wham theory

8/14/2019 WHAM Theory

1/52

SDI 2006 1

GHD Theory

Theory

Theory.............................................................................................................................................................................1

Neg Fiat Good.................................................................................................................................................................2

Neg Fiat Bad...................................................................................................................................................................3

Agent CPs Good............................................................................................................................................................4

Agent CPs Bad...............................................................................................................................................................5PICs Good......................................................................................................................................................................6

PICs Bad........................................................................................................................................................................7

Dispositional CPs Good.................................................................................................................................................8

Dispositional CPs Bad...................................................................................................................................................9

Dispositional PICs Good..............................................................................................................................................10

Dispositional PICs Bad................................................................................................................................................11

Conditional Advocacies Good......................................................................................................................................12

Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.)......................................................................................................13Conditional Advocacies Bad.........................................................................................................................................14

Consult CPs Good........................................................................................................................................................15

Consult CPs Bad..........................................................................................................................................................16

2NC Counterplans Good...............................................................................................................................................17

2NC CPs Bad...............................................................................................................................................................18Textual Competition Best..............................................................................................................................................19

Functional Competition Best........................................................................................................................................20

50 State Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................................2150 State Fiat Bad...........................................................................................................................................................22

International Fiat Good.................................................................................................................................................23

International Fiat Bad....................................................................................................................................................24

Multiple Actor Fiat Good..............................................................................................................................................25

Multiple Actor Fiat Bad................................................................................................................................................26

Object Fiat Good...........................................................................................................................................................27

Object Fiat Bad.............................................................................................................................................................28

Utopian Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................................29

Utopian Fiat Bad...........................................................................................................................................................30

Performance Contradictions Good................................................................................................................................31Performance Contradictions Bad..................................................................................................................................32

Severance Perms Good.................................................................................................................................................33

Severance Perms Bad....................................................................................................................................................34

Severance Perms Good (Representations)....................................................................................................................35

Severance Perms Bad (Representations).......................................................................................................................36

Intrinsic Perms Good....................................................................................................................................................37

Intrinsic Perms Bad.......................................................................................................................................................38

Vagueness Good............................................................................................................................................................39Vagueness Bad..............................................................................................................................................................40

Test Case Fiat Good......................................................................................................................................................41

Test Case Fiat Bad.........................................................................................................................................................42

ASPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................43

AT: ASPEC....................................................................................................................................................................44

OSPEC..........................................................................................................................................................................45AT: OSPEC...................................................................................................................................................................46

Floating PIKs Good.....................................................................................................................................................47Floating PIKs Bad........................................................................................................................................................48

No Text to Alt Good......................................................................................................................................................49

No text to Alt Bad.........................................................................................................................................................50

Err Neg on Theory........................................................................................................................................................51

Err Aff on Theory..........................................................................................................................................................52


2/52

SDI 2006 2

GHD Theory

Neg Fiat Good

Long Shell

1. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole

resolution, reciprocally, Its now only the negatives job to disprove the plan.

1. Its Recipricol, the neg should get fiat too

2. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan.

3. More real world, trains us to find the best policy option

4. Its predictable and widely accepted in debate.

5. Turn- Increases aff ground they can read disads to the CP

6. You cant make the negative defend the racist, sexist status quo if a case might just betrue.

7. Aff gets to choose the topic of debate, has unlimited prep time, higher win percentage

and first and last speech, the neg needs counterplans

8. Lit checks fiat abuse

9. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP

Short Shell1. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole


2. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan- if the aff passes then

we can no longer do the CP.

3. Reciprocity- the aff gets it so should the negative.

4. You cant make the negative defend the racist, sexist status quo if a case might just be

true.

5. Lit checks fiat abuse



3/52

SDI 2006 3

GHD Theory

Neg Fiat Bad

1. Kills aff ground- every problem has more than one solution

2. Time skew, we have show the harms in the squo and defend a plan of action, the

negative gets 8 minutes just to build on our work

3. No resolution mandate- fiat comes from the should in the resolution for the affirmative

4. No restriction on fiat- the aff only gets the USFG, the negative gets everyone else in the

world

5. Moots the 1AC, we argue whether or not the CP solves rather than should we pass the

aff plan.

6. Voter for Fairness


4/52

SDI 2006 4

GHD Theory

Agent CPs Good

The Offense

1. Key to negative ground, half of all CPs run are agent CPs

2. Tests the affirmative plan- 90% of policy is implementation, we prove their policy is90% bad

Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605,1980

The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by

policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policychoices matter very little if the

mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "Whatpercentage ofthe workof achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic

alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent,

leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

3. Gives the affirmative ground- They can run any DAs they have to our agent

4. Makes the aff defend their plan, why would they specify ____________ if we cant have

a debate on it.

The Defense

1. Its predictable, theyre constantly run and we didnt pick some obscure actor

2. Lit checks abuse- There arent many agencies that someone will advocate should do the

plan

3. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole




5/52

SDI 2006 5

GHD Theory

Agent CPs Bad

1. The CP is topical, theyre affirming the resolution and taking out topical ground

2. Bad for education- kills critical thinking, and we argue courts v. congress every year

instead of the resolution.

3. Steals aff ground and forces us to debate against ourselves.

4. There are 140 agencies just under the USFG they can choose- unfair neg bias.

5. Justifies stupid arguments as time sucks- The FDA wouldnt pass the plan get over it.

6. Voter for fairness and education


6/52

SDI 2006 6

GHD Theory

PICs Good

Offense:

1. Make the aff defend their whole plan, theyve had infinite prep to find what would best

advantage them

2. Depth better than breadth: Plan focus makes better debate on key issues of the topic

3. Key to check extra-topical plan planks

4. Forces better plan writing- theyll learn to defend against PICs

5. Education- Our literature proves that this is a legitimate option to learn about and its

most real world, this is how congressmen propose policy;

a. Real world is key to education because its the only thing that gets taken beyond

each round and

b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximizeeducation, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules

Defense:

1. Most counterplans are PICS anyway: They use the same agent in the USFG and are

enforced the same way.

