Condo File

1AR
 Drop – Short
Condo is a voting issue – the time crunched 1AR can’t read its best offense
against multiple worlds with different uniqueness conditions – they collapse to
what’s undercovered which wrecks engagement. Dispo solves—they can kick it
if we perm—they get to test the aff but we get strategic options like pointing
out contradictions and straight turns
 Drop – Long
Conditionality’s a voting issue:
1] Strat skew – splits the 1ar by forcing me to argue against multiple worlds
with different uniqueness conditions which precludes taking advantage of
strategic interactions and contradictions
2] Clash – incentivizes reading many short advocacies and going for the least
covered which moots 1ar responses and prevents going in-depth on their
position’s nuances. Outweighs because external education and multiple rounds
solve their education impacts but clash only occurs in-round
3] Dispo solves—they can kick it if we perm—allows sufficient neg flexibility
while preserving 1ar strategic decision-making
 Drop – Education
Conditionality’s a voting issue:
1] argument development – they encourage reading nonsense no-risk options
in the 1nc which expands debates horizontally but not vertically which matters
because it link turns every education argument they go for
2] clash – their model of debate destroys incentives for high-quality clash and
testing because splitting an already constrained 1AR forces short analytics
instead of thorough debates. It means neg goes for the argument with the least
ink instead of their best arguments which means we never debate core lit
3] Dispo solves—they can kick it if we perm—allows sufficient neg flexibility
while preserving 1ar strategic decision-making
 Interp
Interp – the neg may not defend conditional advocacies.
Interp – the neg can only kick advocacies if the aff perms them.

Interp – neg advocacies must be either unconditional or dispositional with the condition being they have to go for it if the net benefit
is straight turned.

