Conditional CP
- Overview Conditionality (condo)
Disposition (dispo)
Unconditional
neg flex
negation theory
- Examples
Conditionality Bad (Affirmative)
Condo is a voter
- Reciprocity – they can kick out of offense on counterplans without consequence, while I can’t kick the aff – dispo solves
- Strat Skew – overspreads the 1AR, letting the 2NR collapse to the under-covered position, or concede defense on the CP and cross apply it to the aff. Both limit clash and critical thinking
- Lower Arg Quality – allows worse args to be in the 1NC, requiring less worthwhile neg research, while asymmetrically increasing aff research burdens Drop the debater – they already skewed this round – punish them for deterrence
Conditionality Good (Negative)
We get [___] condo advocacies Condo is good –
- Neg flex – every counterplan is a logical opportunity cost to the aff we ought test from multiple angles – that’s to key to real world education by searching for the best possible policy option
- Condo forces 1AR efficiency and quality – harder debates are better debates, causing more in-depth clash by requiring debaters to improve to win
- Research – debaters are risk averse and would innovate less if stuck with every counterplan they run – destroys topic education
- No time skew – its inev and reciprocal – we both get 13 minutes, and getting faster/more efficient solves – counterplans requiring net benefits sets a functional limit on breadth over depth Prefer reasonability – competing interps crowds out substance and mandates judge intervention Reject the arg, not the team.