2. Details are not trivial details: Separation of powers, federalism, etc are the key to the

country, not just random stuff

3. Net benefits check abuse: part of the plan has a disad to itdefend it, turn the net

benefit

4. Aff chooses the ground for debate- They get the plan we get everything else.

5. Not a reason we should lose: reject the counterplan, give us back that status quo


7/52

SDI 2006 7

GHD Theory

PICs Bad

1. Infinite regression: You can PIC out of my friend Ben, the aff has no reason that doesnt

solve case and they get a linear risk of a disad to coercian

2. Time Skew: Moots the 1AC speech time

3. Education: Gets to the point where Depth is ridiculous, focuses on a trivial detail.

4. Strategy skew: We get no offense off of 90% of our case. Forces us to Debate ourselves.

5. Voter for Fairness and education


8/52

SDI 2006 8

GHD Theory

Dispositional CPs Good

Offense

1. Increases breadth of TOPIC SPECIFIC education- we learn about a lot quickly if we

can talk about more.

2. Best policy option- If we can prove the CP is a better, competitive policy option- you

vote for it

3. Most real world- If a Senator proposes a bill hes later convinced is bad he can stop

advocating it

4. Checks back aff advantage- We need some leverage against unforeseen parts of their

case- theyve got infinite prep.

5. Perms are worse- They operate in more worlds

Defense

1. The balls in their court- all they have to do is not perm or say dispo bad and were stuck

with it

2. This equates to saying DAs bad, we routinely kick disads, kritiks and case turns

3. Reciprocol- aff can kick advantages that arent strategic

4. 2NR checks abuse- We have one advocacy in the 2NR, they have an equal time to

disprove it in the last speech

5. Time and strat skews inevitable and unquantifiable- smarter, faster teams are out there

6. Err neg on theory- Aff gets infinite prep, first and last speech, and higher winning

percentage.

7. Reject the CP not the team


9/52

SDI 2006 9

GHD Theory

Dispositional CPs Bad

Offense

1. Just conditionality in disguise- the neg knows we cant strategically straight turn it.

2. Kills in depth education- We dont analyze 2 competing policies.

3. Reciprocity- The aff will only have one advocacy, the neg gets an infinite number of

combinations. Justifies affirmatie conditionality, severance and intrinsic perms

4. Infinitly regressive- Neg can run an infinite number of CPs and defend the squo, theyll

just force us to perm

5. Moving target- We cant test their advocacy if we dont know what position they take,

kills predictability and fairness

6. Race to the bottom- If you want a debate where its just who reads the most impactturns v. net benefits than accept dispo, forcing straight turns is bad.

7. Voter for fairness

Defense

1. Straight turns dont check abuse- Its suicide not to perm the CP, we have not lit. base

for offense

2. Perms dont check abuse- Its a test of competitiveness not an advocacy, this justifies

severance and intrinsic perms


10/52

SDI 2006 10

GHD Theory

Dispositional PICs Good

Offense

1. Best policy option- If we can prove the CP is a better, competitive policy option- you

vote for it

2. Checks back aff advantages- We need some leverage against unforeseen parts of their

case- theyve got infinite prep.

3. Make the aff defend their whole plan, theyve had infinite prep to find what would best

advantage them

4. Key to check extra-topical plan planks

5. Most real world- bill amendments in congress are dispositional PICS, congressmen say

what they want out of the bill, but dont have to stick to it

c. Real world is key to education because its the only thing that gets taken beyondeach round and

d. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize

education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules

Defense:

1. Not uniquely abusive, theres no real reason why dispo pics are worse than regular

dispositional CPs or unconditional PICs- They have to prove both of these are bad

before this is a legit argument



11/52

SDI 2006 11

GHD Theory

Dispositional PICs Bad

1. Dispo PICs are conditionality in disguise, they do part of our plan so we have to perm-

conditionality bad its a time and strat skew

2. We cant straight turn the CP because we dont have the case offense against it- werenot going to put the debate on one defensive answer



12/52

SDI 2006 12

GHD Theory

Conditional Advocacies Good

Offense

1. Key to negative flexibility which is key to fairness because it offsets aff infinite prep,

last speech and moral high ground like racism and genocide

2. Increases aff strategic thinking the 2A has to decide where to best spend time

3. Finds the best policy option

4. Most real world bills get rejected in congress all the time and the status quo is always

an option for any policymaker, no reasonable policymaker should HAVE TO cause

between 3 nuclear wars or 4 nuclear wars instead of doing nothing.

a. Real world is key to education because its the only thing that gets taken beyond

each round and

b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize

education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules5. Counter interpretation- we should be allowed one conditional counterplan, we avoid

their regress abuse standards and capture our real world standards.

Defense

1. Err neg on theory, aff biases

2. Reject the argument, not the team

3. The 2NR checks abuse, well go for one reason to reject the aff, theyll have the last

speech to say why not.


AT Strategy Skew

1. Time and strat skews are inevitable; smarter, faster, more efficient teams are out there

2. Multiple perms check back abuse

3. Forces better aff decision making, hard debates are good debates that increase

education

AT Aff conditionality/not reciprocal

1. They get multiple conditional perms it is reciprocal

2. Aff conditionality not okay our 1NC strat is based on a stable plan text

AT Conditionality same reasons as infinite counterplans

1. Breadth is good because it allows application of education

2. Breadth can turn into depth because issues overlap and there are finite things that even

apply to the topic

3. Hyperspecificity bad, causes limited research base which kills clash and strategic

thinking depth taken to its logical extreme destroys education

AT Counter Interp; Dispo

( ) Dispo is identical to conditionality b/c we could force perms, so we meet their counter

interpretation


13/52

SDI 2006 13

GHD Theory

Conditional Advocacies Good (Kritik & CP spec.)

