Theory File
THEORY INDEX
THEORY
INDEX
ASPEC
AT:
ASPEC
****TOPICALITY****
EFFECTS
T
BAD
EFFECTS
T
GOOD
EXTRA
T
BAD
EXTRA
T
GOOD
REASONABLITY
IS
BAD
REASONABILITY
IS
GOOD
TOPICALITY
IS
NOT
A
RVI
TOPICALITY
IS
A
RVI
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
****COUNTERPLAN****
CONDITIONALITY
BAD
CONDITIONALITY
GOOD
DISPOSITIONALITY
BAD
DISPOSITIONALITY
GOOD
CONSULT
CPS
BAD
CONSULT
CPS
GOOD
PICS
BAD
PICS
GOOD
SEVERENCE
PERMS
BAD
SEVERENCE
PERMS
GOOD
FLOATING
ALTS
BAD
FLOATING
ALTS
GOOD
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
1
Theory File
ASPEC
A. Interpretation/definition: The affirmative must specify and agent enacting the plan.
The United States federal Government is three branches and many space agencies.
There are many agencies within the US that enact space policy
Sadah 2011 (Eligar Sadah, PhD President of Astroconsulting International, Research
Associate with the center for Space Studies at the University of Colorado, editor of
Astropolitics. “Politics of Space.” Found in “The Politics of Space; A Survey.”
Routledge. 3-29)
There are three key stages to the making of space policy, which take place in the
following order: (1) The setting of goals by the national leadership on the agenda for
policy-making; (2) The formulation of appropriate means by administrative and executive
agencies to achieve those goals; and (3) the allocation of resources by government to
implement policy (see Illustrations and Documentation: Figure 1.1 Space Politics and
Policy). Yet the initial impulse for space policy will often not come from national
leadership but from advocacy coalitions, which can include political leaders individuals
from administrative and executive agencies, private interest groups, academics and the
space industry. Aside from these advocacy coalitions, there are institutional players who
are regular sources of policy initiatives. Most notable, in the USA, are the civil and
military space programs administered by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the US Air Force (USAF). In recent years, this list has
expanded to include non-governmental actors, especially commercial enterprises,
including both established industrial organizations like the major space contactors and
entrepreneurial enterprises utilizing private capital. Examples of the influence of these
actors are found in the development of telecommunications; global positioning,
navigation and timing systems; remote sensing; and space launch vehicles to support
commercial and military activities.
B. Violation: They don’t specify which agency they are using in the plan.
C. Standards:
1. Ground: We can’t get specific disad links to the specific branches as well as
lose agent cp count like courts and executive order.
2. Limits: without specification the aff could use tiny parts of the United States
federal government and explode the research burden for the neg.
3. Education: If they specify an agent then we get specific education about how
the parts of government function. Without specification we lose in-depth education in the
debate. It also forces better plan writing.
4. Not specifying destroys solvency: as shown in the definition above agent
specification is an important part of creating a working policy. Our card is way better
than Elmore.
D. This is a voter for education and competitive equity.
2
Theory File
AT: ASPEC
A. WM: We specify the United States federal government as our actor
B. WM: We use all three branches of the United States federal government
C. Counter Interpretation:
The United States federal government has 3 branches
U.S. General Services Administration 2011. (USA.gov is an interagency
initiative administered by the U.S. General Services Administration's Office of Citizen
Services and Innovative Technologies. June 29, 2011
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/federal.shtml)
The three branches of U.S. government—legislative, judicial, and executive—carry out
governmental power and functions.
D. Standards
1. Fairness: There are hundreds of small agencies and organizations within the
USFG, specification would destroy substantially increase the negative research
burden while causes hyper specific
2. Resolutional basis: the resolution says United States federal government,
forcing the aff to further define the plan is abusive and totally unpredictable.
3. Topic Specific Education: We should be learning about space exploration not
the many different agencies in the federal government. Topic specific education is the
most predictable.
4. Grounds: Using the whole USFG as an actor is critical to protect aff ground
form abusive pics that could use an infinite number of small agencies or programs.
