wham theory
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
1/52
SDI 2006 1
GHD Theory
Theory
Theory.............................................................................................................................................................................1
Neg Fiat Good.................................................................................................................................................................2
Neg Fiat Bad...................................................................................................................................................................3
Agent CPs Good............................................................................................................................................................4
Agent CPs Bad...............................................................................................................................................................5PICs Good......................................................................................................................................................................6
PICs Bad........................................................................................................................................................................7
Dispositional CPs Good.................................................................................................................................................8
Dispositional CPs Bad...................................................................................................................................................9
Dispositional PICs Good..............................................................................................................................................10
Dispositional PICs Bad................................................................................................................................................11
Conditional Advocacies Good......................................................................................................................................12
Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.)......................................................................................................13Conditional Advocacies Bad.........................................................................................................................................14
Consult CPs Good........................................................................................................................................................15
Consult CPs Bad..........................................................................................................................................................16
2NC Counterplans Good...............................................................................................................................................17
2NC CPs Bad...............................................................................................................................................................18Textual Competition Best..............................................................................................................................................19
Functional Competition Best........................................................................................................................................20
50 State Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................................2150 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................................................................................................................................31Performance 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............................................................................................................................................................39Vagueness Bad..............................................................................................................................................................40
Test Case Fiat Good......................................................................................................................................................41
Test Case Fiat Bad.........................................................................................................................................................42
ASPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................43
AT: ASPEC....................................................................................................................................................................44
OSPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................45AT: OSPEC...................................................................................................................................................................46
Floating PIKs Good.....................................................................................................................................................47Floating PIKs Bad........................................................................................................................................................48
No Text to Alt Good......................................................................................................................................................49
No text to Alt Bad.........................................................................................................................................................50
Err Neg on Theory........................................................................................................................................................51
Err Aff on Theory..........................................................................................................................................................52
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
2/52
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, Its 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. Its 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 betrue.
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 Shell1. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole
resolution, reciprocally, Its now only the negatives job to disprove the plan.
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
6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
3/52
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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
4/52
SDI 2006 4
GHD Theory
Agent CPs Good
The Offense
1. Key to negative ground, half of all CPs run are agent CPs
2. Tests the affirmative plan- 90% of policy is implementation, we prove their policy is90% 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 policychoices matter very little if the
mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "Whatpercentage ofthe workof 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 DAs they have to our agent
4. Makes the aff defend their plan, why would they specify ____________ if we cant have
a debate on it.
The Defense
1. Its predictable, theyre constantly run and we didnt pick some obscure actor
2. Lit checks abuse- There arent many agencies that someone will advocate should do the
plan
3. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole
resolution, reciprocally, Its now only the negatives job to disprove the plan.
4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
5/52
SDI 2006 5
GHD Theory
Agent CPs Bad
1. The CP is topical, theyre 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 wouldnt pass the plan get over it.
6. Voter for fairness and education
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
6/52
SDI 2006 6
GHD Theory
PICs Good
Offense:
1. Make the aff defend their whole plan, theyve 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- theyll learn to defend against PICs
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 its the only thing that gets taken beyond
each round and
b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximizeeducation, 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 itdefend 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
7/52
SDI 2006 7
GHD Theory
PICs Bad
1. Infinite regression: You can PIC out of my friend Ben, the aff has no reason that doesnt
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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
8/52
SDI 2006 8
GHD Theory
Dispositional CPs 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 hes later convinced is bad he can stop
advocating it
4. Checks back aff advantage- We need some leverage against unforeseen parts of their
case- theyve got infinite prep.
5. Perms are worse- They operate in more worlds
Defense
1. The balls 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 DAs bad, we routinely kick disads, kritiks and case turns
3. Reciprocol- aff can kick advantages that arent 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
9/52
SDI 2006 9
GHD Theory
Dispositional CPs Bad
Offense
1. Just conditionality in disguise- the neg knows we cant strategically straight turn it.
2. Kills in depth education- We dont 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 CPs and defend the squo, theyll
just force us to perm
5. Moving target- We cant test their advocacy if we dont 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 impactturns v. net benefits than accept dispo, forcing straight turns is bad.
