Jump to content
Red Spy

Official Thread: Conditionality

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

awkward-front.jpg

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 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.

 

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

 

 

 

Sorry if this may be a silly question, but i am new to policy (and this website) and i dont understand those 3 points u make. If you have time, could u reiterate that argument along with your argumentative responcibility argument?

 

Also, for your counter interpretation, what is 1 test of policy and one test of metholodgy, what does that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 2 Ks and no CPs abusive for most judges? Assuming neither are PIKs.

 

Also what about 1 condo K and 1 dispo?

Edited by KTricksfordays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 2 Ks and no CPs abusive for most judges? Assuming neither are PIKs.

 

Depends on the Ks

 

 

Also what about 1 condo K and 1 dispo?

 

This is just silly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Cap and Colonialism or Anthro and a Reps K

 

And why is 1condo 1 dispo silly?

 

Why would you need to run these conditionally or dispositionally? They (plausibly) work together.  You could run both unconditionally with no problems.

 

(That is, why is the fact that there are 2 of them an issue in this case.  Running them conditionally would have the same logic as running 1 K conditionally with no other advocacy - to keep the SQ available).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you need to run these conditionally or dispositionally? They (plausibly) work together.  You could run both unconditionally with no problems.

 

(That is, why is the fact that there are 2 of them an issue in this case.  Running them conditionally would have the same logic as running 1 K conditionally with no other advocacy - to keep the SQ available).

Because my 2NR isnt going to include both. I want to be able to win on one advocacy, but have 2 options outside the squo. The potential problem would be condo bad theory that I would answer and still lose on because judges could view 2Ks as abuse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you need to run these conditionally or dispositionally? They (plausibly) work together.  You could run both unconditionally with no problems.

 

I think cap and colonialism go well together, but with anthro it depends on the reps k

 

 

And why is 1 condo 1 dispo silly?

 

1. No unique theoretical reason this is legitimate

 

2. You'll need an answer to "straight turn the dispo k for 4 minutes"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, 1-3 condo's are usually fine, anything more (depending on what it is, of course) could be debateably abusive 

Just run both condo, there isnt really an adv to running 1 condo and 1 dispo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, 1-3 condo's are usually fine, anything more (depending on what it is, of course) could be debateably abusive 

Just run both condo, there isnt really an adv to running 1 condo and 1 dispo

 

I say up to 2 because abusive shenanigans start to roll out with the third, but you're right, that does depend on the debate.

1 condo and 1 dispo can actually hurt you if there's a clever theory debater on the aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the dispo part, but if i ran both unconditionally I would have to advocate 2 alternatives in the 2NR, which is problematic.

 

On abuse though, 2 condo Ks that function together (not major perf con) is not abusive? Or?

 

Ive read alot of judge paradigms and most of them say 1 cp/1k is legit, but dont really address anything more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On abuse though, 2 condo Ks that function together (not major perf con) is not abusive? Or?

 

Ive read alot of judge paradigms and most of them say 1 cp/1k is legit, but dont really address anything more.

 

If the ks can be resolved by the same alt, your life become a bit easier on the theory debate because the aff loses the contradictions argument. They still have everything else though.

 

1CP/1K prevents really bad shit like 2 contradicting CPs or Ks which is why it puts a not-so-arbitrary roof on potential abuse

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...

×
×
  • Create New...