5. Limits: They over-limit the topic. Forcing the aff to over specify is
6. There is no abuse in this round, you should not vote on potential abuse.
E. Aspec should not be a voter in this round, instead look to reasonability.
3
Theory File
****TOPICALITY****
EFFECTS T BAD
A. Interp: The best way to evaluate the aff is requiring that they must directly increase
USfg exploration and/or development beyond the earth’s mesosphere.
B. Violation: the aff takes too many steps to topical action:
C. Reasons to prefer:
1. Unpredictable: the aff could take an infinite number of steps to reach the topical
action.
2. Allows bad and vague plan writing: there must be more specification understand
the plan action
3. It underlimits the topic: the negative would have to prepare for a large number of
aff cases that would only be topical through solvency. This would explode the
area, which the negative would be required to research and make the debate more
skewed to the affirmative.
D. Voter for the reasons above and topic specific education
4
Theory File
EFFECTS T GOOD
A. WM: We don’t take too many steps. We are on face topical.
B. Counter Interp: The aff can take one step to topical action.
C. Reasons to prefer:
1. Fairness: the negative over limits the topic and forces hyper specific plan texts.
The aff can’t talk about all the insignificant specific pieces of the plan without
requiring page long plan texts.
2. Ground: We don’t spike out of any if their DA links to space exploration and/or
development. It also gives the negative more ground because being effectually
topical provides more links.
3. Fairness: Steps are required to all plans action. How many steps is too many.
Make them name 5 cases that are not effectually topical.
D. Don’t vote on effects topicality because there is no in round abuse and you can look to
reasonability.
5
Theory File
EXTRA T BAD
1. Interpretation: The plan action must be mandated by the resolution and no more
2. Violation: The plan has action that is not mandated by the resolution
3. Reasons to prefer:
A. The negative will always lose to plans that can claim advantages and impacts
that don’t come from action by the resolution.
B. It explodes the research burden for the negative. There is no way we could
predict the infinite amount of plan add ons.
C. Don’t allow them to just sever out of the abuse parts of the plan that are
beyond the topic. They have already hurt our strategy and it is a reason to reject
them.
4. This is a voter for fairness and education
6
Theory File
EXTRA T GOOD
A. WM: Our plan action comes from the resolution
B. Counter interpretation: Plan action should come from the resolution
C. Reasons to prefer:
1. Ground: being extra topical gives them more ground for links.
2. Predictable: Every plan is extra topical. Make them name 3 plans that are not
extra topical
3. There is no in round abuse we don’t claim extra topical advantages so don’t
reject the aff.
D. Look to reasonability. Competing interpretations is just a race to the bottom and
provides no education or context in the debate.
7
Theory File
REASONABLITY IS BAD
Reasonability is a bad standard for debate:
1. It is arbitrary, there is no bright line to an argument on reasonability and so it is
totally unpredictable.
2. It requires judge intervention. The judge has to decide for themselves what is
reasonable instead of focusing on the in round argumentation.
3. Destroys topic specific education: we can discuss important details when
reasonability is used to say that things may be topical.
4. Destroys topicality debate, a stock issue, we won’t get to learn
Competing interpretations is the way to evaluate the debate. It allows for clash to
occurring along with providing a clear bright line for what should be considered topical.
8
Theory File
REASONABILITY IS GOOD
Reasonability is good for debate:
1. Allows for affirmative defense against topicality. Without it aff would always
lose to topicality.
2. Definitions are always taken out of context and are equally arbitrary.
3. It allows us to instead look to issues important to the topic and debate.
9
Theory File
TOPICALITY IS NOT A RVI
You should never vote for the affirmative because they are topical
1. Neg teams topicality to test the whether the aff meets the resolution.
Sometimes, through further examination through topicality, the aff explains how
their plan is topical.
2. Topicality is a stock issue; the aff should meet all stock issues as a prerequisite
of debate, not win because it meets them.
3. RVIs are never explained well enough to vote on, don’t let them explode it or
provide an abuse scenario in the next speech.
10
Theory File
TOPICALITY IS A RVI
Topicality should be a reverse voting issue:
1. It’s reciprocal: If the affirmative can lose on an argument than the negative
should be able to lose on it also.
2. Time Skew: Negative uses topicality as a time skew, many times with out any
intention of going for it.
3. Judges have become unwilling to vote on topicality due to the negative
connotations so making it a burden for both teams stops the trivialization of
topicality in debate.
