Conditionality vs. Topicality

I am wondering if someone can explain the distinction between these two types of arguments. I have heard policy debaters argue that our understanding of T isn't really T, but some for of a conditionality argument. Any ideas?

Our version of conditionality isn't the policy version. Conditionality in policy refers to the conditions that must be met for a team to kick out of their counterplan or K. A conditional counterplan can be kicked at any time even if it is straight turned. Other teams will run dispositional counterplans that can be kicked if the aff team reads defense on it and doesn't straight turn it. The last status of a counterplan is unconditional that claims you're not going to kick it no matter what happens. In LD, our conditionality generally talks about the aff is not proving the resolution true normatively and is only proving 1 example of the resolution (i.e. a plan). Our version of conditionality is called parametrics by some. I'm pretty sure our versions of T are pretty close to the same though.

Old wrote:Our version of conditionality isn't the policy version. Conditionality in policy refers to the conditions that must be met for a team to kick out of their counterplan or K. A conditional counterplan can be kicked at any time even if it is straight turned. Other teams will run dispositional counterplans that can be kicked if the aff team reads defense on it and doesn't straight turn it. The last status of a counterplan is unconditional that claims you're not going to kick it no matter what happens. In LD, our conditionality generally talks about the aff is not proving the resolution true normatively and is only proving 1 example of the resolution (i.e. a plan). Our version of conditionality is called parametrics by some. I'm pretty sure our versions of T are pretty close to the same though.

The differences on T are as follows:

1. LD somehow thinks you can argue T without a counter-interp and engage the standards level debate

2. LD judges still vote on RVIs (shudders)

3. Offense on T in Policy is a reason to prefer your interp (see 1) not a reason to vote for you

4. LD develops T a lot more in the first speech since there is only 1 constructive speech, so the neg has to make it more substantial.

5. Generally, "T is not a voter" won't get you anywhere in policy

You're accurate on everything else though

Old wrote:Our version of conditionality isn't the policy version. Conditionality in policy refers to the conditions that must be met for a team to kick out of their counterplan or K. A conditional counterplan can be kicked at any time even if it is straight turned. Other teams will run dispositional counterplans that can be kicked if the aff team reads defense on it and doesn't straight turn it. The last status of a counterplan is unconditional that claims you're not going to kick it no matter what happens. In LD, our conditionality generally talks about the aff is not proving the resolution true normatively and is only proving 1 example of the resolution (i.e. a plan). Our version of conditionality is called parametrics by some. I'm pretty sure our versions of T are pretty close to the same though.

I think we as a community should stop explaining conditionality as such. Because of the increasing relevance of counterplan theory in LD, it's probably better to start calling it parametrics, and start using conditionality only with regard to the counterplan debate.


In terms of what Poneill said, I could not disagree more. "LD" does not think things, for starters, and also even if you are referring to community norms, judges do not commonly allow standards debate without a counterinterpretation on the table, and if they do it's a mistake, not something that is reflective of the difference between LD and policy. Also I see no problem with judges voting on RVI's if they are won, and offense on T is also only a reason to prefer an interpretation in LD, not a reason to vote for you. I guess I agree with your 4 and 5 though, though I think the 5 is the direction LD is (read: should) moving as well.

P.Rai wrote:
In terms of what Poneill said, I could not disagree more. "LD" does not think things, for starters, and also even if you are referring to community norms, judges do not commonly allow standards debate without a counterinterpretation on the table, and if they do it's a mistake, not something that is reflective of the difference between LD and policy. Also I see no problem with judges voting on RVI's if they are won, and offense on T is also only a reason to prefer an interpretation in LD, not a reason to vote for you. I guess I agree with your 4 and 5 though, though I think the 5 is the direction LD is (read: should) moving as well.

you might be right. I have not seen a bunch of extremely good theory/T debates in LD (does such a thing even exist, regardless of form ??? ), and a lot of these things are more observations from lower-caliber theory debates than how I think LD would perceive theory should the quality of the average theory debate go up. Policy has their own problems with low-caliber theory debates, especially kids reading an entire frontline to T/theory bc they heard a buzz word (ie "condo bad") without engaging in line by line.

Not to put you on the spot, but in what realistic situation would RVI's (especially on T) ever be legitimate?

