Conditionality Bad

**Notes

Read Me BEFORE the debate!!

There are three important things to know about this file a. It should not be your plan A you should be prepared to defend your affirmative. This shouldnt be a shortcut to making better arguments. Theory is difficult to win and going for this argument in any other circumstance than as a plan B isnt helpfu l. At the same time, sometimes you dont have a good set of responses or blocks to work with and you need a winning option. Thats what this file is designed for. b. You should READ THE 2AC SLOWLY this is a critical part of the strategy both because it sets up the very first argument in the 1ar overview and because its slightly different than most conditionality bad arguments. Your judge will never notice the difference unless you read this at a VERY SLOW pace c. Read the file COMPLETELY before reading this in a debate youll need to know the 1ar blocks well if youre the 2ac. Those are the basis for answering CX questions in the 2ac and for extending these arguments in the 2ar

**2ac

Conditionality Bad 2ac Shell

Conditionality is bad a. Equity it makes stable 2ac offense impossible unlimited negative flexibility only produces one-sided, unfair benefits b. Decision-making it limits argument depth and pushes decision-making into the last rebuttals these are both vital portable skills c. perf con bad Kills education forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory answers d. Counter-interpretation they get one conditional advocacy or multiple dispositional advocacies

**1ar

1ar Overview
Conditionality is bad four arguments up top 1. Vote on the exact text of your flow of the 2ac versus the 2nc we slowed down at our own expense in a time-pressed 2ac dont reward the 2nc for racing through a theory block unclearly by allowing new 2nr extrapolation 2. Equity yes, conditionality has benefits theyre HEAVILY weighted towards the Negative. Equity comes first debate is a competitive game where we debate the EVENLY BALANCED topics instead of the most interesting. Why else are we debating transportation? The Neg will be fine without multiple conditional advocacies. Almost everyone flips Neg in elims. Theres a reason: conditionality creates a larger chance of victory by allowing an inequitable level of flexibility. We cant generate unique 2ac offense and we only get one constructive to generate offense 3. Decision-making research and pre-round decision-making solve their offense our interpretation solves argument depth and decision-making by rewarding early choices that deepen explanation. Critical thinking and decision-making skills effect every moment of our lives and improve policy-making. 4. Use a cost-benefit paradigm our interpretation solves their benefits it allows one conditional advocacy or multiple dispositional advocacies. They dont have any real cost to our counter-interpretation. (****) Cost-benefit is the best way to decide debates we have evidence to frame how you should make your decision
**NOTE ONLY READ IF YOURE WILLING TO INVEST LOTS OF TIME IN CONDITIONALITY IN THE 1AR Hardin, 8 Don Bradford Jr., JD from Alabama Law, Alabama Law Review, 59 Ala. L. Rev. 1135 Against this background, CBA came to prominence as part of a larger administrative law decisionmaking paradigm--so-called "comprehensive rationality"--which supplanted the incrementalism of the previous era. Under the comprehensive rationality paradigm, a policymaker was to "specify the goal he seeks to attain[,] . . . identify all possible methods of reaching [the] objective[,] . . . evaluate how effective each method will be in achieving the goal[,] . . . [and] select the alternative that will make the greatest progress toward the desired outcome." "The most demanding aspect of [comprehensive rationality was] the care with which it require[d] policymakers to consider the consequences of each policy option." CBA was designed to meet this demand, and was touted as "a practical way of assessing the desirability of projects." As a result, Congress began to enact statutes that required various forms of CBA.
Some of the earliest examples, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, passed in 1969, loosely applied CBA to administrative decisionmaking. As time passed, the requisite CBA became more concrete and particularized. For example, the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, passed in 1972, required a "'limited cost-benefit analysis' . . . intended to 'limit the application of technology only where the [benefits are] wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction,'" and the Toxic Substances Control Act, passed in 1976, authorized the EPA to regulate substances that posed an "unreasonable risk" to health or safety and required consideration of the benefits of the substance and the economic costs of the contemplated regulation. While the late seventies saw a surge of legislative interest in

CBA for government decisionmaking, it was the order of a President, not Congressional enactments, that

vaulted CBA to prominence as the regulatory decisionmaking paradigm of the administrative state.

Now, onto the line-by-line..

A2 2ac Strategic Thinking

They say they force the 2ac to make better decisions no, they dont the 2ac cant make good offensive decisions early in the debate. Our interpretation empowers the 2ac to direct the blocks strategy by making smart arguments

A2 2nc Choice Solves

They say only going for one in the 2nc solves it doesnt solve 2ac strategy or education this just pushes decision-making into the 1ar, the most time pressed speech. That means it doesnt solve our equity or decision-making disadvantages.

A2 Aff Side Bias

They say theres an aff side bias three responses: a. Elims disprove most teams flip Neg thats in the overview b. Research disproves there are HUNDREDS of different arguments the Neg can choose from there are a limited number of defensible affs c. Our interpretation solves you get a conditional advocacy, multiple dispositional advocacies or the status quo we get one unconditional plan we must always defend thats fair

A2 Everything is Conditional
They say all arguments are conditional no, theyre not if we turn a DA youre stuck with it and if we prove your CP or alternative is bad you arent

A2 Neg Flex
They say neg flex two responses: We solve our interpretation enables negative flexibility while ensuring the Aff has an equitable right to generate offense they allow an unfair level of flexibility

A2 SQ is Always a Logical Option

They say the status quo is always a logical option three responses: 1. Debate is different policymakers dont face arbitrary time constrains in explaining their arguments 2. Pre-round prep solves this they can research various positions and responses to determine the best one before the debate 3. Fairness turns logical policy-making if they skew our 2ac and 1ar then we dont have a fair chance to prove the status quo is worse than the plan

A2 Time Skew Inevitable

They say time skews are inevitable two responses a. We can fix other sources of time skews we can do speed drills or get more efficient. Our argument isnt about time, its about strategy. They get to read just as many advocacies if they read them dispositionally b. Even if some time skew is inevitable, degree matters. Conditional counterplans open up new entirely new worlds with new argumentative interactions, which force us to waste time with no strategic benefit

A2 Wed Read Multiple T Args

They say they could just read multiple T violations two responses: a. Advocacies are different our T responses like reasonability are useful on each T argument conditionality means we dont get offense that applies to each advocacy. T also doesnt affect our strategy on substance nor does it constrain how we answer certain disadvantages and CPs. b. 2ac strategy matters we can affect how we deal with T by choosing an aff that goes to the core of the topic literature and we did that by reading Ports. We dont have that same ability with counterplans.

A2 Your Interp Links to your DAs

They say our interpretation links to our offense two responses a. Our argument is different than the one they assume it isnt that you force us to contradict ourselves or that the 2ac shouldnt be a very difficult speech our argument is that we cant develop meaningful offense and that is unfair because they get to develop several meaningful forms of offense without also facing some risk. If you had one conditional advocacy we could still read add-on advantages to the affirmative and if you had multiple dispositional advocacies we could read DAs to one of the CPs and stick them with it. Either way wed have a chance to develop some form of offense