Offense

1. Key for negative flexibility checks aff bias, last speech and moral high ground

ensuring fairness

2. Key to the search for the best option if we werent allowed to run arguments at

different levels we would foreclose hundreds of educational possibilities

3. More real world multiple bills to solve the same issue happen in congress, and

passing none of them is always an option,

a. real world is key to education because its the only thing that helps debaters

beyond the context of debate and

b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize

education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed

Defense

1. Its a perfectly reciprocal world the aff has equal amount of offense, our

interpretation is we only get 1 counterplan and 1 critical objection

2. Framework arguments are not multiple advocacies the 1AC has two portions to it: the

assumption that legislation is the best way to solve and the specific plan that it proposes

3. Conceding neg framework and going for impact turns would allow the aff to choose

which world to debate in which solves all their offense

4. Not a voter- reject the argument not the team


14/52

SDI 2006 14

GHD Theory

Conditional Advocacies Bad

Offense

1. Not reciprocal- we cant run multiple plans to find the best example of the resolution

2. Time and strat skew: They could read 14 CP texts and wed have to at least cover themall so they dont develop one in the block.

3. Moving Target bad- Hurts fairness as well as education, we dont know what the issues

in the debate are until the 2NR.

4. Most real world- Policy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation and Ive

never seen a senator unroll a list of 30 bills he/she might advocate that day

5. Makes for sloppy debate- Instead of creating effective strategies, negs can just guess

and check


Defense:

1. Who says neg flexibility is good, the already have a thousand kritiks and disads,

random T violations, and whatever CP they run as long as its dispo.

2. Perm doesnt check abuse: Its just a test of competitiveness, advocated perms justify

intrinsicness.


15/52

SDI 2006 15

GHD Theory

Consult CPs Good

Offense

1. Real world Education- We increase the breadth of education- we shouldnt be ignorant

of international politics and interactions between nations

a. Real world is key to education because its the only thing that gets taken beyondeach round and

b. education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize

education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules

2. Ground- Key to help the negative defend against cases that isolate true instances of

things like racism, sexism and injustice.

3. Generics key to check back squirrelly affs.

4. Key test of resolved, the CP is offense against the resolution

5. Ground preserved in the literature- Consultation gives them ground for solvency

deficits, DAs, and impact turns to relations- they just have to research the consulted

actor

Defense

1. Counter Interpretation- Consult counterplans are uniquely justified by the literature of

the topic- if we win that our solvency advocate mandates the necessity for consultation,

the CP is legit. Solves back their infinite regression and education standards while

capturing our ground and education standards.

2. Literature checks abuse- No authors advocate we consult Gary Coleman on NationalService

3. Not delay- We wont non unique or no link your disad based on timeframe- we defend

the immediacy of plan passage.

4. Research inevitable- We couldve just run a relations disad with the same actor.

5. Err neg on theory- Aff gets first and last speech, infinite prep, and higher win

percentage



16/52

SDI 2006 16

GHD Theory

Consult CPs Bad

1. Infinitely regressive- The aff cant predict an infinite number of consultable actors and

plan modifications

2. Time and strat skew- They moot every second of the 1AC, we only get one constructiveto generate offense

3. Multiple actor fiat illegit The aff is stuck with only the USFG. This gives the negative

one more advantage.

4. Future fiat is illegit- This proves the CP is delay and magnifies why consult CPs are

bad --the Neg can non-unique DAs to the CP because its passed later after consultation

5. Conditional fiat creates a double bindif we argue that theyll say no, the negative can

concede the CP and use our evidence as a relations DA. Forces us to debate against

ourselves

6. Modifications bad- Unpredictable standard for competition and no one has literature

for solvency- killing clash and educational debate.

7. Education- Consult CPs void the round of topic specific education to debate non

germane net benefits from thousands of potential actors.


17/52

SDI 2006 17

GHD Theory

2NC Counterplans Good

2NC counterplans are legitimate because its a constructive and key to offset unfair 2AC

add-ons and to finding the best policy

First is Defense1. Its a constructive

2. Time and strat skews inevitable, faster, smarter teams exist

3. Argument development answers arent responsive, otherwise the aff would always get

the last word on impacts

4. Its reciprocal strategy skew- They introduced new argument development in the 2AC

5. Not uniquely abusive, another DA or solvency takeouts would be as much of a burden

6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP not the team

Next is offense

1. Key to prevent sandbagging 2NC counterplans check affs that save their best

advantages for the 2AC and skew neg strategy

2. Key against vague plan texts- you cant know what the aff includes until theyre second

constructive

3. Key to finding the best policy option, seeing how the debate develops leads to the best

proposal, which is the vital internal link to education

4. Education outweighs fairness because its intrinsically good and the point of debate, if

we discover how to increase education, the rules can be restructured

5. Most real world. If Bill Frist says wait dont vote on ANWR I know how we can solve

global warming, Senate wont say shut up Bill youre too late. (Ted Kennedy and they

might.)


18/52

SDI 2006 18

GHD Theory

2NC CPs Bad

First is Offense

1. Kills aff strategy- We cant read new add ons or arguments to leverage against the CP in

the 1AR

2. Time Skew- We have to answer a brand new off case argument along with everything

else from the 1NC

3. Bad for education- They throw out 33 minutes of this debate we could spend developing

comparisons between the policies- You cant develop analysis well in the 1AR

4. Moots our entire 2AC, they could just change their CP to get out of our DAs and solve

better.

