Here's some 2AC/1AR stuff if anyone doesn't have it already. I'm not saying it's particularly good, and there's lots more you can find online (Google "debate theory file" or "conditionality bad") but maybe useful if you want to see how you might run it. You'd put the 2AC block in the 2AC, and then in the 1AR you'd read the 1AR block then answer each Negative block argument.
2AC Condo Bad
Interpretation: the Negative does not get conditional advocacies.
A. 1NC Strategy - conditionality necessitates cheating counter-plans - prevents thinking about argument interaction.
B. Research - we make hyper-specific, Aff-based research a requirement and punish superficial strategies.
C. Clash - no-risk options ruin depth by causing late-breaking debates about the least-covered strategy.
Team rejection is the only real deterrent.
Independently, conditional critiques are a reason to vote Negative for ethics - if they can criticize our world-view, they should be able to unconditionally defend their own – debaters should be held accountable for any ethical or subjectivity-related positions we advocate in the debate space.
1AR Condo Bad
Extend the interpretation: no Negative conditional advocacies.
A. 1NC Strategy - they throw everything at a wall and see what sticks - the 1NC should think about argument interaction - and, careful 1NC choice crowds out cheating CPs because the Negative actually has to defend them.
B. Research - nobody cares about Aff-specific research, background reading, or detailed strategies when they can run the cap K, the XO CP, and the politics DA in every 1NC and go for whichever 2AC block was worse.
C. Clash - risky options are key to invested debates - they re-start every debate by kicking 80% of it in the block - ruins depth and clash.
Reject the team, not the argument - endorsing our model of debate requires the ballot as a competitive deterrent to the Negative.
1AR Conditional Critique
And, conditional critiques are a voting issue for ethics—if they can criticize the underlying assumptions of the Affirmative, they shouldn’t be able to abandon that criticism—it’s key to accountability in the debate space.
Edited by TheSnowball, 14 January 2018 - 01:32 PM.
Daily Evidence Card!
This cross-ex is taking too long.
Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball
K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.