Violation – they made it condo

Prefer:
1] Strat skew – splits the 1ar by forcing me to argue against multiple worlds
with different uniqueness conditions which precludes taking advantage of
strategic interactions and contradictions
2] Clash – incentivizes reading many short advocacies and going for the least
covered which moots 1ar responses and prevents going in-depth on their
position’s nuances. Outweighs because external education and multiple rounds
solve their education impacts but clash only occurs in-round
3] Dispo solves—they can kick it if we perm—allows sufficient neg flexibility
while preserving 1ar strategic decision-making
 Add-On – LD vs Policy
It's specific to LD – their model doesn't let clash happen until the 2AR which is
fine in policy but makes no sense in LD since rounds are half as long, we have
much shorter speeches, and our research on the topic is only 2 months deep.
NR
CI
 vs Paragraph
Conditionality --- it’s good
1] Key to neg flex --- they set the terms of debate and know the plan better
than us, so multiple options ensures the neg doesn’t auto lose after the 1AR
2] Experimentation – lack of condo means negs never experiment with new
args, which results in stale debates where each neg reads the same position
every round
3] Strategic thinking – condo forces the 1AR to make time allocation decisions
and the 2N to sort through more layers when deciding where to collapse
4] Condo increases breadth of clash by incentivizing multiple layers like a PIC,
Adv CP, DA, and case debate – breadth o/w depth on portability – debate
exposes us to more ideas that improve awareness of the world
5] Reasonability --- competing interps leads to substance crowd-out by letting
minor infractions end the debate – don’t vote aff if they had substantive
answers because it proves the substance education DA to voting on theory o/w
the abuse story.
6] Reject theory without a text of the interp – it lets them shift in the 2AR with
things like “well condo’s bad but dispo’s alright” which moots large portions of
2N offense and doesn’t give me a chance to respond
7] Hold the line—this argument was the shortest, blippiest, and most
unwarranted that args can get – it will have to change from the 1ar to the 2ar
and if you don’t have a warrant on your flow in the 1ar, don’t reward the aff for
sandbagging argument development since there’s no 3NR for clash
Err neg – it’s impossible for the 2N to win offense vs a 2AR that can just dump
new warrants that just weren’t in the 1AR so defense should be the bar – it
forces them to win offense and preserves the value of 1AR theory while making
it possible for the neg to win
 Counterinterp
CI: # condo is good – solves their offense because it sets a limit on the number
of advocacies which means they don’t have to beat infinite condo and have
time to clash – force them to prove that there’s a difference between 1 and 2
condo but not 2 and 3
CI: the neg may read conditional advocacies
1] Education:
A) Experimentation – lack of condo means negs never experiment with new
args, which results in stale debates where each neg reads the same position
every round
B) Strategic thinking – condo forces the 1AR to make time allocation decisions
and the 2N to sort through more layers when deciding where to collapse
C) Decision-making – we take actions by considering what other actions we
could take and sorting through the benefits of various options – condo makes
the process of testing shallow with fewer decisions
2] Fairness: affs choose the advocacy and have infinite prep for frontlines and
hell 1AR’s – negs need to prep every aff but affs can go deep on 1 or 2 affs –
condo balances this by allowing negs many option
Neg fairness outweighs – condo doesn’t change that the neg still has to win that
the squo or a competing option is net better but affs rarely lose on substance
when the neg doesn’t have condo cuz the 1AR can dump perms, weighing,
impact turns, etc.
Reasonability --- competing interps leads to substance crowd-out by letting
minor infractions end the debate – don’t vote aff if they had substantive
answers because it proves the substance education DA to voting on theory o/w
the abuse story.
Err neg – it’s impossible for the 2N to win offense vs a 2AR that can just dump
new warrants that just weren’t in the 1AR so defense should be the bar – it
forces them to win offense and preserves the value of 1AR theory while making
it possible for the neg to win
Interp
 Overview
1] Terminal defense: every argument is conditional - they read theory without
an RVI and no debater goes for every argument in the round. 2 impacts: a)
voting me down for condo is arbitrary and irreciprocal and b) the abuse they
claim occurs is inevitable
2] Turn: condo is key to reciprocity – they have unlimited perms and sticking
the neg to just one advocacy gives one side a monopoly
3] Fairness skews inevitable – debaters aim to win by advantaging themselves –
some debaters are faster, more prepped, better coached, etc. so its arbitrary to
isolate some internal links to fairness as relevant but not others.
4] Counterinterp solves fairness skew – 2N has to choose 1 coherent advocacy
which lets the 2AR choose any of the responses it makes on the CP as fair game
to give a speech on.
5] Err neg on 1ar theory, 2ar gets new framing and the last word that I can’t
predict – which means you shouldn’t evaluate new 2ar weighing or turns.
 AT Advocacy Skills
1] TURN – the aff has to defend their advocacy is better than a marketplace of
different ideas which improves their ability to withstand robust testing
2] TURN – we should ground our advocacy skills in how policy-makers in the
real world function—no rational policy maker would be forced to choose
between two policies that are worse than the status quo
 AT Clash
1] 2N collapse solves – the 2AR can focus on that advocacy and weigh against it
– the aff is already indexed against the squo so they just have to beat the
advocacies
2] Debates aren’t long enough for anything more than scratching the surface
even without condo which proves condo gets the best of both worlds with early
breadth and late-breaking depth
3] Turn – condo increases breadth of clash by incentivizing multiple layers like a
PIC, Adv CP, DA, and case debate – breadth o/w depth on portability – debate
exposes us to more ideas that improve awareness of the world
4] Clash inevitable – judges always have to resolve arguments and debaters
compare across flows which proves embedded clash is sufficient
 AT Condo Ethics/Argument Responsibility
1. TURN – its less responsible to defend flawed advocacies—we should just
use the status quo instead of arguing for an advocacy we know is bad.
2. C/I solves your offense – we’ll be responsible for the 2NR choice—no
reason that responsibility in the 1NC is uniquely important.
3. N/U – we choose to kick arguments all the time—no reason why kicking
an advocacy is different.
 AT Dispo Solves
1] It’s arbitrary because the neg will choose self-serving conditions to kick their
advocacies with no stable basis, like “putting defense” on it
2] Dispo creates incentive structures where affs get a monopoly over the
strategic value of the counterplan by having the flex to decide whether or not
to violate the condition. 2N choice is at the mercy of the 1AR which kills all the
benefits of condo since negs won’t take that risk
 AT Policymaking
Turn: Policymakers aren’t held to one option – they can always shift advocacies
and shouldn’t be held to a bad policy option, which means the clash we get isn’t
portable or representative
 AT Strat Skew
1] Non UQ – all args are conditional since debaters go for some things but not
others – 1ar theory with no RVIs prove we both have condo offense
2] Turn – lack of condo wrecks neg strat since the 1AR can straight turn the NB
to the highest neg layer which moots the rest of the 1N – this is worse since
they can perfectly script the 1AR
3] Neg strat o/w 1ar skew – they have time to practice, refine, and script their
1AR’s to any angle the neg takes whereas negs are split across many affs
4] Non unique – every argument I make skews your strat somewhat – no reason
condo is uniquely worse
5] Turn – strategic pressure forces you to be more strategic which lets you
navigate your way through good 1NCs in the future
 AT Time Skew
1. 2NR collapse solves – either a) Neg goes for the CP in the 2NR, in which
case your answers apply and there’s no skew, or b) Neg collapses to the
squo, in which case Neg also lost time by reading the CP in 1NC.
2. No time skew – we both have 13min – you just need to write a more
strategic aff vs CPs
3. Impact turn – condo’s key to solving for infinite prep and frontlining on
the AC and 2AR persuasive appeal
4. Terminal defense – you get the entirety of the 2AR to clash and defeat
the 1 advocacy I go for
2AR
Overviews
 Clash/Arg Development
Condo kills aff and neg incentives to develop argumentation – their model
encourages nonsense, no-risk options in the 1nc and kick them which decreases
the educational value of debates. They expand debates horizontally, but not
vertically which links turns every argument they go for. Their model destroys
high quality clash and testing cuz splitting the 1ar forces us into short analytics
instead of quality carded responses from the literature cuz they’ll always go for
what we undercover.
 Dispo Solves
Dispo solves their offense – we get straight turns to stick them with the CP
which solves aff strat and lets us force clash but they still get to test the aff and
kick out of perms which solves neg flex and their perm args.