5. Not reciprocal- Itd be like us changing our plan text in the 2AC.

6. Voter For fairness

And the Defense

1. Sandbagging hurts the aff, we cant develop our advantage for the judge

2. Not key to finding the best policy- They couldve read the CP in the 1NC and wed have

more time to analyze it.

3. Fairness outweighs education- if debate had no rules education would be about

nonsense, and debates still a game, you know you want to win.

4. Not justified by 2AC add-ons, a new impact to their CP is justified, not a new advocacy.

5. Give the 1AR leeway


19/52

SDI 2006 19

GHD Theory

Textual Competition Best

1. Predictable- Plan is the focus of the debate. Text is most predictable because it is the

only stable, distinct advocacy, argument changes everything else

2. Fairness- Functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from intent creating anunpredictable moving target.

3. Forces better plan writingbetter for negative ground on all issues and better debate to

avoid procedural and vagueness debates.


20/52

SDI 2006 20

GHD Theory

Functional Competition Best

1. Textual Doesnt test exclusivity- The ban the plan CP wouldnt compete because the aff

could just write not into their perm text to prove lack of competetiveness

2. More real world- Congressmen fight over how bills will function, not the words theyrewritten in

3. Predictable- The function of the CP is limited by normal means and the literature, if our

ev. Says the CP competes, the aff should defend it

4. Textual encourages vague plan writing. Affs would write their plan texts vague enough

to interpret that any CP isnt textually competitive

5. Any CP can textually compete- you could literally rephrase the plan text and it would

function the same in the real world.


21/52

SDI 2006 21

GHD Theory

50 State Fiat Good

Offense:

1. Less fiat abuse- The aff fiats a federal policy and state compliance, no program is

isolated from the states. We just take out one stage of fiat

2. Increases education on interactions between state and federal governments and

federalism

3. The resolution says the USFG should, this is a key test of whether or not the USFG

should act.

Defense:

1. Predictable: The topic mandates it, the states are heavily involved in national service

2. Fiat checks moving target- We defend the immediate plan passage through the states

3. Its reciprocal- We fiat policy on one level, so do they

4. Fair enough- Were using a domestic actor on a domestic topic- International fiat is

much worse by comparison

5. Its real world- Governors meet at least twice a year to dicuss implementation of

national policy at the National Governors Conference.

Daniel J. Evans, 1974, Governor of Washington, EXECUTIVE ORDER 74-08, Advisory Council on StateGovernment Productivity, http://www.governor.wa.gov/actions/orders/eoarchive/eo74-08.htm

The National Governors' Conference first met in 1908. The Conference has played an increasingly vital

role in vigorously representing the interests of the states in the federal system. At the last meeting of the

Governors in Washington, D. C., on March 6-7, 1974 it was determined to revise the operations of theNational Governors' Conference to strengthen even further the conference by reorganizing it to better meetthe needs of the states and by allocating to it increased state resources in order to enhance its capacity to

implement national policy objectives of the nation's governors. As an instrumentality of the State of

Washington and of all the states, the work of the National Governors' Conference is also the work of

Washington State government. The time for state government to acquire its rightful status as a full

partner in the federal system will never be more opportune. I totally support the moves to strengthen the

National Governors' Conference and I share the conviction of my fellow governors that the National

Governors' Conference is the best vehicle to guarantee a role for the State of Washington and for all the states

in the determination of national policy.



22/52

SDI 2006 22

GHD Theory

50 State Fiat Bad

1. Multiple actor fiat is illegit- The aff only gets one actor, the USFG, and the neg can get

advantage off of the unanimous state decision- we dont fiat that everyone is congress

has to vote for the plan.

2. Justifies object fiat- If you can fiat 50 states you can fiat that the 50 most dangerous

countries disarm

3. 50 State fiat is utopian fiat- Every state has never acted all at once like the CP before

4. No literature base kills education- No one advocates all 50 states making one action at

the same time.

5. Moving target- No guarantee on simultaneous and consistent state action- meaning

disads apply to some states but not others

6. Kills education on the resolution- if you tolerate process education every year, we learn

nothing new



23/52

SDI 2006 23

GHD Theory

International Fiat Good

Offense;

1. Resolution basis- You have to defend that the USFG should act

2. Most real world- Congress doesnt debate an action if Britain will do it for them

3. Come out from under that rock- The US isnt the only country that does things, this is

key to real world education.


beyond the context of debate and



4. Their ignorance justifies imperialism and racism- The US isnt the only actor in the

world, its not our job to fix everything.

Defense1. Not outside judges jurisdiction- The theory of opportunity cost, the US cant do it if

another country already did or will

2. Not the same as object fiat- we dont fiat the country causing your harms

3. Its reciprocal- the aff defends one actor, so do we

4. Lit checks abuse- No one writes that the Vatican should do your plan

5. Perm checks abuse- If the policy isnt competitive, the perm takes away all abuse,

otherwise its fair anyway.



24/52

SDI 2006 24

GHD Theory

International Fiat Bad

1. Impossible research burden- There are 192 countries that could pass the plan that wed

have to research

2. No resolution mandate- The judge is meant to be in the position of a US policymaker,he/she has no jurisdiction over what Swaziland does.

3. Not real world- No policy maker has ever had the choice of whether the US or

Cambodia should pass a policy

4. Not reciprocal- the aff only has the USFG

5. Justifies object fiat- If they can fiat other countries, they can just fiat our war scenarios

away



25/52


26/52

SDI 2006 26

GHD Theory

Multiple Actor Fiat Bad

1. Not reciprocal- We only have the USFG, they get huge advantage ground we can never

access.

