I debated an interesting round against one of Greenhill's teams at their tournament where the 2N went for two counterplans in the 2NR, a PIC out of funding and a States CP, justifying under a spread-through theory block that the judge could kick the States CP if they "weren't winning on it." For some reason, this has become a strategy in college that has apparently had some success and I'm wondering how much influence it will have (has had) on high school debates.
What's weird about this argument is that it's probably super abusive, but how do you respond to it? 2AR theory is often about judge kick incentivizing judge intervention, but in order for the judge to really evaluate the theory debate, there has to be some level of work done by the judge because the Negative never got to respond to it.
The other option is to evaluate the theory debate as a draw (unless conditionality was extended, then it's a no-brainer), but another question arises: Do you hold them to the world of the first counterplan or the second (because I'm assuming the SQUO is an option)?
I'm probably (definitely) not completely understanding this argument, or its functionality/ why it's strategic, so if anyone had anything to add, that'd be cool (unlike most other stuff, there's actually not much on CX.com about this issue, so I thought it'd be interesting to have a discussion #usethesearchbarbeforecreatinganewtopic).
Basic 2AR block we wrote that round, kind of jokingly:
Judge kick and going for 2 conditional advocacies in the 2NR is terrible for debate:
1) Late-breaking debates skew 2AR strategy and forcing analysis of argument interaction to be done after the debate by the judge, incentivizing intervention and blippy 2NR’s – Also makes the tournament run late which hurts everyone
2) (If condo was in the 1AR) it supercharges all of our offense on the condo debate and most of their defense no longer applies because they are no longer trying to find the best policy option by the end of the debate
Means you should either:
A- Kick the counterplan anyway and evaluate their other offense separately or
B- Evaluate the permutation as a 100% viable world for the 2AR
Edit: So apparently this is usually done by going for turns/ a disad via the SQUO, but that really doesn't make sense, because either A) Turns also apply to the counterplan and you run the risk of them claiming they link to the CP more than the Plan or B- the disad is a net benefit to the CP, so why wouldn't you just go all in the CP?