38 replies to this topic

[kevinwy]

PadraigMcMahon said:

Unless you are running contradictory advocacies, you can avoid the whole Condo Bad debate by being dispositional.

No, I really don't think you can. Dispositionality is the same as conditionality; a smart team will force permutations by adding extraneous planks to the counterplan that the aff will need to permute if they don't want to have artificial net benefits as disadvantages to the plan. Moreover, dispositionality is probably awful; it's an excuse to avoid the conditionality debate by creating a false dichotomy: 'don't make necessary arguments OR you're not allowed to run theory'. Simultaneously, it also doesn't access the best arguments to defend conditionality (such as best policy option, which argues that a logical policy-maker shouldn't be forced to choose between two bad policies when they could have the option of sticking to the status quo).

Shinku-hadoken said:

When I was referring to dispo, I was talking about reciprocity and how the neg doesn't have to be unconditional, not about the structural differences in debate (which is why I had mentioned it wasn't really a side bias argument (well, maybe it is)).

You're misunderstanding Rohan's argument. This is an answer to the "dispositionality" counter-interpretation (and further offense that dispositionality as a status can't access). Because the affirmative has more time to prepare their arguments and research all possible counter-arguments, it's a rigged game in a world of dispositionality. If the negative runs a bad counterplan, they're screwed, because the aff will just make solvency arguments and disadvantages to the counterplan. In the world of conditionality, they can at least choose another world to go for and have several options to make the most of what they have. This is the same argument as 'negative flexibility': because the affirmative gets to choose the locus of the debate and prepare for it, the negative should be able to test it from multiple angles, which has two main advantages

(1) ensuring the plan must be a very good idea from several perspectives, forcing better plan construction

(2) providing the negative with the ability to beat the affirmative from multiple angles, which matches negative ground more closely with an intrinsically larger affirmative ground

Shinku-hadoken said:

And side bias is answered with- We have to debate neg too,

No, it's not; if the aff has a structural advantage without conditionality, the debate is more unfair or less education than it otherwise could be, which provides a defense of conditionality.

Shinku-hadoken said:

neg gets the block,

Also not responsive; 'aff bias' in this case refers to innate argumentative advantages (such has having more prep time to answer arguments than the neg does to make them), rather than structural advantages (which are about equal, because having the first and last speech checks back the block)

Shinku-hadoken said:

quit whining. Also see "best policy option" above and any other points that hurt education (which comes first ofc).

The educational impact to best policy option would outweigh - teaching illogical decisionmaking disables a primary pedagogical benefit from debate, namely the idea to do logical cost-benefit analysis to better make choices for yourself in a rational or logical manner. You also didn't explain how it hurts education to learn about the plan from multiple angles.

Shinku-hadoken said:

Running infinite contradictory worlds makes it impossible for the aff to win.

(1) incorrect: if the aff can defend their plan, they can answer each argument - they'll have to in other rounds regardless
(2) not infinite - you only have eight minutes to argue against the plan, which is reciprocated by the fact that the aff has eight minutes to answer

Shinku-hadoken said:

Aff strategy outweighs as well cuz it's impossible to determine whether the plan or the alternative is better since we don't have our best strategy against the world the negative chooses to advocate, turning their offense.

...this is a non-sequitur. What about conditionality makes the aff suddenly unable to argue against a counterplan or critique alternative to prove that it's 'better'? You need to explain that part.

Shinku-hadoken said:

Also, we're not saying alternate worlds are bad, but that conditional worlds are uniquely bad.

...this is just a meaningless manipulation of debate jargon. Conditional worlds are necessary to have alternate worlds, because otherwise the neg would be forced to go for contradictions.

Shinku-hadoken said:

Also the 1 condo K/CP interpretation solves for this as well.

Many teams only run one conditional option. This also doesn't solve (although it does mitigate) best policy option, because it still imposes an arbitrary constraint on the negative that limits their ability to test the plan from one conditional option. Moreover, utilizing this counter-interpretation makes much of the reasons conditionality is bad unaccessible as offense to the affirmative.

[jwright]

I don't think you should leave this up as the "official" guide to conditionality. The purpose of this forum would be better served if you created discussion threads & linked to debate textbooks & the SDI encyclopedia (which everyone can edit).

[Lil J Eezus]

Quote

Originally Posted by Shinku-hadoken:
The last status is unconditional, where the neg may NEVER kick an advocacy, regardless of any conditions. This is usually used with a team that runs only one advocacy (usually a large-ass K) and is used to avoid theory arguments (there is uncondo bad, but it's really stupid, as it says abuse good).

if anyone read uncondo bad against me, and that abuse was good, id probably run 5 new T's in the 2nr

[Ben Hawtof]

Red Spy said:

Basically, there are three ways the neg can run advocacies: Conditional, Dispositional, and Unconditional.


This is opposed to dispositionality (dispo), where the neg may NOT kick an advocacy unless certain conditions are met. Usually, the condition is that if the Aff makes a perm, they can kick it. However, dispo can take on a variety of interpretations (i.e. cp can be kicked if theoretically proven illegitimate), so it is always necessary to ask what the neg's interpretation of dispositionality is. This is also subject to theory, though to a lesser extent.


