there is adeeply ethical appeal in the desire for a more inclusive representational landscape andcertainly under-represented communities can be empowered by an enhanced visibility, theterms of this visibility often enervate the putative power of these identities. A much morenuanced relationship to the power of visibility needs to be pursued than the Leftcurrently engages. Arguing that communities of the hitherto under-represented willbe made stronger if representational economies reflect and see them, progressivecultural activists have staked a huge amount on increasing and expanding thevisibility of racial, ethnic, and sexual "others." It is assumed that disenfranchisedcommunities who see their members within the representational field will feel greater pride

in being part of such a community and those who are not in such a community will increasetheir understanding of the diversity and strength of such communities. Adrian Piper, thevisual artist and philosopher, has demonstrated that part of the meaning of raceresides in the perpetual choice to acknowledge or ignore its often-invisiblemarkings.



Evazon 18


No Text to the Alt 2AC

A. Interpretation- the negative must have a clearly marked anddefined alternative text that does not shift through the round. Theydon’t.

B. Voter-1. No Perms - can’t check the link of a non-advocacy- it makes our

job impossible.2. Not Reciprocal- we’re tied to a plan and the negative can shift

their advocacy in the block. Undercuts 2AC strat, allowsshifting to spike offense.



Evazon 19


Floating PIK 2AC

No shifting the alternative’s function- voter for fairness andeducation:A. Moots Perms- can’t check the link of a shifting advocacy- it makes

our job impossible.

B. Not Reciprocal- we’re tied to a plan and the negative can shifttheir advocacy in the block.

C. Undercuts 2AC Strat- allows shifting to spike offense or solve it.



Evazon 20


Alt Condo Bad 2AC

Conditional alt’s are a voter for competitive equity and education:A. Detracts from The K- we lose K education, which also undercutsour agency, turning the K.

B. Moving Target- condo magnifies abuse of having no text or ashifting alt- makes it so they can kick the K without answering ourtheoretical objections.

C. Not Reciprocal- we’re stuck with the plan, even though the 1NCaltered the framework. Either we get to kick our advocacy and theyonly get their discursive links to our new advocacy, or you rejecttheir skewing strat.



Evazon 21


Int’l Fiat Bad 2AC

International Fiat is bad and a voter for fairness and education:

A. Hyper-Regressive- 192 different countries in any combination-

not possible for aff to have offense to each, plus moots 1AC offense,magnifies abuse.

B. Disads Solve Your Offense- net-benefits and relations disads giveus your education.

C. No Opportunity Cost- no body can decide which actor will take onan initative, all their decision making is independent, theireducation is bankrupt.



Evazon 22


Agent CP’s Bad

Agent counterplans are a voter for fairness and education:

A. Ground- steals 1AC, forces us to debate ourselves, nullifies

offense.

B. Vauge Plans- encouraged to spike out of unpredictable actors.

C. Unpredictable- impossible to have offense response to anypossible agent.

D. Topic Education- agent cp’s run on every topic, no uniqueeducation, runs people out of debate.



Evazon 23


Multi-Actor Fiat 2AC

Multi-actor fiat is a voter for fairness and education:

A. Unpredictable- no literature base and an infinite number of

combinations, impossible to have offensive response to thecombination and no way to see it coming.

B. Not and Opportunity Cost- no agent is capable of deciding thesecombinations of actors, not a true trade-off.

C. Single actor fiat solve your offense.



Evazon 24


Consult 2AC

Consultation counterplans are a voter for fairness and education:

A. Unpredictable- infinite amount of agents that could be consulted,

no way to have offensive justification and say no cards for each one.

B. Timeframe Competition is Bad- not true tradeoffs with the plan,kills permutations and disads, because they link to the plan.

C. Hyper-Conditional- three worldviews within one- they can say no,say yes or make mods and claim net benefits off of it, withoutsticking to one. Skews 2AC offense and strat.

D. IR disads solve your offense.



Evazon 25


Multiple Perms Legit 2AC

Multiple permutations are totally fine:

1. Just No Link Arguments- the cp/K is an opportunity cost to the

plan, which makes a perm a no link, or not intrinsic argument, not aseparate world, no offense and proves its key to aff strat.

2. Neg Block Checks Abuse- they get 13 minutes to answer the 2AC,we get 5 minutes to extend the perms, we’ll have to kick some.

3. Reject the arg not the team.



Evazon 26


K/DA Contradiction 2AC

The K and DA contradict, voter for fairness and education:

A. 2AC Strat- impossible to generate offense on both, they can use

it to prove the other position. Makes half of the 2AC irrelevant andslants the side bias heavily negative.

B. Link to Themselves- reject both, they link to their kritik, thatturns the disad and either proves the alt can overcome the residuallink with the perm, or that voting neg can’t overcome their in rounddiscourse.

C. Perm: Do both.



Evazon 27


Conditioning Bad 2AC

Conditions counterplans are a voter for fairness and education:

A. Artifically Competative- the net-benefit does not link to the plan,

but the status quo. This is bad for education, because the cpdoesn’t clash, which removes policy comparisons.