7. Voter for fairness
Defense
1. Straight turns dont check abuse- Its suicide not to perm the CP, we have not lit. base
for offense
2. Perms dont check abuse- Its a test of competitiveness not an advocacy, this justifies
severance and intrinsic perms
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
10/52
SDI 2006 10
GHD Theory
Dispositional PICs 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- theyve got infinite prep.
3. Make the aff defend their whole plan, theyve 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 dont have to stick to it
c. Real world is key to education because its the only thing that gets taken beyondeach round and
d. 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. Not uniquely abusive, theres no real reason why dispo pics are worse than regular
dispositional CPs or unconditional PICs- They have to prove both of these are bad
before this is a legit argument
2. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
11/52
SDI 2006 11
GHD Theory
Dispositional PICs Bad
1. Dispo PICs are conditionality in disguise, they do part of our plan so we have to perm-
conditionality bad its a time and strat skew
2. We cant straight turn the CP because we dont have the case offense against it- werenot going to put the debate on one defensive answer
3. Voter for fairness
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
12/52
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.
a. Real world is key to education because its 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 rules5. 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, well go for one reason to reject the aff, theyll have the last
speech to say why not.
4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
13/52
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 werent 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 its 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. Its 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
14/52
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 wed have to at least cover themall so they dont develop one in the block.
3. Moving Target bad- Hurts fairness as well as education, we dont know what the issues
in the debate are until the 2NR.
4. Most real world- Policy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation and Ive
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
6. Voter for fairness and education
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 doesnt check abuse: Its just a test of competitiveness, advocated perms justify
intrinsicness.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
15/52
SDI 2006 15
GHD Theory
Consult CPs Good
Offense
1. Real world Education- We increase the breadth of education- we shouldnt be ignorant
of international politics and interactions between nations
a. Real world is key to education because its the only thing that gets taken beyondeach 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
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, DAs, 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 NationalService
3. Not delay- We wont non unique or no link your disad based on timeframe- we defend
the immediacy of plan passage.
4. Research inevitable- We couldve 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
6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
16/52
SDI 2006 16
GHD Theory
Consult CPs 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 constructiveto 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 CPs are
bad --the Neg can non-unique DAs to the CP because its passed later after consultation
5. Conditional fiat creates a double bindif we argue that theyll 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 CPs void the round of topic specific education to debate non
germane net benefits from thousands of potential actors.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
17/52
SDI 2006 17
GHD Theory
2NC Counterplans Good
2NC counterplans are legitimate because its a constructive and key to offset unfair 2AC
add-ons and to finding the best policy
First is Defense1. Its a constructive
2. Time and strat skews inevitable, faster, smarter teams exist
3. Argument development answers arent responsive, otherwise the aff would always get
the last word on impacts
4. Its 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- Its 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 cant know what the aff includes until theyre 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 its 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 dont vote on ANWR I know how we can solve
global warming, Senate wont say shut up Bill youre too late. (Ted Kennedy and they
might.)
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
18/52
SDI 2006 18
GHD Theory
2NC CPs 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 DAs and solve
better.
5. Not reciprocal- Itd 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 couldve read the CP in the 1NC and wed 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
19/52
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 anunpredictable moving target.
3. Forces better plan writingbetter for negative ground on all issues and better debate to
avoid procedural and vagueness debates.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
20/52
SDI 2006 20
GHD Theory
Functional Competition Best
1. Textual Doesnt test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldnt 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 theyrewritten 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 isnt 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.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
21/52
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 StateGovernment 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 theNational Governors' Conference to strengthen even further the conference by reorganizing it to better meetthe 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.
