Multiple advocacies bad theory?

[egold]

I know it's out there, but I can't seem to find any for some reason. Could someone please help me find it? I would be willing to trade I guess, or collect

[Nomaz]

Originally Posted by egold

I know it's out there, but I can't seem to find any for some reason. Could someone please help me find it? I would be willing to trade I guess, or collect

The argument you're referring to is conditionality bad or "condo bad" for short. Just searching "Condo bad" should get you several threads with the appropriate file links and explanation. Here are some arguments you could read as a prerequisite in the debate.

Conditionality is bad
1. Education - Depth over Breadth – There’s an incentive for the neg to read 11 conditonal counterplans and net benefits for us to undercover one and then kick out of everything else in the block.

2. Not reciprocal – the aff can’t just kick it’s advantages whenever it wants. Conditionality kills fairness because the neg can just kick out of the cp/k even if we kick it.

3. Time skew- Any arguments read against the cp or k can instantly go away if the neg doesn’t want to go for it.

4. Strat skew- we’ve already done our 2ac, there is in round abuse. We can’t change what we’ve already gone for.

5. Potential and in round abuse are voting issues for fairness and education.

here's a link to the SDI theory file which includes the arguments and other theoretical coverage you'd need.
http://www.planetdebate.com/files/download/3428.

[egold]

Originally Posted by Nomaz

The argument you're referring to is conditionality bad or "condo bad" for short. Just searching "Condo bad" should get you several threads with the appropriate file links and explanation. Here are some arguments you could read as a prerequisite in the debate.

Conditionality is bad
1. Education - Depth over Breadth – There’s an incentive for the neg to read 11 conditonal counterplans and net benefits for us to undercover one and then kick out of everything else in the block.

2. Not reciprocal – the aff can’t just kick it’s advantages whenever it wants. Conditionality kills fairness because the neg can just kick out of the cp/k even if we kick it.

3. Time skew- Any arguments read against the cp or k can instantly go away if the neg doesn’t want to go for it.

4. Strat skew- we’ve already done our 2ac, there is in round abuse. We can’t change what we’ve already gone for.

5. Potential and in round abuse are voting issues for fairness and education.

here's a link to the SDI theory file which includes the arguments and other theoretical coverage you'd need.
http://www.planetdebate.com/files/download/3428.

Actually no... I know what condo theory is but you could simply run a conditional CP and 5 DAs and you could run condo.

What I'm looking for is something that says running multiple advocacies is bad. Like multiple advocacies bad because it means we can never have a focused debate on one advocacy.

Also people could (stupidly but I've seen it) run 2 unconditional CPs or Ks. At which point condo theory would be null.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by egold

Actually no... I know what condo theory is but you could simply run a conditional CP and 5 DAs and you could run condo.

What I'm looking for is something that says running multiple advocacies is bad. Like multiple advocacies bad because it means we can never have a focused debate on one advocacy.

Also people could (stupidly but I've seen it) run 2 unconditional CPs or Ks. At which point condo theory would be null.

multiple worlds?

[nathan_debate]

Prevents K alternative solvency--it makes it incoherent. (ie say one thing and do another). Or at least proves the perm solves as well. (aka creates a double bind)

This is two mini arguments embedded in one...I would usually them on the K flow--not on the multiple worlds flow.

The hardest part is getting the "answer to answers" written too...answering these arguments in the 1ar:

1) Aff skew justifies
2) Best policy option
3) Flexibility trumps

[Chaos]

Could you say that conditionality takes out the alt solvency when teams read a Cap K with the Zizek cards that say we have to commit ourselves to the Revolution despite any consequences?

Similar/the same as what nathan was saying?

[egold]

Okay thanks guys... I think I basically have what I need.

[Nomaz]

Originally Posted by Checkmate

Could you say that conditionality takes out the alt solvency when teams read a Cap K with the Zizek cards that say we have to commit ourselves to the Revolution despite any consequences?

Similar/the same as what nathan was saying?

If you win your multiple worlds bad theory it would in a sense take out the alt and the reject capitalism in every instance card.. the zizek evidence would function as a separate ethics disad while the alternative would of course be.. well.. the alternative.

My partner and I have in multiple debates conceded the alternative and gone for the ethics disad, judges typically don't like it as much though, at least in my experience for the same reason judges don't like to hear you extrapolate your 1 deontol impact in the 2AR against the negative's critical argumentation, when you've been arguing utilitarian impacts the entire debate.

[nathan_debate]

You seem to describe this argument (alternative can't solve...or "alternative self-implodes) as an all in (or all or nothing argument....I don't see it that way.)

And its hardly a last ditch effort, but rather it calls the negative to task on the authenticity and legitimacy of the alternative as well as their commitment to the alternative. If they are willing to hijack the alt (and the values of the K) in an attempt to win a debate round...that seems pretty illegit.

Their main ways to escape this problem are primarily:
1) not do it again
2) provide some nuanced answer (generally a no link of some sort)
3) argue: contradictions ok
4) argue: contradictions good

[Rhizome]

insert mandatory post about neg flex

[Bkennedy]

EDIT: Formatting Error and wrong block... updating in a sec.