Answer to Condo good cp theory.docx

7/27/2019 Answer to Condo good cp theory.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/answer-to-condo-good-cp-theorydocx 1/17

Conditionality Bad



**Notes



Read Me BEFORE the debate!!

There are three important things to know about this file –

a. It should not be your plan “A” – you should be prepared to defend your affirmative.

This shouldn’t be a shortcut to making better arguments. Theory is difficult to win and

going for this argument in any other circumstance than as a plan “B” isn’t helpful.

At the same time, sometimes you don’t have a good set of responses or blocks to

work with and you need a winning option. That’s what this file is designed for.

b. You should READ THE 2AC SLOWLY – this is a critical part of the strategy both

because it sets up the very first argument in the 1ar overview and because it’s slightly

different than most conditionality bad arguments. Your judge will never notice the

difference unless you read this at a VERY SLOW pace

c. Read the file COMPLETELY before reading this in a debate – you’ll need to know the

1ar blocks well if you’re the 2ac. Those are the basis for answering CX questions in the

2ac and for extending these arguments in the 2ar



**2ac



Conditionality Bad – 2ac Shell

Conditionality is bad –

a. Equity – it makes stable 2ac offense impossible – unlimited “negative flexibility”

only produces one-sided, unfair benefits

b. Decision-making – it limits argument depth and pushes decision-making into the

last rebuttals – these are both vital portable skills

c. perf con bad – Kills education – forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory

answers

d. Counter-interpretation – they get one conditional advocacy or multiple

dispositional advocacies



**1ar



1ar Overview

Conditionality is bad – four arguments up top

1. Vote on the exact text of your flow of the 2ac versus the 2nc – we slowed down at

our own expense in a time-pressed 2ac – don’t reward the 2nc for racing through a

theory block unclearly by allowing new 2nr extrapolation

2. Equity – yes, conditionality has benefits – they’re HEAVILY weighted towards the

Negative. Equity comes first – debate is a competitive game where we debate the

EVENLY BALANCED topics instead of the most interesting. Why else are we debating

transportation?

The Neg will be fine without multiple conditional advocacies. Almost everyone flips

Neg in elims. There’s a reason: conditionality creates a larger chance of victory by

allowing an inequitable level of flexibility. We can’t generate unique 2ac offense andwe only get one constructive to generate offense

3. Decision-making – research and pre-round decision-making solve their offense – our

interpretation solves argument depth and decision-making by rewarding early choices

that deepen explanation. Critical thinking and decision-making skills effect every

moment of our lives and improve policy-making.

4. Use a cost-benefit paradigm – our interpretation solves their benefits – it allows

one conditional advocacy or multiple dispositional advocacies. They don’t have any

real cost to our counter-interpretation.

(****) Cost-benefit is the best way to decide debates – we have evidence to frame

how you should make your decision**NOTE – ONLY READ IF YOU’RE WILLING TO INVEST LOTS OF TIME IN CONDITIONALITY IN THE 1AR

Hardin, ‘8 – Don Bradford Jr., JD from Alabama Law, Alabama Law Review, 59 Ala. L. Rev. 1135

Against this background, CBA came to prominence as part of a larger administrative law decisionmaking

paradigm--so-called "comprehensive rationality"--which supplanted the incrementalismof the previous era.

Under the comprehensive rationality paradigm, a policymaker was to "specify the goal he seeks to

attain[,] . . . identify all possible methods of reaching [the] objective[,] . . . evaluate how effective each

method will be in achieving the goal[,] . . . [and] select the alternative that will make the greatest

progress toward the desired outcome." "The most demanding aspect of [comprehensive rationalitywas] the care with which it require[d] policymakers to consider the consequences of each policy

option." CBA was designed to meet this demand, and was touted as "a practical way of assessing the

desirability of projects." As a result, Congress began to enact statutes that required various forms of CBA.

Some of the earliest examples, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, passed in 1969, loosely applied CBA to administrative

decisionmaking. As time passed, the requisite CBA became more concrete and particularized. For example, the Water Pollution Control Act

Amendments, passed in 1972, required a "'limited cost-benefit analysis' . . . intended to 'limit the application of technology only where the

[benefits are] wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction,'" and the Toxic Substances Control Act, passed

in 1976, authorized the EPA to regulate substances that posed an "unreasonable risk" to health or safety and required consideration of the

benefits of the substance and the economic costs of the contemplated regulation. While the late seventies saw a surge of legislative interest in



CBA for government decisionmaking, it was the order of a President, not Congressional enactments, that vaulted CBA to

prominence as the regulatory decisionmaking paradigm of the administrative state.

Now, onto the line-by-line..



A2 2nc Choice Solves

They say only going for one in the 2nc solves – it doesn’t solve 2ac strategy or

education – this just pushes decision-making into the 1ar, the most time pressed

speech. That means it doesn’t solve our equity or decision-making disadvantages.



A2 Everything is Conditional

They say all arguments are conditional – no, they’re not – if we turn a DA you’re stuck

with it and if we prove your CP or alternative is bad you aren’t



A2 Neg Flex

They say neg flex – two responses:

We solve – our interpretation enables negative flexibility while ensuring the Aff has an

equitable right to generate offense – they allow an unfair level of flexibility



A2 SQ is Always a Logical Option

They say the status quo is always a logical option – three responses:

1. Debate is different – policymakers don’t face arbitrary time constrains in explaining

their arguments

2. Pre-round prep solves this – they can research various positions and responses to

determine the best one before the debate

3. Fairness turns logical policy-making – if they skew our 2ac and 1ar then we don’t

have a fair chance to prove the status quo is worse than the plan



A2 Time Skew Inevitable

They say time skews are inevitable – two responses –

a. We can fix other sources of time skews – we can do speed drills or get more

efficient. Our argument isn’t about time, it’s about strategy. They get to read just as

many advocacies if they read them dispositionally

b. Even if some time skew is inevitable, degree matters. Conditional counterplans

open up new entirely new worlds with new argumentative interactions, which force

us to waste time with no strategic benefit



A2 Your Interp Links to your DAs

They say our interpretation links to our offense – two responses –

a. Our argument is different than the one they assume – it isn’t that you force us to

contradict ourselves or that the 2ac shouldn’t be a very difficult speech – our

argument is that we can’t develop meaningful offense and that is unfair because they

get to develop several meaningful forms of offense without also facing some risk.

If you had one conditional advocacy we could still read add-on advantages to the

affirmative and if you had multiple dispositional advocacies we could read DAs to one

of the CPs and stick them with it. Either way we’d have a chance to develop some

form of offense

Answer to Condo good cp theory.docx

Documents

Transcript of Answer to Condo good cp theory.docx