2. If we want to get advantage off of two actors- we have to have evidence on modeling

3. Unpredictable- There are hundreds of agencies in the US as well as hundreds more in

each of 192 countries, thats an infinite number of combinations wed have to research

4. Artificially competitive- Since theres more than one actor theres no standard of

opportunity cost, meaning the CP isnt a reason to reject the affirmative

5. Voter for fairness and competitive equity


27/52

SDI 2006 27

GHD Theory

Object Fiat Good

Note: First say why you dont use object fiat, cuz it pretty much sucks-you arent going to win

this theory

Object fiat isnt so bad1. Its still negative ground- we have all advocacy outside the resolution

2. No bright line- The aff cant say what too much fiat is

3. Forces affirmative critical thinking- best for education learn to think under pressure

a. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize


4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the alternative


28/52

SDI 2006 28

GHD Theory

Object Fiat Bad

1. Aff never wins: The neg can just fiat away the aff harms with guaranteed solvency then

have a risk of a politics disad.

2. Not reciprocal- Aff cant fiat away disads, we have one advocacy

3. It fiats solvency- We lose our best offense against the CP because they automatically

solve 100%

4. No standard of opportunity cost: They say the USFG shouldnt act to stop genocide

because that war shouldnt be happening in the first place.

5. Vote down the Neg for fairness, otherwise counter planning no war is a no risk

option.


29/52

SDI 2006 29

GHD Theory

Utopian Fiat Good

1. Utopian thinking is good- Imagining Utopia makes progression possible.

Streeten 1999 (Paul, Econ prof @ Boston, Development, v. 42, n. 2, p 118)First, Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analysis. Just as physicists assume anatmospheric vacuum for some purposes, so policy analysts can assume a political vacuum from which they

can start afresh. The physicists assumption plainly would not be useful for the design of parachutes, but can

serve other purposes well. Similarly, when thinking of tomorrows problems, Utopianism is not helpful. But

for long-term strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the Utopian vision gives a sense of direction, which

can get lost in approaches that are preoccupied with the feasible. In a world that is regarded as the

second-best of all feasible worlds, everything becomes a necessary constraint. All vision is lost. Third,excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo. In negotiations, it strengthens the

hand of those opposed to any reform. Unless the case for change can be represented in the same detail asthe case for no change, it tends to be lost. Fourth, it is sometimes the case that the conjuncture of

circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of forces, unexpectedly, turns out to be

favourable to even radical innovation. Unless we are prepared with a carefully worked out, detailed

plan, that yesterday could have appeared utterly Utopian, the reformers will lose out by default. Only a

few years ago nobody would have expected the end of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the

disappearance of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany, the break-up of Yugoslavia, the marketization

of China, the end of apartheid in South Africa. And the handshake on the White House lawn between MrPeres and Mr Arafat. Fifth, the Utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure group, countervailingthe self interested pressures of the obstructionist groups. Ideas thought to be Utopian have become

realistic at moments in history when large numbers of people support them, and those in power have to

yield to their demands.The demand for ending slavery is a historical example. It is for these five reasons

that Utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their proposals and from thinking the unthinkable,

unencumbered by the inhibitions and obstacles of political constraints. They should elaborate them in the

same detail that the defenders of the status quo devote to its elaboration and celebration. Utopianism and

idealism will then turn out to be the most realistic vision. It is well known that there are three types of

economists: those who can count and those who cant. But being able to count up to two, I want to

distinguish between two types of people. Let us call them, for want of a better name, the Pedants and the

Utopians. The names are due to Peter Berger, who uses them in a different context. The Pedants ortechnicians are those who know all the details about the way things are and work, and they have acquired an

emotional vested interest in keeping them this way. I have come across them in the British civil service, inthe bureaucracy of the World Bank, and elsewhere. They are admirable people but they are conservative, and

no good companions for reform. On the other hand, there are the Utopians, the idealists, the visionaries who

dare think the unthinkable. They are also admirable, many of them young people. But they lack the attention

to detail that the Pedants have. When the day of the revolution comes, they will have entered it on the wrong

date in their diaries and fail to turn up, or, if they do turn up, they will be on the wrong side of the barricades.

What we need is a marriage between the Pedants and the Utopians, between the technicians who pay

attention to the details and the idealists who have the vision of a better future. There will be tensions in

combining the two, but they will be creative tensions. We need Pedantic Utopian Pedants who will work out

in considerable detail the ideal world and ways of getting to it, and promote the good cause with informed

fantasy. Otherwise, when the opportunity arises, we shall miss it for lack of preparedness and lose out to the

opponents of reform, to those who want to preserve the status quo.

2. Education and activism outweigh fairness- its what helps debaters beyond the contextof the debate. And if we find a way to maximize education and make the world better

than the rules should be changed.



30/52

SDI 2006 30

GHD Theory

Utopian Fiat Bad

1. Least real world argument in debate: they fiat a serious of actions and actors that

would never happen-


beyond the context of debate andb. education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize


2. Ground- we dont get to argue alternative solvency.

3. Aff would never win- every round wed hit a kritik of biopower, the state, capitalism,

racism, sexism, and Michael Jackson and the neg would just fiat it all away,

4. Their unrealistic use of fiat justifies literally fiating a utopian world- WE CANT

COMPETE AGAINST UTOPIA- we could stop a thousand nuclear wars and still not

beat the perfect world.

5. Voter for fairness, education, and the fact that its just a bad idea.


31/52

SDI 2006 31

GHD Theory

Performance Contradictions Good

Offense:

1. Negation theory- Debate has changed the affirmative doesnt defend the whole

resolution so we only have to prove the plan is a bad idea.

2. Both arguments are reasons why the affirmative is bad, even if one proves the other is

bad, nothing shows the affirmative is good

3. Increases education-

a. They can argue both arguments independently and we learn twice as much

b. Most real world- congressmen give multiple reasons why a plan could be bad

c. We educate on all the reasons why the plans a bad idea

4. Key to our ground- We need to debate with contradictions to show the affirmative is a

bad idea on multiple fronts.

