Jump to content
Red Spy

Official Thread: Conditionality

Recommended Posts

Have a question related to conditionality? Having trouble running or answering it? Problems with extending it throughout and winning on it? Post it here. Some condo threads will be merged here and this should be your number 1 resource for all things related to condo!

 

The intention of the following mini-guide is to provide shallow information on conditionality (novice help). Deeper questions can be posted in this thread/forum.

1. So what is conditionality?

2. What is conditionality theory?

3. What does it take to win on conditionality?

4. How to run conditionality

5. Common negative responses

 

[Locked until omni-guide completed]

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Conditionality (condo) is the neg's ability kick (no longer advocate) a counterplan (cp) or kritik (k) alternative during the course of the debate round for any reason. This is the most common way advocacies are ran, and is the most susceptible to theory.

 

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.

 

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).

 

This thread will cover the first condition, conditionality.

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condo theory is the theoretical argument which involves the aff framing the negative as abusive when running arguments conditionally, claiming abuse and educational loss.

There are many arguments the aff will make on condo:

1. Strategy Skew

2. Time Skew

3. Argumentative Responsibility key

4. Moving Target

... and there's a lot more.

 

These arguments will all culminate into the claim that the neg has abused the aff and hurt education, which is supposed to compel the judge to vote down the neg. However, winning on Condo will take effort, unless it is dropped.

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conditionality is [usually] not a walk-in-the-park to win on. It needs to be covered to a good extent in every speech (excluding the 1ac) to win. Condo should be ran every round when possible, since it acts as an effective time tradeoff. However, going for condo is a different issue, and should usually only be extended into the 2ar if you lost on everything else, or they dropped condo theory.

 

Things that will improve your odds of convincing a judge to vote on condo:

1. Make up an abuse story. Judges will be significantly compelled to vote down the neg if they see that there has been indeed abuse on the round. Judges are also more likely to vote aff if the negative did run a shitload of advocacies as opposed to one conditional counterplan.

2. Answer every argument the neg makes. Condo is not an excuse for dropping 4 negative advocacies. You need to answer them first, as conditionality is only intended as a backup plan if case goes bad. Judges won't buy "we couldn't cover everything cuz they were condo" if you made no effort to answer their args.

3. Actually taking condo seriously. That means answering EVERYTHING the neg makes on condo (since most judges have a high threshold on theory). Conceding one point can cause you to lose the entire condo debate. Also, spend more than 20 seconds per speech on condo. Nothing is more shady than reading 20 seconds of condo in the 1ar and then spending 5 minutes on it in the 2ar.

4. Extend your warrants throughout the debate.

5. The neg drops condo. Pretty self-explanatory. Also equates to "Insta-win."

 

If you don't want to spend the time and effort on condo, run a short condo shell in the 2ac. It will take the neg more time to answer it, leaving you with a time advantage. Also extending it in the 1ar for 20 seconds will allow you to throw off the timing on the 2nr.

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conditionality is ran in a format similar to that of below:

 

Conditionality is a voting issue-

 

  • strategy skew - we're forced to defend multiple worldviews impairing our ability to generate offense proving its not reciprical justifying affirmative conditionality perm do the c/p.

 

 

  • argumentative responsibility - one conditional worldview justifies infinite worldviews killing advocacy and in-depth discussion.

 

 

  • Time skew-we're forced to waste our time on a bunch of advocacies and instead of taking the time to defend everyone, they simply kick everything besides the one that was least covered, abusing the aff.

 

  • Moving target- We don't know what happens until the 2nr so all offense we put on the counterplan is wasted time, killing education and fairness

 

  • Dispositionality solves all their offense while offering strategic decisions

 

Another thing that may be included would be:

 

 

  • Counter-interpretation: The negative should be limited to one test of policy and one test of methodology. (replace the above dispo example with this)

 

This interpretation solves the negative offense and also affords defense as well. This, of course, can only be ran if the neg exceeds this amount.

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 99% of conditionality debates, these arguments will show up from the neg, and sample answers are to the right:

Breadth better than depth-multiple conditional worlds prevent and topic specific education and cause argumentative irresponsibility. They can run the CP and kick it in the block, hurting education on the other topics in the debate. Also, depth>breadth (there are lots of places you can cut cards for this if you'd like)

 

Best policy option-it's impossible to find that policy when multiple world views impair our ability to answer in-depth. This justifies the affirmative running non-topical plans and affirmative permutations and for the negative to advocate multiple conditional worldviews. The best policy option is arbitrary as there is no clear standard for what is best.

 

Neg flex-Aff is limited to defending the plan/resolution, whereas the neg not only gets case specific arguments, but their generic DAs, CPs, and Ks.

 

Negation Theory- allowing the negative any weapons to attack the affirmative justifies running agenda good and bad trapping the affirmative - this magnifies all of our condo bad arguments and justifies affirmation theory - we should only have to prove some harm exists in the status quo and you vote affirmative on presumption.

 

Real World-Conditionality isn't real world - policy makers don't advocate multiple contradictory positions at once and debate isn't real world - its a game with time constraints making their analogy inapplicable.