11
Theory File
****COUNTERPLAN****
CONDITIONALITY BAD
A. Interpretation: The negative can run advocacies unconditionally
B. Violation: They run _____________________________________________
C. Reasons to prefer:
1. Reciprocity: The affirmative is forced to stick with their advocacy and the
negative should not be able to run multiple conditional advocacies in a round.
2. Predictability: The aff is unable to predict which argument the negative is going
to go for in their final speech
3. Education: The best way to get in-depth topic education is learning about an
advocacy throughout the round along with not running contradictory arguments.
4. Limits: There have to be limitations placed on the negative to protect the
affirmative from time skews and having to debate contradictory arguments.
5. You should allow multiple permutations to compensate
D. This is a voting issue for fairness and education. The abuse and strategy abuse has
already been done.
12
Theory File
CONDITIONALITY GOOD
A. Interpretation: The affirmative can one conditional advocacy
B. Reasons to prefer:
1. Fairness: The affirmative has permutations and other conditional arguments the
negative should be allowed a conditional advocacy. It is also key to check against
infinite prep and the first and last speech bias.
2. Education: conditionality give us real world education, if policy makers decide
that a bill in not a good idea they don’t keep pushing for its passage.
3. Encourages critical thinking in the debate though making choices about
whether or not to pass specific policy and strategic argument choice
4. Our interpretation doesn’t allow for multiple advocacies which makes fixes
claims about running contradictory advocacies.
C. There is no in round abuse and reject the argument not the team.
13
Theory File
DISPOSITIONALITY BAD
A. Interpretation: Dispositionality is disguised conditionality. We can’t win without make
argument like perms or theoretical objects to the counterplan, meaning that the argument
is then conditional.
B. Violation:
B. Reasons to prefer:
1. Fairness: The affirmative has to keep the affirmative advocacy throughout the
whole round. Dispo justifies severance permutations
2. This stops huge time skews. The negative could go for the argument that the aff
has spent the least time on, thus wasting half of the 2AC or 1AR.
3. Education: In depth discussion through out the round gives us the most topic
specific education. This education is lost when the neg chooses to drop an
argument like a counterplan.
C. The strategy skew has already happened. This is a reason to reject the argument and
the team.
14
Theory File
DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD
A. Interpretation: The negative can run one dispositional argument and will go for the
argument if the aff straight turns it
B. Reasons to prefer:
1. Fairness: The affirmative has permutations and other conditional arguments the
negative should be allowed a conditional advocacy
2. Switch side debate: The other team can run arguments dispositionally when
they are negative, it is reciprocal
3. Our interpretation doesn’t allow for multiple advocacies which makes solves
for claims about running contradictory advocacies.
Dispositionality is not a voter, reject the argument not the team.
15
Theory File
CONSULT CPs BAD
A. Interpretation: the negative can present counter plans that use the United States federal
government as the actor that will implement a policy.
Consult CP are illegitimate because
1. They steal aff ground: the negative claims to solve for case advantages these
leaves very little ground for the affirmative to attack the counterplan.
2. Education: We don’t get to learn about important parts of the topic, instead we
discuss agents that are used on every topic. This destroys topic specific education.
3. Explode the aff research burden: The aff would have to research the huge
numbers of governments, agencies, and private corporations that could enact the plan.
These makes the research burden unmanageable and would create a negative bias.
4. Lit doesn’t check: Just because someone talked about the actor doesn’t mean it
is predictable. Even when there is literature, consult counterplans still explode the topic.
5. Fairness: You should allow the permutation do CP to make up for the in round
abuse.
6. Consult counterplans allow teams to run an advocacy with no proof of solvency
but claim to solve for 100% of the affirmative case.
Voter for the reasons stated above and abuse.
16
Theory File
CONSULT CPs GOOD
Consult CPs are legitimate
1. They tests of the aff US federal government key warrant which has become a
very important part of policy debate.
2. Consulting is real world and forces research on different parts of the topic.
3. Allow education about different methods of solving problems approached by
the affirmative.
4. Forces good plan writing to defend each world used in the plan text.
17
Theory File
PICs BAD
Plan Inclusive Counterplans are Illegitimate
1. They steal aff ground: the negative claims to solve for case advantages these
leaves very little ground for the affirmative to attack the counterplan.
