2AR

LD adapted ov
[read in front of policy judges]

Look- if we got to have a judge draft and I could pick someone to go for conditionality
bad in front of this probably wouldn’t be my starting roster, but someone has to hold
the line.

[start here otherwise]

Condo kills both aff and neg incentives to develop argumentation. Their model
incentivizes neg laziness, where they throw nonsense, no-risk options in the 1nc and
kick them which incentivizes debates on the least-covered positions and kills clash.
We came prepared to debate any of their individual counterplans but the fact that
they can kick them means it’s not logical for us to read our best arguments which
forces us into short analytics instead of quality carded responses from the literature
which turns policy education.
Their model of debate is one in which the only meaningful argument development we
get doesn’t happen until the 2AR, which is fine in policy but makes no sense in LD
since the rounds are half as long, we have much shorter speeches, and our research on
the topic is far less nuanced given that it lasts 2 months.
Clash is the KEY method by which rounds educate and teach us how to become better
decision-makers who can use logic in the real world, so we control the net benefits to
condo.
Insert clash outweighs
 ---Fairness o/w Education
Fairness before education – a) education is non UQ – most of debate’s education
comes from out of round research – you can also read a book or the news or spend
some hours at school, b) reversibility – fairness is always unfair and you can’t take
back a loss whereas education can be resolved thru post-round discussions, c)
gateway issue – lack of fairness and divisions of ground means we don’t know what
args to prep to clash on, d] fairness internal link turns education – if you can’t engage
due to some skew, you obviously aren’t getting education since there’s an uneven
discussion of issues
Line by Line – Clash
 AT: Perms Solve
Perms don’t solve—
1. quality difference—1NCs have the time to develop counterplans while we get a
sentence max per perm which means our advocacies take way less time to answer
than theirs
2. Dispo solves – if I read a bunch of perms you can kick the counterplan to get out of
the perms
3. there’s only two legit perms – perm do both and perm do the counterplan – the neg
gets 6 minutes to win a net benefit which answers perm do both and they can easily
establish competition for perm do the counterplan in that time too
 AT: 1AR Straight Turns
This is an aff arg—condo lets you kick out of our straight turns since you can read a
counterplan that non-uniques your DA, which 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
1. You can’t just blame your opponent—this begs the question of if we’re winning our
abuse—we have made structural claims about the nature of the activity that means
negs will be really far ahead if they get condo versus equally skilled affs which proves
affs will get left behind without in depth clash
2. Getting faster isn’t responsive—you’d get faster too in the time we took to get
faster which proves its nonunique and doesn’t solve our engagement offense
 AT: Abuse Non-unique
Condo is uniquely bad – it lets them kick out of straight turns which they can’t do with
anything else
[AT: T] we can always go for “fairness for who” or “T is exclusionary” to impact turn T
and negs have to win a substantial link to win
[AT: DA] we can always straight turn a DA which forces a 2nr collapse and solves strat
skew
 AT: Pick in 2NR/2AR Answers Solve
1. No – the 1AR needs to give the 2AR outs, which condo prevents from
happening in the first place.
2. Most judges aren’t receptive to new 2AR arguments, so they won’t listen to
new 2AR reframing arguments.
3. Can’t solve – double bind cuz either a) I over cover the CP in which case you kick
it and I don’t have enough time to frame the Aff against the squo, or b) I under
cover the CP, in which case it doesn’t matter whether or not I win substance.
4. You still have a 6-3 time advantage on whatever you pick
 AT: Skew Small
All of our offense above answers why condo is bad in LD
P issues
 Dta
Logic of condo

Doesn’t solve 1ar skew bc we don’t know ur stuck with it until the 2nr
 R
1. Makes no sense on condo -its either condo or not – you cant be reasonably condo which means
winning our offense proves you weren’t reasonable
2. Arbitrary –
3. Best norms o/w
4. Theyre not reasonable
 Ref not norm setter
Judge being a ref begs the question of our clash offense –
AT Counter Interp
 You Violate
1. No – theory can be link and impact turned – ie fairness for who.
2. Conditional advocacies are different than theory args – you shouldn’t be able to
kick out of DAs because that kills substantive clash but theory clash doesn’t
really have an impact.
 Dispo
Dispo solves most of their offense but forces the neg to be smart and lets our answers
apply –
the neg can kick the CP if we make a permutation or a theory argument not about
status. sticking them with the net benefit is better because it forces them to defend
their args. Compare all of that to a model where the neg gets to choose where to put
clash – strategic incentives dictate that they’ll run away from good args because they
want to win which proves that their model is flawed.
Evaluate their standards through sufficiency framing—dispo solves most of their
offense so our offense should outweigh the marginal risks of their impacts.
 Argument Innovation
Dispo solves – it lets you read new args and kick them when we go for the perm – only
dispo forces you to go in depth and predict what offense the 1ar might read on it
which proves our interp is better