Evaluate their standards through sufficiency framing—dispo solves most of

their offense so our offense should outweigh the marginal risks of their
impacts.
 --Policy Add-on
It’s uniquely bad in LD:
1] There’s no 2ac to develop carded offense on the counterplans or Ks—the 1AR
is only 4 minutes so condo forces us into short analytics instead of thorough,
literature-based responses which turns their policy-making/critical education
offense.
2] The 2ar comes after the “block”—under their model, clash doesn’t happen
until the 2AR, which is fine in policy but makes no sense in LD since rounds are
half as long, the 2ar doesn’t get new cards, we have much shorter speeches,
and our research on the topic is far less nuanced given that it lasts 2 months
which means you should err towards argument development—clash is the only
intrinsic benefit of debating while research and policy ed are always possible
outside of round by reading books or cutting cards
 All/Generic
Condo kills aff and neg incentives to develop argumentation – their model
encourages nonsense, no-risk options in the 1nc and kick them which
incentivizes debates on the least-covered positions and kills clash. It’s uniquely
harmful to fairness cuz the 1AR already has to answer 7 minutes of arguments
in just 4 minutes, but condo splits the 1AR more ways by forcing me to answer
the worlds of multiple CPs and the squo cuz I don’t know what they’re going to
collapse to.
Interp LbL
 AT: 1AR Hard = Good
Yes the 1AR should be hard but it’s already sufficiently harder and we’ve won
why their model is bad

Getting better is a 0 sum game cuz even if I get better, they can too which still
leaves us with abusive condo
 AT: 1AR Theory = Condo
You can force me to answer offense on it by link turning with you violate or
impact turning fairness and education. Reading an RVI would also grant you
offense and obviously every argument has to be won so it’s not abusive for me
to say no RVI.
 AT: Abuse Non UQ – other args
1] Condo is uniquely bad – it lets them kick out of straight turns which they
can’t do with anything else
2] 1 abusive strategy doesn’t justify another – even if other arguments are bad,
that doesn’t make condo ok