5. Its an even if situation, we argue that the affirmative is bad because of the K, but

even if they win that argument the CP proves theyre bad. Were not going to put all our

eggs in one basket.

6. Increases critical thinking- Both teams have to think strategically about how to attack

each position most effectively

Defense:

1. The 2NR checks back any abuse and defines the negative strategy

2. If theres really a perf con they could just concede one side and cross apply thosearguments to the other, but theres no double turn in the negatives postions.

3. No abuse- We dont prevent the aff from making arguments on either flow that would

make sense

4. They can straight turn and stick us with one postion.

5. Aff bias checks abuse- Theyve had infinite prep to block each position individually.


32/52

SDI 2006 32

GHD Theory

Performance Contradictions Bad

1. Kills education

a. Forces us to debate against ourselves with contradictions- makes debate sloppy

and thoughtless

b. Neg can invest very little time in one position just to solidify the link on theirother

2. Strategy skew, the negative can kick one position and cross apply our arguments as

affirmative suicide

3. Makes us grant a link even if we dont and we have to argue for their CP to argue the

K.

4. False advocacies bad- This proves they dont believe their arguments, makes for bad

debate as well as bad political activism

5. Concedes perm solvency on the K, if the CP is justified, then so is the plan

6. Their positions are conditional

7. 2NR doesnt check abuse- We base our offense off of the 1NC, by the 2NR were already

screwed.



33/52

SDI 2006 33

GHD Theory

Severance Perms Good

Note: Dont admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isnt

Offense

1. Best policy option- If the best policy is the aff minus one minute detail, you still affirm

2. Key to check neg block bias- we need to protect the 1AR

3. If its topical its our ground

Defense

1. The perms legit as long as we dont sever out of planks of the plan necessary for

solvency.

2. More Real world, bills always have parts stricken from them.

a. real world is key to education because its the only thing that helps debatersbeyond the context of debate and



3. Reciprocal- If the neg gets to change the status quo, their entitlement, we get to change

our plan.

4. Topicality checks abuse- we still have to be topical and thats our ground.

5. Not a voter, its an argument why we shouldnt get the perm


34/52


35/52


36/52

SDI 2006 36

GHD Theory

Severance Perms Bad (Representations)

1. 90% of K debates are representation based, they can sever out of any K links

2. Make them defend their entire 1AC, if they say 7 minutes of good things and then 3

minutes of racist slander you wouldnt let them sever out of it

3. Just as bad as plan text severance- Ks are to representations as DAs are to the plan

4. Encourages vague plan writing- If the negative is only stuck to their text theyll write

vague plans that they can weasel out of DA and CP links

5. Dont treat it differently because its kritikal- Its just like severing a soft power

advantage to get out of a soft power bad DA

6. The perm is no longer a test of competitiveness- its an advocacy.

7. They have to sever out of their plan- The text carries their representations

8. The 1AC is the justification for plan passage, they prove that congressmen too would

use this poor justification and lead to the impacts.



37/52

SDI 2006 37

GHD Theory

Intrinsic Perms Good

Note: Dont admit that your perm is intrinsic, explain why it isnt

Offense:

1. Most real world- If the USFG sees that their defense budget hurts the economy, they

should still pass the defense budget to preserve the country then subsidize the economy-thats an intrinsic perm.

2. Neg ground- They get ground off of every new part we add to the plan

3. Promotes plan focus- The perm encourages the neg to stop running their solve all CP

and research plan specific strategies.

4. Key to find the best policy option, if its a topical clarification of the plan then you vote

aff

Defense1. We still prove the plan is a good idea, all the plan is in the perm. The net benefit to the

CP isnt intrinsic to the aff.

2. Its reciprocal- They add to the status quo with the CP to solve a disad, we add to the

plan with the perm.

3. Not a shift of advocacy- just a clarification and test of competitiveness.

4. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the perm


38/52

SDI 2006 38

GHD Theory

Intrinsic Perms Bad

1. Not a perm, its a shift of advocacy. The perm is an add on to the plan not a test of

competitiveness.

2. The aff can do anything to add an extra advantage- like perm do plan and feed thestarving kids in Africa

3. Kills clash- The affirmative doesnt have to defend an action just find another way to

solve for disads.

4. They can always perm out of our net benefit, the neg never wins a counterplan

5. Creates a moving target- the 2AC can moot the first two speeches and change the focus

of the debate.

6. Neg ground- Few if any disads are intrinsic to the affirmative plan.

7. If they get intrinsicness arguments then so do we- there are a thousand things in the

squo that could solve for the affirmative harms, they just handed us a thousand winning

conditional counterplans with no text.

8. Vote on it for fairness or let us have intrinsicness arguments too.


39/52

SDI 2006 39

GHD Theory

Vagueness Good

Offense

1. Education- We increase the breadth of topic specific education, we learn about a lotquickly with a bigger plan

2. Forces critical thinking- We make the negative listen to the entire 1AC to find the point

of the case rather then just waiting for the plan text.

Defense

1. The plan is a resolved text, not a bill in front of congress

2. No in round abuse- Dont let them tell you what they couldnt run, if they ran it with

this theory it would be suicide for us to clarify out of links

3. Topicality checks abuse- If we add an untopical action to our plan in the 2AC, they can

run T in the 2NC

4. If were topical, you vote aff and affirm the resolution, we can be vague and still affirm

5. Were still topical- we can never meet their interpretation of resolved because theyd just

say they have doubts about the plan


40/52

SDI 2006 40

GHD Theory

Vagueness Bad

1. Moving target bad- Vague plans allow the affirmative to weasel out of DA and CP links

in the 2AC by clarifying their plan

2. Ground- We lose links to the affirmatives plan mechanism and links like spending thatdepend on a stable plan text. Also, CP competitiveness is impossible to interpret

because we dont know what the aff actually does.