6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
22/52
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 dont 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
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
7. Voter for fairness and education
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
23/52
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 doesnt debate an action if Britain will do it for them
3. Come out from under that rock- The US isnt the only country that does things, this is
key to real world education.
a. real world is key to education because its 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
4. Their ignorance justifies imperialism and racism- The US isnt the only actor in the
world, its not our job to fix everything.
Defense1. Not outside judges jurisdiction- The theory of opportunity cost, the US cant do it if
another country already did or will
2. Not the same as object fiat- we dont 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 isnt competitive, the perm takes away all abuse,
otherwise its fair anyway.
6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
24/52
SDI 2006 24
GHD Theory
International Fiat Bad
1. Impossible research burden- There are 192 countries that could pass the plan that wed
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
6. Voter for fairness and education
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
25/52
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
26/52
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, thats an infinite number of combinations wed have to research
4. Artificially competitive- Since theres more than one actor theres no standard of
opportunity cost, meaning the CP isnt a reason to reject the affirmative
5. Voter for fairness and competitive equity
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
27/52
SDI 2006 27
GHD Theory
Object Fiat Good
Note: First say why you dont use object fiat, cuz it pretty much sucks-you arent going to win
this theory
Object fiat isnt so bad1. Its still negative ground- we have all advocacy outside the resolution
2. No bright line- The aff cant 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
education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed
4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
28/52
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 cant 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 shouldnt act to stop genocide
because that war shouldnt be happening in the first place.
5. Vote down the Neg for fairness, otherwise counter planning no war is a no risk
option.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
29/52
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 anatmospheric 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 tomorrows 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 asthe 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 MrPeres and Mr Arafat. Fifth, the Utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure group, countervailingthe 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 cant. 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 ortechnicians 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, inthe 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 contextof the debate. And if we find a way to maximize education and make the world better
than the rules should be changed.
3. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
30/52
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-
a. real world is key to education because its the only thing that helps debaters
beyond the context of debate andb. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize
education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed
2. Ground- we dont get to argue alternative solvency.
3. Aff would never win- every round wed 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.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
31/52
SDI 2006 31
GHD Theory
Performance Contradictions Good
Offense:
1. Negation theory- Debate has changed the affirmative doesnt 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 plans 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 theyre 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 theres really a perf con they could just concede one side and cross apply thosearguments to the other, but theres no double turn in the negatives postions.
3. No abuse- We dont 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- Theyve had infinite prep to block each position individually.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
32/52
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 theirother
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 dont and we have to argue for their CP to argue the
K.
4. False advocacies bad- This proves they dont 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
7. 2NR doesnt check abuse- We base our offense off of the 1NC, by the 2NR were already
screwed.
8. Voter for fairness
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
33/52
SDI 2006 33
GHD Theory
Severance Perms Good
Note: Dont admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isnt
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 perms legit as long as we dont sever out of planks of the plan necessary for
solvency.
2. More Real world, bills always have parts stricken from them.
a. real world is key to education because its the only thing that helps debatersbeyond 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
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 thats our ground.
5. Not a voter, its an argument why we shouldnt get the perm
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
34/52
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
35/52
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
36/52
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 wouldnt let them sever out of it
3. Just as bad as plan text severance- Ks are to representations as DAs are to the plan
4. Encourages vague plan writing- If the negative is only stuck to their text theyll write
vague plans that they can weasel out of DA and CP links
5. Dont 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- its 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.
9. Voter for fairness
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
37/52
SDI 2006 37
GHD Theory
Intrinsic Perms Good
Note: Dont admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isnt
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-thats 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
Defense1. We still prove the plan is a good idea, all the plan is in the perm. The net benefit to the
CP isnt 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
38/52
SDI 2006 38
GHD Theory
Intrinsic Perms Bad
1. Not a perm, its 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 thestarving kids in Africa
3. Kills clash- The affirmative doesnt 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.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
39/52
SDI 2006 39
GHD Theory
Vagueness Good
Offense
1. Education- We increase the breadth of topic specific education, we learn about a lotquickly 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- Dont let them tell you what they couldnt 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 theyd just
say they have doubts about the plan
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
40/52
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 thatdepend on a stable plan text. Also, CP competitiveness is impossible to interpret
because we dont 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 in2000 fourth addition accessed via dictionary.com
6. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
41/52
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 dont 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 theres 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 bedrafted 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 dont require your CPs 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, theyve ordered parties to re-litigate when they dont feel they get ground for
what they want to rule.