B. Aff Ground- the neg can always generate ground on topicsoutside the aff, no way to generate offense on all of them, slantsdebate to the neg.

C. Infinite Conditions- always can create a new condition for theplan, no way for the aff to have offensive answer to each.

D. Justifies Timeframe Perms- counterplan introduces the element of

time-based competition, have to prove you can’t sequence the aff tosolve the cp. You can- perm: condition aid on _______ then do theplan.

E. Reading the net-benefit as a DA solves your offense.



Evazon 28


2NC CP’s Bad 1AR

New advocacies in the block are a voter for fairness and education:

A. 2AC Time- the 2AC is the first place that we can lose the

debatenew advocacies means neg can shift out of our offense,which devastates 2ac time and strat.

B. No reciprocity- aff can’t replan out of negative offense, wouldmake aff win every debate.

C. Encourages Late Developing Debates- debate restarts in the 1AR,which leaves two speeches to debate, not enough to develop theissue.

D. 2AC Strat- allows negative to steal crucial elements of the 2AC

strategy, makes debating impossible, negative can read 30counterplans and solve our turns.



Evazon 29


2NC Frameworks Bad 1AR

New frameworks in the block are a voter for fairness and education:

A. 2AC Time- the 2AC is the first place that we can lose the debate,

reframing the debate means neg can shift out of our offense, whichdevastates 2ac time and strat.

B. No reciprocity- aff can’t reframe out of negative offense, wouldmake aff win every debate.

C. Encourages Late Developing Debates- debate restarts in the 1AR,which leaves two speeches to debate, not enough to develop theissue.



Evazon 30


Framework 2AC

A. Interpretation- the affirmative gets to weigh their advantages onthe same level as the K.

B. Standards-1. Predictability - key to check unpredictable kritiks, we need

predictable basis of offense for any aff strategy.2. Ground - advantages key to aff ground- must weigh them in

order to measure the worth of the affirmative’s advocacy.3. Solves all your offense, net-benefit of ours.



Evazon 31


Alt Must Be Structural 2AC

The aff should not be held accountable for using a system if astructural alternative to that system cannot be posited in relation:

A. Ground- we can’t respond to what we can’t see.

B. Predictability- no way to predict infinite non-structuralalternatives- could do anything and claim it had an effect, but itwould be impossible to gauge.

C. Voter for fairness and education.



Evazon 32


Alternative Illigit 2AC

Alternative is illigit and a voter for fairness and education.

a. Utopian multi-private actor fiat - if they claim to solve their

impacts everywhere or that everyone does the alt then theyare fiating everyone complies with their mindset, whichdestroys aff ability to respond to the k, they can always fiatout of our offense.

b. ASPEC - they don’t specify who does the alternative, whichmakes it impossible to make role of the ballot arguments orspecific alternative turns, which are vital to generatingoffense against the K.



Evazon 33


Contradiction Bad 2AC

First, Cross-apply their contradictory arguments to one another-we’ll win offense on both-And, contradictions are a voter for fairness and education-

A. 2AC Strat- impossible to generate offense on both, they can useit to prove the other position. Makes half of the 2AC irrelevant andslants the side bias heavily negative.

B. Link to Themselves- reject both, they link to their kritik, thatturns the disad and either proves the alt can overcome the residuallink with the perm, or that voting neg can’t overcome their in rounddiscourse.



Evazon 34


Future Fiat Bad 2AC

Future fiat is a voter for education and fairness:

A. Kills Solvency Deficits- undercuts a key part of aff strategy, kills

ability to weigh the aff and magnifies abusive 1AC stealing.

B. Object Fiat- they fiat solvency, which makes it impossible readturns, they can spike out of them.

C. Err aff, there is no offensive justification for this.



Evazon 35


Attitudinal Fiat Bad 2AC/1NC

Attitudinal fiat is a voter for fairness and education:

A. No solvency advocate- the aff/neg can’t predict the cp/case if

there is no literature base, makes research burden impossibly huge.

B. Not Realistic- not a true opportunity cost/justification of theresolution because you can’t just claim compliance.

C. Utopian, Private Actor Fiat Bad- destroys aff/neg ability torespond to the cp/case, they can use the specificity of their fiat tospike out of our offense.

D. Eff Aff/Neg- no offensive reason why this is good.



Evazon 36


Aff Must Have a Plan 1NC

Affirmative team must defend a plan, not doing so is a voter foreducation and fairness:

A. Moving Target- we have no stable basis from which to generatelinks, which makes 2 sided debate impossible and crushestransformative potential of arguments.

B. No Solvency- no solution to the problem they identify, just aninteresting FYI.

C. Critical Thinking- force them to create a clever way to mixpolitical analysis with critical theory, increases their knowledge of philosophy.

D. They Steal K Ground- they can shift their advocacy to co-opt anyof the ground we might have left, which makes it impossible toanswer the 1AC.

E. We Defend the 1AC is a Bad Standard- no way to analyze thewhole 1AC, and any ground we got would be untenable. Either wecould PIC out of one word and read an insanely small analytical net-benefit, or we have to read theory. INANE DEBATE.

Documents

Aff Theory Essentials