***@ Perf Con

2NC
Just


First of all, theory is NOT a voter.
Dont vote on cheap theory shots
1. It isnt grounded in the resolution- they just have a subjective whiny interpretation of what they
think that this debate should look like. They need specific concrete examples of how our
advocacy skewed the debate inalterably in our favor. IF WE HAVENT MADE THIS DEBATE
IMPOSSIBLE, DO NOT VOTE ON THEORY.
2. At worst, reject the argument, not the team
a. Equal time trade-off checks- were spending equivalent time answering theory and all of
the substanative arguments. This means we give them the strategic option to choose,
which isnt available to us.
b. The aff has to justify the plan- theory arguments are not a reason to adopt the 1ac- it
still needs justification.
3. The punishment should fit the crime- theory is a bad way to decide debates. If it warrants
punishment, punish our speaker points and make it clear how you feel on this position- but
using the ballot as a weapon of retribution sets a dangerous precedent.

<Even if you evaluate their theory arg, (read next block)>

Get

There is no performative contradiction:
1. We dont have a single off case position with any sort of death as a terminal impact, we dont
link to our K.
2. All of our positions other then the ego are procedurals they are gateway issues that should be
evaluated before we access substantive arguments. If we win any of those positions, then you
dont even have to evaluate the K flow, you just vote neg. If we dont win those positions, then
you dont evaluate them and we only access the K flow.

<Even if you think the perf con is real, (read next block)>

Out
Perf con 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 poorly thought out and a bad a idea
because of the procedurals, but even if they win that argument the K proves their plan is 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

Forcing the aff to defend its death impact framing, functional implementation, and
plan gives us a well-rounded educationtoo much depth creates blinders in our
politics, especially in high school when students should be exposed to multiple
perspectives


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 those arguments 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.
2NR
Just

Did they seriously extend theory. Im disappointed.

Three reasons why you DONT vote on theory:
1. All theyre doing is whining about how we dont fit into their subjective interpretation
without specific examples of how we made this debate impossible which, by the way, we
didnt
2. At worst, reject the arg, not the team: the time trade-off is equal, and the aff still has to
justify the plan theory isnt enough.
3. Theory doesnt decide debates. Using the ballot to punish our stance sets a dangerous
precedent.

<Even if you evaluate their theory arg, (read next block)>

Get

I dont think they know know what perf con is there is no performative contradiction in our strat, you
should look upon all of the neg arguments with extreme skepticism since they dont know what theyre
talking about-

1. No off case position talks about death as an impact, so we dont link to our K
2. We only have one off-case thats not a procedural the rest are gateway issues that we either
win so you dont evaluate the K, or we lose and we only get the K.

<Even if they have somehow managed to convice you the perf con is real, (read next
block)>
Out
Perf con is good we force the aff to defend the plan with well-rounded education and multiple
perspectives.

1. Negation theory: The aff doesnt defend the whole resolution so all we have to do is prove the
plan sucks
2. All arguments are about why the aff is bad even if one says the other is bad, none say the aff is
good, so it doesnt matter to them
3. Education: we learn more from multiple arguments, its more real world, and we need to talk
about ALL the reasons why the plan is a bad idea
4. We need the ground to show aff is a bad idea in all ways necessary
5. Not putting all our eggs into one basket even if they win procedurals, the K still says plan is bad
6. Critical thinking is key whod have thought both teams have to use strategy in a debate round?

And, theres no abuse; we dont prevent the aff from making sensible arguments on all arguments, they
could straight turn and stick us with one position, and aff bias checks abuse they have infinite prep and
the 2AR.