This thread will cover the first condition, conditionality.

Can't teams just claim dispo as whatever they want if you don't ask them to clarify? I know one team I faced that said dispo meant that if we permed the CP they could kick it.

[Red Spy]

Ben Hawtof said:

Can't teams just claim dispo as whatever they want if you don't ask them to clarify? I know one team I faced that said dispo meant that if we permed the CP they could kick it.

That is correct. This is why, as stated above, it is indeed NECESSARY to ask for their interpretation of dispositionality.

[Mr. T]

why is 1 k, 1 cp a good interpt?

[Red Spy]

Mr. T said:

why is 1 k, 1 cp a good interpt?

It allows for a test of methodology and an alternative policy option, which gives the neg plenty of ground. Dispo has no unique offense against this interpretation, and this interpretation also plays well towards judge biases.

[katiwompas008]

ohheywhatsup?!, on 15 July 2010 - 08:17 AM, said:

Thanks for clarifying, I intend to have my novies on here soon and this will help them!

true dat

[thechillsauce]

I've heard an answer to Condo Bad, that under our interp, somebody could read 10 T-Violations and it would have the same impacts. How could I answer this?

[DML]

thechillsauce, on 27 November 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

I've heard an answer to Condo Bad, that under our interp, somebody could read 10 T-Violations and it would have the same impacts. How could I answer this?

structural factors check 10 T violations - there are only so many pertinent words in the resolution that the aff doesn't meet - there's like 12 words/phrases in the resolution and 4 of them are "Resolved", "The USFG", "should", and "and/or" which you're not gonna hear a T violation on if you're reading an aff you can say condo bad with. Multiple T violations don't cause nearly the same strat skew because people won't define "development" two different ways or whatever because of potential cross-applications and we meet arguments. The same doesn't hold true for conditionality - the counterplans/Ks operate in different worlds and offense really can't be cross-applied from one flow to another.

[thechillsauce]

DML, on 28 November 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

structural factors check 10 T violations - there are only so many pertinent words in the resolution that the aff doesn't meet - there's like 12 words/phrases in the resolution and 4 of them are "Resolved", "The USFG", "should", and "and/or" which you're not gonna hear a T violation on if you're reading an aff you can say condo bad with. Multiple T violations don't cause nearly the same strat skew because people won't define "development" two different ways or whatever because of potential cross-applications and we meet arguments. The same doesn't hold true for conditionality - the counterplans/Ks operate in different worlds and offense really can't be cross-applied from one flow to another.

Thanks Dustin, I love the cute animal. When are you going to replace that with a picture of Dianan, or is it Custin? How about Ciatin?

[DML]

thechillsauce, on 28 November 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Thanks Dustin, I love the cute animal. When are you going to replace that with a picture of Dianan, or is it Custin? How about Ciatin?

[hybriddebate]

Can you tell me about when negs run condo is so good it justifies voting for them in the 2nr (this is after 1ar drops condo bad)?

[Rawrcat]

hybriddebate, on 17 February 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Can you tell me about when negs run condo is so good it justifies voting for them in the 2nr (this is after 1ar drops condo bad)?

If the 1ar drops condo, there's no real reason for the neg to go for it. If they read an RVI on condo, well, that's a bad argument. RVI's on theory like that are more useful to weigh as offense against the other team when they go for theory like that.

[bdebate]

Can't you also run conditionality if Neg runns a lot of off case, like I'm talking 13 disads in the 1NC and a shit load of on-case in the 2NC

[Maury]

bdebate, on 18 February 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

Can't you also run conditionality if Neg runns a lot of off case, like I'm talking 13 disads in the 1NC and a shit load of on-case in the 2NC

That has nothing to do with conditionality. You should just straight turn 1 of the disads for a large period of time and think of arguments that can apply to many flows at once. For example, if you read 1 card that "space stuff is happening now" then you can non-unique the link to all of their disads at once. I doubt it would be possible for someone to read 13 off-case positions in the 1NC and have any of them be developed at all, so CX is a good place to point out obvious lacks in their positions (missing internal links, no uniqueness, etc).
The best thing to do in this situation is read as many add-ons as you can that solve the 1NC impacts. Usually this only requires 1-2 cards on your end, and it's offense for you no matter what they do. Bonus: they can't read impact defense to your add-ons!

[Chaos]

I've always felt that add ons rely on poor quality evidence. Finding evidence that is concise enough to retain 2AC functionality but that is also warranted enough to stand up to scrutiny seems very difficult.

If there are any high quality add ons that are being used this year or that have been used in the past, could someone point them out to me.

[Red Spy]

SpiderCat, on 17 February 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

If the 1ar drops condo, there's no real reason for the neg to go for it. If they read an RVI on condo, well, that's a bad argument. RVI's on theory like that are more useful to weigh as offense against the other team when they go for theory like that.

Just to put the nail in the coffin, say condo was dropped and is not an issue, don't let them go for it.

Takes about 5 seconds to say and prevents a world of bullshit from happening

[magmahero]

^Can't tell if Red Spy is trolling or serious.