---

1. Turn – if you don’t think that a CP is good enough to read it dispositionally, you
shouldn’t read it because you haven’t researched it enough.
2. innovation inevitable – debaters will find unique positions that they don’t think
their opponents are able to beat because they have a strategic incentive toa.
 Info Processing
Dispo solves – you can still read a bunch of counterplans – it’s also better because it
forces us to think strategically and figure out how your counterplans contradict which
makes us better at digesting info
1. Non unique – just read a bunch of disads or other args.
 Logic
No impact to logical policymaking – Debate isn’t supposed to 1:1 mirror the real world
but instead must be constrained by rules of equitable dialogue.
Non-unique – it wouldn’t be logical to spread to a bunch of policymakers or read
extinction scenarios that are improbable
Uncondo is most logical – no one would take you seriously if you made 10
contradictory proposals and advocated for all of them.
 Policymaking
Debate isn’t policymaking—clash should come first because it’s the only thing intrinsic
to actually debating—that was above.
Dispo solves—it forces you to defend your policies if we straight turn them which
makes you a better advocate.

1. We can’t compare policy options unless you read the CP, I answer it, then you
have to answer my objections – otherwise, we’re not actually deliberating and
discussing the counterplan.
2. We aren’t policymakers – we’re high school debaters in a 45min round.
 Neg Flex
1. Neg over flex – Neg has dispo CP’s, K’s, NC’s, and T/theory shells, so they have
enough flex in the squo, and condo just gives them too many options.
2. Aff is harder – a) community and coach consensus means that it’s probably
true, and b) Aff speaks in the dark, while Neg gets to adapt, so fairness harms
are worse if they’re against Aff than against Neg.
3. Dispo solves – read a dispo CP so you have multiple options but at least you
have to answer my args then.
4. Cross apply the weighing in the overview – strat skew is worse if it occurs
earlier in the debate, so 1AR harms to fairness are worse than 2NR harms.
 Ideological flex
We’ve impact turned this – your flexibility creates a low threshold for learning – b/c it
uses the K as a strategic skew. It’s not important to understand the K properly if you
can just kick it. Their interp almost guarantees a thin 1ar against– which means actual
understanding isn’t necessary to win – how do you think I win K’s? Anyone can grab a
6 minutes 2nr block for the K off the policy wiki, or have their team write it for them.
We learn and practice in other forums – debate camps, skype practice debates, online
videos and resources. Your args are largely non-unique, b/c you should’ve spent the
time learning how to defend condo, to learning about your K.
 Real World Education
Dispo solves—it forces you to defend your policies if we straight turn them which
makes you a better advocate.

1. Turn – most of the time in the real world there is one thing that you want and
you have to always advocate for that to get it. For example, policymakers
advocate for a policy, and you can’t instantly switch to another policy.
2. Terminal defense – debate isn’t real world as we spread and just fiat things.
3. No impact – Debate is useful because of the critical thinking skills it offers that
teach us how to learn – there is no such thing as fake world education, which
means any type of education is just as valuable.
 Strategic Thinking
Dispo solves – you can still read a bunch of counterplans – it’s also better because it
forces us to think strategically and figure out how your counterplans contradict and
makes you more strategic because you cant just kick something if it doesn’t work out

1. 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.
2. It’s a 0 sum game – if I think become more tech, then Neg can do the same and
now we’re still left with an abusive CP and no thinking skills gained.
 Testing
A] Neg testing nonuq- you can test through various das, different types of cp, different
Ks, different NCs so there’s no reason conditionality is key
B] Turn- we increase rigorous testing because now we focus on real positions rather
than bogus ones used to kill clash
C] If we’ve won that your form of testing was bad then you should lose
D] We still have to prep against all the different angles – in fact we’ll prep harder, b/c
you can’t just kick it soon as we straight turn it.
E] We’ve won that you can’t adequately test either side, which means wins are not
the result of quality argumentation but manipulation of time.
F] Reciprocal Testing outweighs unlimited neg testing – if we can’t respond to their
arguments it makes the debeate one sided and prevents reaching a valid conclusion.
 Advocacy skills
Condo creates bad advocacy skills because it encourages low quality argumentation
and means they never have to advocate anything unless I undercover it
Perms create the best threshold – you should understand and craft the CP well enough
such that we’re forced to make a perm to mitigate your impacts.
Their world incentivizes aff shiftiness and poor advocacy construction because
debaters have to be shifty to avoid a massive neg condo dump.