3. Limits- The aff can claim a topical action but clarify later in the debate they do more.

4. Strat skew- Its irreversible damage; we base our 1NC strat off their disclosed plan text.

5. Not Topical under Resolved means to remove or dispel (doubts) American Heritage Dictionary in2000 fourth addition accessed via dictionary.com

6. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction


41/52

SDI 2006 41

GHD Theory

Test Case Fiat Good

Offense

1. Education- We increase education on the process of certiorari and how the court

functions

2. They overlimit- They dont allow any cases under the resolution because none of them

are currently in front of the Supreme Court.

3. Double bind- If they had links to a certain test case they could run them and say this

would be the next available test case through normal means, otherwise theres no abuse.

Defense

1. Just like any other fiat- A bill has to be in front of congress for them to vote and

someone has to draft the executive order for the president to sign.

2. This would be like saying an aff with a congress actor has to tell the bill that will bedrafted as well as vote counts, sponsors, and co sponsors

3. No fiat abuse- The resolution mandates a should/would question that allows us to avoid

procedure problems like test cases

4. Reciprocity- We dont require your CPs to give bills, test cases, or grounds for rulings

5. Not relevant in the real world- The court can pick and choose cases for what it wants to

rule on, theyve ordered parties to re-litigate when they dont feel they get ground for

what they want to rule.

David OBrien, Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Storm Center: TheSupreme Court in American Politics, 2000, p. 227-228.The current Courts power to pick the cases it wants from a very large docket enables it to assume the

role of a super legislature. The overwhelming number of cases on the docket involve indigents claims and

issues of criminal procedure. Yet, as is indicated below, few are selected and decided on merits. Cases raising

other issues of constitutional law have a better chance of being selected; so do cases involving statutory,

administrative, and regulatory matters. These are all areas in which the government has an interest inlegitimating its policies. The Court thus functions like a roving commission, selecting and decidingonly

issues of national importance for the governmental process.

WILLIAM J. Quirk, Professor of Legal Research at University of South Carolina Law School

and R. RANDALL Bridwell, Professor of Law at University of South Carolina Law School,JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP, 1995, p. 29- 30.

We would answer that the Court is the least dangerous branch as Alexander Hamilton said; it has noexecutive or legislative authority; it doesnt make rules; it just decides cases that come before it. The trouble

with our answer is that the Court is able to select the cases that come before it from a large number ofthem. The Court, at its 1992-93 term, refused to hear 7,233 cases while it decided to hear ninety- seven,

or 1.3 percent. In 1950, on the other hand, the Court heard 10 percent of the cases brought to it whichindicates it was then acting as a court of appeal over the lower federal courts. The Courts power to pick

from among such a large number of cases gives it the practical ability to rule on issues it thinks

important, to act, in effect, as a Court of National Policy.


42/52

SDI 2006 42

GHD Theory

Test Case Fiat Bad

1. Predictability- We cant predict agents outside the resolution that are necessary to bring

the case to lower courts and up to the Supreme Court

2. Ground- We cant run specific links to test cases if they dont specify what case theyrule on

3. Limits- There are enough cases currently in front of the court- there are an infinite

number that could possibly work up to the supreme court

4. Topicality- Aff can claim extra topical advantages off of the agent of action in lower

courts etc.

5. Voter for fairness and jurisdiction


43/52

SDI 2006 43

GHD Theory

ASPEC

A. Interpretation- The aff must specify the agent

First, the government consists of three branches: the legislative, the executive, or the

judicial, Dictionary of Politics 79

Second, Resolved - To reach a decision or make a determination, American Heritage

Dictionary 2000

B. Violation- The aff didnt specify

C. Reasons to prefer

1. Predictable limits - There are dozens of executive agencies that can regulate the authority

of their personnel to search without probable cause and there is a split between congress

and the courts in terms of legally restricting the authority. The literature on each of theagents is unique from other agents making later specification render a specific negative

strategy null.

2. GroundSpecification key to DA links like politics and courts as well as process

counterplans

3. Education- 90% of policy is implementation





alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent,leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

4. Aff conditionality- They can skew our strategy by dodging out of DA links and CP

competition we present in the 1NC

5. Most real world- The USFG isnt an actor- all three branches cannot pass a policy as one.

6. Irreversible time skew - Granting us whatever links we presented doesnt remedy the

time skew - there was no way we could have predicted that they would have granted us

these links and reading the shell was the only way to deter abuse. Punish them for altering

our time and strategy.

D. Voter for fairness, education and jurisdiction


44/52

SDI 2006 44

GHD Theory

AT: ASPEC

Counter-interpretation: normal means solves issues stemming from agent specification

a. Solves offense, the negative can read evidence that says the plan will be done in

certain way and then link to it

b. Normal means solves the Elmore evidence, under normal means policies dontlack direction or implementation.

c. Solves all education about agents arguments, we just argue that the neg has to

engage us first- they can go ahead and present links they have

Offense

1. Forcing specification gives the negative the right to agent and process counterplans.

This creates bad, un-educational debate- there is never any discussion of the aff we just

talk about their narrow net benefit and whether or not the perm solves.

2. Infinitely regressive- There is no reason why specifying funding or personnel is less

relevant than ASPEC- The only bright line is what the resolution mandates.

3. Encourages over specifying- This kills limits and predictability because there are

thousands of case combinations. And they lose ground because random agents are

perceived in politics DAs.

Defense

1. No Resolution mandate- The resolution says the USFG, it doesnt mandate that we have

to specify a single branch. All issues could be solved if the resolution specified the agent-

then it would be a relevant question

2. Fiat is a should/would question designed to let us debate what would happen post plan

and avoid procedurals like aspec

3. Theres no reason the negative cannot win without us specifying, the topic gives them

huge links to things like spending, militarism, and objectivism.