 

Time/Strat skew inevitable (we coulda just run a DA instead)- multiple worlds of uniqueness are not comparable to other arguments because they skew the whole focus of the round

 

Aff conditional-not true- we don't get to kick our plan under any circumstance. Our advantages don't create multiple conditional worlds of uniqueness and are connected to our unconditional plan proving conditional CPs are worse.

 

Reciprocal Strat skew- they created the conditional world and only they know if they're kicking it means all of our standards still apply. The negative should not have conditional worlds against an unconditional affirmative.

 

Perms check- We didn't create the perm(s); the conditional world forced us into it and condo still skews our strategy. Also, perms are only a test of competition.

 

Side bias (why this is even read I don't know)- Neg gets the block. We also have to debate as neg too, making their point moot.

 

It is best to block out responses to each of these points (do it yourself; it's the best way to learn). Also, dispo/1 condo K+CP will solve for most of these as well (they get what they want without being abusive).

 

That's it for now; thread unlocked

 

If there are arguments that need clarification, or there is a neg argument on condo you need help on, post here.

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is best to block out responses to each of these points (do it yourself; it's the best way to learn). Also, dispo/the above interp will solve for most of these as well.

 

 

so what happens after the aff reads these blocks? should the neg just concede? i don't know what happens next, please explain in further detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Side bias (why this is even read I don't know)

 

 

 

Actually, this is a fairly good argument. Side bias arguments, especially by the negative, are pretty silly, but in the context of conditionality debates, it makes sense. If the Neg was forced to read things unconditional, the 2AC could just kick case and straight turn the CP for 5 minutes. The Negative wouldn't have an option to kick out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 99% of conditionality debates, these arguments will show up from the neg:

Breadth better than depth

Best policy option

Neg flex

Negation Theory

Real World

Time/Strat skew inevitable

Aff conditional/ reciprocality

Perms check

Side bias (why this is even read I don't know)

 

It is best to block out responses to each of these points (do it yourself; it's the best way to learn). Also, dispo/the above interp will solve for most of these as well.

 

That's it for now; thread unlocked

 

You need to explain these things. I think that a lot of the novices that come on here are going to want to know what 'negation theory' is. Or why condo is 'real world' or how 'Perms Check'. Also, while I agree that you should write your own theory blocks, I completely disagree that novices should. In the beginning, they need to read someone else's blocks. They need to actually understand these arguments, and the common responses, before they are in any position to write their own blocks. Plus, I don't even know if some novices could write their theory blocks, considering that if they came here to find out what the possible responses would be and you just provide 1 or 2 words and then tell them to go 'block out responses' and that 'dispo/the above interp will solve' they probably have no clue what to write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, this is a fairly good argument. Side bias arguments, especially by the negative, are pretty silly, but in the context of conditionality debates, it makes sense. If the Neg was forced to read things unconditional, the 2AC could just kick case and straight turn the CP for 5 minutes. The Negative wouldn't have an option to kick out of it.
This is precisely why dispo (or the 1 condo CP+K interp) is used as the alternative as opposed to unconditionality. And this isn't really a side bias argument (which is really: we're neg;we're more likely to lose due to structural debate flaw X)
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think "neg fiat bad" belongs in any condo bad block, even as an example

Yeah, its really more of a CPs are illegit theory (which is idiotic anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think "neg fiat bad" belongs in any condo bad block, even as an example

 

Which is why I'm telling people to write their own blocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well you should also post a less bad example, otherwise the purpose of the example is kinda defeated

I removed it; the other points should be good enough to suffice in a condo debate anyway

 

Since it seems from my knowledge that many novices struggle to take condo beyond the blocks (2ac), I'll post some 1ar/2ar help as well

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sigh. This is a problem with dispositionality as well. The Aff gets the first and last speeches, as well as the advantage of probably having done more research on the Aff, since, you know, it’s THEIR aff. In a world where things have to be dispo, the Neg loses if they read a bad counterplan.

 

These side bias arguments actually DO make sense on conditionality debates. In a world absent conditionality, the Aff would win a ridiculous percentage of debates, because they would lose the ability to read many CPs/other strategies. There is a reason you see these “side bias” arguments on a lot of theory blocks, debate used to be more Aff biased. The progression away from arcane “stock issues” judging/debating has made it even easier to be Affirmative, the only thing that acts as a real check is the ability to test the Aff from multiple perspectives.

 

This is actually another reason why conditionality is good. The progression away from “stock issues” debate to policymaking is part of the “best policy option” philosophy, which also legitimates the idea of conditionality. Allowing the Aff to stick the negative with an advocacy allows them to win, even if the Neg proves that the Aff is a bad idea.

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)).

 

And side bias is answered with- We have to debate neg too, neg gets the block, quit whining. Also see "best policy option" above and any other points that hurt education (which comes first ofc). Running infinite contradictory worlds makes it impossible for the aff to win. 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. Also, we're not saying alternate worlds are bad, but that conditional worlds are uniquely bad.

 

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

Edited by Shinku-hadoken
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you are running contradictory advocacies, you can avoid the whole Condo Bad debate by being dispositional.

That's why there's also dispo bad theory. Dispo will also put you at a huge disadvantage as opposed to condo most of the time. However, dispo theory is a lot harder to win/prove abuse on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

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

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×