2. Allows the negative to spike out of specific words in the plan text.
3. They lead to vague plan writing to avoid specific plan inclusive counterplans
4. They justify severance permutations because they are the only type of perms
that function with a counter plan with steals the affirmative.
Voter for fairness and education
18
Theory File
PICs GOOD
A. Interpretation:
Ground: Most counterplans contain some parts of the plan, it would overlimit the
topic to not allow pics. The ground loss would create debate about a couple really generic
counterplans that the affirmative could infinitely prep.
Better plan writing and research occurs through pics. We get to analyze specific
parts of the plan and ultimately create better policy.
They allow for better discussion of solvency, which is critical to topic specific
education.
B. This is not a voter because there is no in round abuse
19
Theory File
***PERM***
SEVERENCE PERMS BAD
A. Interpretation: A permutation MUST include all of the plan and part of the CP.
B. Violation: They take out part of the plan that contains ______________________
_____________________________________________________________________
C. Severance perms are illegitimate:
1. Moving Target: They allow the affirmative to change their advocacy mid
round. These means the neg can get stable links or offense from the case.
Allowing this kind of clarification destroys the need for topicality.
2. Steal Neg Ground: Severence perms allow the aff to functually steal the CP or
to spike out of our neg benefits.
3. Predictability: There is no way to predict which part of the aff they will sever
from
4. Not reciprocal: We can’t kick out of some of the action of the counter plan
during the debate.
5. Encourages bad plan writing: they won’t have to develop a good plan if the aff
is allowed to jettison the parts they don’t like every round.
D. This is a voter for education and fairness
20
Theory File
SEVERENCE PERMS GOOD
Counter Interpretation: When the negative runs a PIC the aff gets one severance
permutation.
Severance perms are justified
Education: We get to learn about different parts of the topic through debating the
utility of specific parts of the plan.
Better plan writing occurs when you can try out different versions of the plan
Real World: policy makers shift policies all the time.
Fairness: Key to answering back abusive counterplans and dealing with
conditional advocacies.
not a voter
21
Theory File
INTRINSIC PERMS BAD
Intrinsic perms are illegitimate
1. Create a moving target because the aff could add anything to the perm text.
2. Fairness: The perm could always be conterplan plus and the negative would
always lose to it.
3. Steal neg ground: the negative is able to run counterplans which are different
from the topic, a
4. Allows vague plan writing because theycould just add parts in the
permutation.
5. It destroys critical thinking because the aff can just add random things to the
CP and call it a perm.
Voter for fairness and education
22
Theory File
INTRINSIC PERMS GOOD
A. Interpretation: the aff should get one intrinsic permutation.
B. Reasons to prefer:
1. They allow for better education: we can learn about different parts of the topic
and ultimately create the best policy soltion.
2. They give more ground to the negative in providing new links to the
affirmative.
3. They are a tool to defend the aff against vague cps and conditionality.
4. There is no abuse- we don’t claim any new advantages from the intrinsic part of
the permutation.
C. Reject the argument not the team.
23
Theory File
****KRITIKS****
FLOATING ALTS BAD
A. Interpretation: The alternative must be textual with a fiated action
B. Violation:_____________________________________________________________
C. Reasons to prefer:
1. Education: We can’t debate about the specific action occurring with a
vague alternative text along with no fiated action.
2. Fairness: allowing an unstable alternative means that they can shift out
of our specific arguments
3. Forces better k writing: they will be able to write better more specific ks
in the future.
D. Voter for fairness and education
24
Theory File
FLOATING ALTS GOOD
A. Interpretation: The negative can kritik the plan while providing an alternative.
B. Reasons to prefer:
1. Fairness: The affirmative gets to put “we’ll clarify” at the bottom of plan text.
We should be allowed some ground to clarify
2. Limits: They over limit the debate by making us specify further in the kritik.
3. Ground: If all the k alts were hyper specific then that makes them more
permable and bad, Also a vague alt gives them more link ground.
4. Education: We should learn about the implications of the plan through the
alternative and that can happen through a vague alt.
C. Not a voter
D. Reject the argument not the team.
25