4. If there is amazing topic specific literature on a certain agent, there will be incentive for

teams to spec. their agent.

5. No in round abuse- If you were to run a specific DA link to one agent, we would not no

link your disad.

6. Cross-x checks- You couldve asked us but you just wanted to run ASPEC

7. Disclosure checks abuse- They had our plan text before the round to root it out for DA

links and CPs

8. Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never

a reason to reject the aff


45/52

SDI 2006 45

GHD Theory

OSPEC

A. Violation:

The affirmative over-specifies how the plan will be implemented by giving the specific

agent who will do the plan.

B. Reasons to prefer

1. Predictable limits: There are over hundreds of different agents in the Federal

Government. Allowing the aff to choose makes the topic 500 times larger, killing

predictability.

2. Ground: When they overspecify it kills disad ground because we cant get our generic

politics links and they can squirrel out of other generic disads by claiming they implement

plan differently than the disad assumes.

3. Non-Topical: The affirmative doesnt fiat the entire United States Federal Government

as a whole body, this violates the term Government:

Blacks Law Dictionary, 1979 [5th edition, page 625]

The whole class or body of officeholders or functionaries considered in the aggregate, upon

whom devolves the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative business of the state.

C. Vote on OSPEC for fairness, predictable ground and jurisdiction


46/52

SDI 2006 46

GHD Theory

AT: OSPEC

Counter interpretation: USFG is one of the three branches.

A. Solves their predictability and limits arguments.

B. Reasonable compromise between affirmative solvency and negative link

ground.Defense

1. ____________ is uniquely predictable, its one of the three major branches

2. No ground loss- They can still run generic links to the USFG, it encompasses the plan

3. Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never

a reason to reject the aff

Offense

1. Ground- We give them ground to specific agent links, politics, and proceduralcounterplans

2. Specific literature- The best policy literature is written in the context of the government

branch in question, not the USFG as a whole. This is key to both affirmative advantage

literature and negative link ground

3. Education- 90% of policy is implementation





alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent,leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

4. They overlimitno plan affects every single part of the USFGthere are over 900

agents and no case involves all of them. This allows for no topical affirmative plans or

negative positions under their interpretation.

5. Aff conditionality- If we dont specify, we can dodge out of your disad links and

counterplan competitiveness by saying we dont defend that agent.


47/52


48/52

SDI 2006 48

GHD Theory

Floating PIKs Bad

1. The judge doesnt vote aff to say the USFG should pass the aff for a certain reason- they

just intellectually support the plan, fiat doesnt mean the same representations carry

over

2. Ground- Worse than PICs we literally have zero offense against the alternative.

3. Infinitely regressive- We go through a thousand representations in one speech. In one

college round, the neg team found the word Shilock in a metaphor of the un-

underlined portions of a solvency card and won on a floating PIK

4. Time skew- the negative can moot our entire 1AC to change the course of the debate

towards debating one representation

5. Moving target- Since theyre piking out of a representation, we never know what

theyre really advocating

6. Negation theory says they have to prove the plan is a bad idea, they dont theyre not

only advocating the resolution they advocate the plan

7. Fiat means that the polices are identical- they dont textually compete

8. Education- Theres a point where depth of education gets to be ridiculous- they ruin

topic specific education

9. Voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction


49/52

SDI 2006 49

GHD Theory

No Text to Alt Good

Offense

1. Shatters the critique- Our criticism cant be embraced in one sentence, it would make

the entire advocacy pointless to hold it to this unrealistic standard

2. Critical thinking- Condensing the critique into a one sentence alternative allows the

affirmative to not critically think about what were critiquing.

3. Ground- The less specific we are, the more ground they get

Defense

4. Cross-x checks abuse- If they didnt understand the alternative we could have explained

it to them

5. The tag is the text, just because we didnt label it doesnt mean its not there.

6. No moving target- We have a stable advocacy, we just dont contextualize it- its still in

the evidence

7. They still could have permed the K, its not our fault they didnt choose to.



50/52

SDI 2006 50

GHD Theory

No text to Alt Bad

1. Reciprocity- Youd laugh at an aff that proposes a plan but didnt write a text

2. Moving target bad- Text is the only stable advocacy, otherwise they can dodge out of

turns and solvency attacks by changing their alternative in the next speech.

3. Time and strategy skew- We dont know what the alternative actually is until the

rebuttals, wasting our only constructive to create offense against the K.

4. Cant prove competitiveness- We dont know what we can perm if theres no text, and

theyll just change their alt accordingly

5. Voter for fairness- Its irreversible damage.


51/52

SDI 2006 51

GHD Theory

Err Neg on Theory

1. Aff has first and last speeches.

2. Aff has historically higher winning percentage

3. They have infinite prep time to write answers to all of our arguments.

4. Total Argument Choice If we drop one answer on a disad, we lose it.

5. Fiat eliminates half the real world arguments we can make on the political process.

6. Issue Choice Were forced to debate whatever case they chose.


52/52

SDI 2006 52

GHD Theory

Err Aff on Theory

1. The aff no longer has the advantage- negative win percentage is up, and most teams

choose to be neg off the coin flip

2. They have the block, 13 minutes that we have to answer in 5- theory is key to protectthe 1AR

3. We have the burden of T, the neg is unrestrained

4. They Get Issue Choice We have to answer every position, they can just pick their

strongest ones and kick the rest

5. They Have The Last Constructive After the 2NC the round is effectively over

6. Aff disclosure- Its commonplace for us to disclose, they can do whatever they want

7. Our prep time is finite- weve got lives, but their ground for counterplans and disads is

infinite

wham theory

Documents