David OBrien, Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Storm Center: TheSupreme Court in American Politics, 2000, p. 227-228.The current Courts 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 inlegitimating its policies. The Court thus functions like a roving commission, selecting and decidingonly
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 noexecutive or legislative authority; it doesnt 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 ofthem. 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 whichindicates it was then acting as a court of appeal over the lower federal courts. The Courts 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.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
42/52
SDI 2006 42
GHD Theory
Test Case Fiat Bad
1. Predictability- We cant predict agents outside the resolution that are necessary to bring
the case to lower courts and up to the Supreme Court
2. Ground- We cant run specific links to test cases if they dont specify what case theyrule 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
43/52
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 didnt 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 theagents is unique from other agents making later specification render a specific negative
strategy null.
2. GroundSpecification key to DA links like politics and courts as well as process
counterplans
3. Education- 90% of policy is implementation
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 policychoices matter very little if the
mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "Whatpercentage ofthe workof 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.
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 isnt an actor- all three branches cannot pass a policy as one.
6. Irreversible time skew - Granting us whatever links we presented doesnt 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
44/52
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 dontlack 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 DAs.
Defense
1. No Resolution mandate- The resolution says the USFG, it doesnt 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. Theres 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 couldve 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 CPs
8. Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never
a reason to reject the aff
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
45/52
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 cant 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 doesnt fiat the entire United States Federal Government
as a whole body, this violates the term Government:
Blacks 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
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
46/52
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 proceduralcounterplans
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
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 policychoices matter very little if the
mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "Whatpercentage ofthe workof 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.
4. They overlimitno plan affects every single part of the USFGthere 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 dont specify, we can dodge out of your disad links and
counterplan competitiveness by saying we dont defend that agent.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
47/52
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
48/52
SDI 2006 48
GHD Theory
Floating PIKs Bad
1. The judge doesnt vote aff to say the USFG should pass the aff for a certain reason- they
just intellectually support the plan, fiat doesnt mean the same representations carry
over
2. Ground- Worse than PICs 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 theyre piking out of a representation, we never know what
theyre really advocating
6. Negation theory says they have to prove the plan is a bad idea, they dont theyre not
only advocating the resolution they advocate the plan
7. Fiat means that the polices are identical- they dont textually compete
8. Education- Theres a point where depth of education gets to be ridiculous- they ruin
topic specific education
9. Voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
49/52
SDI 2006 49
GHD Theory
No Text to Alt Good
Offense
1. Shatters the critique- Our criticism cant 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 didnt understand the alternative we could have explained
it to them
5. The tag is the text, just because we didnt label it doesnt mean its not there.
6. No moving target- We have a stable advocacy, we just dont contextualize it- its still in
the evidence
7. They still could have permed the K, its not our fault they didnt choose to.
8. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
50/52
SDI 2006 50
GHD Theory
No text to Alt Bad
1. Reciprocity- Youd laugh at an aff that proposes a plan but didnt 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 dont know what the alternative actually is until the
rebuttals, wasting our only constructive to create offense against the K.
4. Cant prove competitiveness- We dont know what we can perm if theres no text, and
theyll just change their alt accordingly
5. Voter for fairness- Its irreversible damage.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
51/52
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 Were forced to debate whatever case they chose.
-
8/14/2019 WHAM Theory
52/52
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 protectthe 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- weve got lives, but their ground for counterplans and disads is
infinite