Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
txdebater11

Dispositionality vs. Conditionality

Recommended Posts

A definition of both and the difference between the two would be really helpful...

 

Conditionality - they can drop the K/CP when we want to.

 

Dispositionality - there are multiple definitions, but the one I've heard most often is that if you put offense on the K/CP, they have to answer it, but if you only have defense, they can kick it like in conditionality.

Edited by Zar_B
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conditionality - They can drop or choose any Counterplan or Kritik when they want to. For example, they can read 3 counterplans and 2 kritiks but only go for 1 counterplan and 1 kritik. In situations like this, the aff would want to read Conditionality Bad.

 

Dispositionality - There are quite a lot of definitions but the most common one is that if the aff straight turns (put offense on) the Counterplan or K, they have to go for it. Offense as in, turns. if its just defense, they can kick out of it.

 

The neg can say Dispo Bad by saying that the aff literally gets to CHOOSE the 2NR. They can straight turn the easiest arguments and then completely destroy them in the 2AR, which will guarantee an affirmative ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best moment ever, during the CX of a 1nc which was one-off Nietszche:

 

1AC: "Is your K conditional?"

1NC: "Yes"

 

It's a crazy idea, I know:

 

Try picking a single consistent story as to why the aff is a bad idea. Then this is all moot. Advocate something: the SQ, the CP, the K, T...it makes for a far better debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dispositionality - There are quite a lot of definitions but the most common one is that if the aff straight turns (put offense on) the Counterplan or K, they have to go for it. Offense as in, turns. if its just defense, they can kick out of it.

 

The neg can say Dispo Bad by saying that the aff literally gets to CHOOSE the 2NR. They can straight turn the easiest arguments and then completely destroy them in the 2AR, which will guarantee an affirmative ballot.

 

This isn't entirely true. The neg has to advocate the cp/K only if that aff straight turns, as in puts ONLY offense. If the aff puts defense (perm) and offense (pretty much anything else), then the neg can kick it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best moment ever, during the CX of a 1nc which was one-off Nietszche:

 

1AC: "Is your K conditional?"

1NC: "Yes"

 

It's a crazy idea, I know:

 

Try picking a single consistent story as to why the aff is a bad idea. Then this is all moot. Advocate something: the SQ, the CP, the K, T...it makes for a far better debate.

 

lol, why would they make their one off K conditional? Also, there's nothing wrong with some neg flex... Good debates happen in the final rebuttals anyways.

Edited by The Joker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best moment ever, during the CX of a 1nc which was one-off Nietszche:

 

1AC: "Is your K conditional?"

1NC: "Yes"

 

It's a crazy idea, I know:

 

Try picking a single consistent story as to why the aff is a bad idea. Then this is all moot. Advocate something: the SQ, the CP, the K, T...it makes for a far better debate.

 

I, personally, have in such instances as 1-off asked the status of the alternative. As a 2a I want to know whether or not my offense against your alt will stick or if you're going to floating PIK in the 2nr (condo bad is a pre-empt to this by the way), or if a new alternative will emerge from the wreckage that is the negative block.

A lot of times I get hit with things like: "It's one off" as a response. I still want to know what the status of the alternative is. And actually both teams where teams responded with "it's one off, guess" after I explained to them I wanted to know whether or not they could kick the alt and go for case turns + squo, or a new alt, etc. both teams decided that their alternative was conditional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Within the framework of a kritik, going for case turns (assuming they are implicit with the K) without an alt turns debate into a meaningless exercise of intellectual nihilism where rejecting every idea is necessary and nothing is ever accepted. Say someone runs one-off Heidegger and goes for a series of solvency/advantage turns in 2nr. By keeping the kritikal story of Heidegger (the only way to access the turns) without any proposed alternative way of framing the debate (aka dropping a conditional alt) the negative is using an ethical argument within a utilitarian framework. This is not consistent even with negation theory which holds that disproving the aff is enough; by presenting a kritik, the neg has accepted the burden of demonstrating consistent thinking and discourse. Retreating to case turns is an illegitimate attempt to shed a burden of the kritikal form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dispo is never used anymore. End of story.

 

Not true. I see plenty of teams read things dispo. More often, they read one thing dispo, one thing conditional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. I see plenty of teams read things dispo. More often, they read one thing dispo, one thing conditional.

 

ANY smart team would just straight turn the dispo cp and not even have to answer the conditional one since the NB of one counterplan more than likely link to the other.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. I see plenty of teams read things dispo. More often, they read one thing dispo, one thing conditional.

 

Dispo actually is pretty dumb, why would you let the AFF choose your 2NR strat?

 

The aff could drop all the DA's that link to the CP (probably like 1 or 2 sheets) and almost every single K (most K's link to CPs just as hard as the AFF). Then they could just turn the net-benifits of the CP for 8 minutes + 2AC addons. Not to mention they could outweigh the CP with parts of the case that the CP might not solve for.

Edited by Kratos_99
SP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Within the framework of a kritik, going for case turns (assuming they are implicit with the K) without an alt turns debate into a meaningless exercise of intellectual nihilism where rejecting every idea is necessary and nothing is ever accepted. Say someone runs one-off Heidegger and goes for a series of solvency/advantage turns in 2nr. By keeping the kritikal story of Heidegger (the only way to access the turns) without any proposed alternative way of framing the debate (aka dropping a conditional alt) the negative is using an ethical argument within a utilitarian framework. This is not consistent even with negation theory which holds that disproving the aff is enough; by presenting a kritik, the neg has accepted the burden of demonstrating consistent thinking and discourse. Retreating to case turns is an illegitimate attempt to shed a burden of the kritikal form.

 

There's absolutely no reason why you can't weigh the implication of the K and defend the STQO. You can easily win the argument that there is an obligation to reject bad practices and stop participating in flawed ethics, even if there is no actual alternative in sight. Changing your advocay to reject the aff and stick with the STQO can serve as a last defence if you are losing the alternative debate.

 

This would still keep "kritical form" and not force you to stick with an alt thats going to sink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dispo actually is pretty dumb, why would you let the AFF choose your 2NR strat?

 

The aff could drop all the DA's that link to the CP (probably like 1 or 2 sheets) and almost every single K (most K's link to CPs just as hard as the AFF). Then they could just turn the net-benifits of the CP for 8 minutes + 2AC addons. Not to mention they could outweigh the CP with parts of the case that the CP might not solve for.

 

If most of that is true the negative team will lose no matter what.

 

If they're decent - this should be the case

If you're running a dispo CP with something condo, you'll probably just have an imbedded nb on the condo K/cp. aff could try to turn the DA(s) for a large amount of time, but the negative team is most likely going to try to bone the affirmative with imbedded nbs on the CP in the block and you have to be ready for that as the affirmative

 

I'm just curious how many off do you think this team is going to in the 1nc? I've got 5/6 from your count

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...