[AT: T] we can link turn with you violate or impact turn fairness or education
which gives us offense
[AT: DA] we can always straight turn a DA which forces the 2n to answer it and
solves 1ar skew and clash
 AT: Best of Both Worlds
All of our explanation above proves the 1N and 1AR lack enough depth for later
expansion without being too new – sandbagging clash to later in the debate
kills in depth engagement and makes the 3min 2AR impossible
 AT: Breadth o/w Depth
1] Depth o/w – improves applicability irl since you’re more likely to know
enough to actually act on knowledge
2] Multiple rounds solve breadth cuz u can read or go for diff args in each one
which gives u variety
 AT: Clash Across Layers
Dispo solves – it allows you to develop multiple areas but allows affs to
strategize vs contradictory advocacies
 AT: Contradictions Good
1] Contradictions are bad – they force the 1AR to answer itself and the 2NR can
concede an argument on one flow to win another
2] Turns policy making offense – policy makers can’t contradict themselves or
they lose credibility
3] Multiple rounds solve arg testing and allow experimentation with different
ideologies
 AT: Perms Solve
1] Dispo solves – you can kick it if I read a bunch of perms
2] Quality difference – negs have time to develop a counterplan but the aff gets
1 sentence per perm which means our args are way easier to answer than theirs
3] There’s only 2 legit perms – perm do both and perm do the CP – they have 6
minutes to win a net benefit and establish competition which they have to do
anyway which answers our perms
 AT: Pick in 2N/2A Answers Solve
1] Doesn’t solve – the 1AR needs to set up 2AR outs which condo prevents us
from doing
2] Doesn’t solve – most judges aren’t receptive to new 2AR reframing
arguments so affs would always lose
3] You still have a major time advantage on whatever you pick cuz the 2N will
always be ahead of the 2A on time
 AT: Squo’s Condo
No impact cuz the aff is framed as a proposal away from the squo so we haven’t
lost any engagement or offense
If they say no warming we can just concede that and go for a smaller impact, squo policies obviously aren’t enough if we win the
advantage
 AT: Straight Turns Solve
Doesn’t solve our offense since they can still kick it or counterplan out of the
straight turn by reading an advocacy that links to a disad
--------------------------------------------------------
This goes aff—condo lets you kick out of straight turns since you can read a
counterplan that non-uniques the disad
Here’s what it means to read a CP that non uniques the DA – say I read a 2020
disad and a counterplan that says the Democrats should let Trump be
president. If the aff doesn’t impact turn the disad I can kick the counterplan and
go for the disad, but if they do impact turn it, I can extend the counterplan
which makes Trump president and solves the impact turn.
This puts us in a double-bind—either we straight turn the DA, in which case the
counterplan non-uniques it, or we don’t in which case you kick the counterplan
and go for the DA which proves you disincentivize good aff args.
 AT: Tech Solves
Doesn’t solve cuz if we get techier, they can too, which puts us back at square 1
with an abusive counterplan
AT Counter Interp
 1 Condo
Doesn’t solve our offense – they can still impact turn the aff and read impact
turns that link to the CP which skews 1ar and links to clash
 # Condo
Their interp is arbitrary cuz there’s no way we could’ve known # was ok but 4
was bad – obviously our offense applies to # condo cuz they can still impact
turn the aff and read impact turns that link to the CP which skews the 1ar and
links to clash
 AT: Argument Innovation
1] Dispo solves – you can read new args and kick them if we perm
2] Turn – if a CP isn’t good enough to read uncondo cuz you think it’d lose, then
it probably isn’t worth reading anyway
3] Innovation is inevitable – debaters try to find unique positions because new
positions are strategic since opposing debaters are less equipped to answer it
 AT: Breadth o/w Depth
1] Depth o/w – improves applicability irl since you’re more likely to know
enough to actually act on knowledge
2] Multiple rounds solve breadth cuz u can read or go for diff args in each one
which gives u variety
 AT: Info Processing
1] Dispo solves – you can still read a bunch of counterplans – it’s also better cuz
it forces us to think strategically and figure out how your counterplans
contradict which improves our ability to digest info
2] Non unique – just read a bunch of disads – it still forces you to process info
but gives us straight turns
 AT: Logic
1] No impact to logic – reciprocal engagement o/w since debate is a game both
sides should have an equal shot at winning which is proven by speech times,
speaks, and the topic
2] Clash o/w – it’s impossible to determine if it’s logical if the 1AR can’t clash
with the CP
 AT: Negation Theory
Negation theory is silly – obviously other things negate the aff like disads and
dispo counterplans and they’d justify 40 a prioris which negates the aff but is
obviously abusive
 AT: Neg Flex
1] Neg over flex – they have Ks, NCs, T, and dispo CPs – condo just gives them
too many options especially when they have the 7 4 6 3 time skew
2] Dispo solves – you have multiple options but at least you have to answer my
args – they haven’t quantified how much flex they need so err aff on clash
3] Aff is harder – we speak in the dark while neg adapts so our fairness claims
o/w
 AT: RW Education
1] Turn – we lose education when they can just kick what we engage the most
with
2] Dispo solves – they still get to read the counterplan and we answer it which
means we get that education
3] This isn’t real world – we spread, cut cards, and debate in a game that both
sides should have an equal shot at winning which is proven by speech times,
speaks, and the topic
4] No impact – debate is useful because of the research and thinking skills it
offers – there’s no such thing as fake education, which means our model is just
as valuable
 AT: RW Policymaking
1] Dispo solves—it forces you to defend your policies if we straight turn them
which makes you a better advocate
2] We aren’t policymakers – we’re high school debaters in a 45min round who
spread and cut cards
3] They’re wrong – policymakers can’t just say sike after proposing something
cuz they’d be voted out of office for flip flopping, things go thru revision instead
4] Turn – we lose education when they can just kick what we engage the most
with
5] No impact – debate is useful because of the research and thinking skills it
offers – there’s no such thing as fake education, which means our model is just
as valuable
 AT: Strategic Thinking
1] Dispo solves – you can still read a bunch of counterplans – it’s also better
because it forces us to think strategically about how your advocacies contradict
and makes you more strategic cuz you can’t just kick something if it doesn’t
work out
2] It’s a 0 sum game – if I think more, they can think more too and now we’re
still left with an abusive CP
3] It’s a lose/lose for the 1AR – even if I think strategically, it still doesn’t solve
for the fact that I’m at a structural disadvantage.
 Paradigms
In the 1AC?? 2n new
 No New 2AR/Err Neg
We obviously get responses to 2NR args otherwise they’d auto win every time
and judges have internal thresholds for what’s too new which solves their
offense
The 1AR did have well developed standards and all of our 2AR extrapolation is
either a response to their args or straight from the 1AR
 DTA
Logic of condo
Doesn’t solve 1ar skew bc we don’t know ur stuck with it until the 2nr
 Reasonability
1] Arbitrary
2] 2nr is too late
3] They’re not reasonable –