To further elaborate on 4, I feel this is also because T/Theory are relatively new to LD, so the community has yet to establish norms as to what is/is not a sufficient explanation of an argument on T/Theory.

I will also agree that 5 is the direction LD seems to be drifting (especially in regions of the country where theory debates are more common).

with regard to RVI's, I do not think they have a place in most theory debates. I was more saying that I don't see a problem with judges voting on RVI's if the negative mishandles them. But, I guess if I had to pick a situation where T is an RVI is most legitimate as a strategy, it would be something like when a negative reads 3-4 T args on different words, they might even contradict in certain places (ie predictability is good within one set of standards, predictability is bad within another), and each arg's in-round abuse story is poor. In this situation I might advise a debater to run T is an RVI.

P.Rai wrote:with regard to RVI's, I do not think they have a place in most theory debates. I was more saying that I don't see a problem with judges voting on RVI's if the negative mishandles them. But, I guess if I had to pick a situation where T is an RVI is most legitimate as a strategy, it would be something like when a negative reads 3-4 T args on different words, they might even contradict in certain places (ie predictability is good within one set of standards, predictability is bad within another), and each arg's in-round abuse story is poor. In this situation I might advise a debater to run T is an RVI.

That's reasonable paradigmatically (although I side with Koshy on this one, T is NEVER and RVI). In the case you mentioned, contradictions bad theory, or even cross-applying standards from one T shell to another would suffice, imo.

I'm a little confused at how one determines the status of the CP. Is a case objectively dispo/condo/uncondo as per the case (ie a case will always be condo because of the arguments in the case) or is that determination made by the negative debater (a self appointed status for the counterplan)? I'm assuming its the former. Additionally, what would be some examples of condo CPs, dispo CPs, and uncondo CPs? Are PICs dispo and straight up CPs condo? Any clarification would be great.

On the RVI debate, I think poneill summed up my feelings. If people run multiple contradictory T shells, then just argue that there is no method of adjudication with contradictions.

I think T debate is pretty shitty right now. I remember debating a T shell on the ICC topic that was "You don't discuss what prosecute means, so that's not topical". It seems like most T boils down to blippy no-risk arguments with little analysis. LD's more substantive definitional debates (which aren't no risk) are far more educational than "T- Justify is a typeface". I feel like the partitioning of definitional debate into a "topicality" format is largely arbitrary and just used because its trendy. The only difference I see with using the Topicality format versus the definitional debate format is that 1.) Theory has more weight in T and 2.) T is no risk (except for the notorious, unstoppable RVIs).

Additionally, I find the interpretation of the resolution which is the basis for T (resolve distributes ground essentially) lends to terrible arguments like extra-t and effects-t. How do you justify those?! Even theoretically, it seems like things like extra-T have a hard time winning (negs have enough ground anyway). For example, if I say "vigilantes are justified in all instances" and by extension "when the government fails to enforce the law", how do I infringe upon the negs ability to contest that? There are plenty of outs, you can still run CPs (and most counterplans seem to be designed to avoid this problem), it doesn't seem to exclude PIC ground, there is still grounds for Kritik (you are still responsible for the words of the resolve, you just prove them via different means e.g. I can still K the usage of the word "person" in the resolve even if you're extra topical), you can still run vanilla T, and many more strats. It seems like there is little justifications for extra/effects T to me

Alex Bennett wrote:I'm a little confused at how one determines the status of the CP. Is a case objectively dispo/condo/uncondo as per the case (ie a case will always be condo because of the arguments in the case) or is that determination made by the negative debater (a self appointed status for the counterplan)? I'm assuming its the former. Additionally, what would be some examples of condo CPs, dispo CPs, and uncondo CPs? Are PICs dispo and straight up CPs condo? Any clarification would be great.

On the RVI debate, I think poneill summed up my feelings. If people run multiple contradictory T shells, then just argue that there is no method of adjudication with contradictions.

I think T debate is pretty shitty right now. I remember debating a T shell on the ICC topic that was "You don't discuss what prosecute means, so that's not topical". It seems like most T boils down to blippy no-risk arguments with little analysis. LD's more substantive definitional debates (which aren't no risk) are far more educational than "T- Justify is a typeface". I feel like the partitioning of definitional debate into a "topicality" format is largely arbitrary and just used because its trendy. The only difference I see with using the Topicality format versus the definitional debate format is that 1.) Theory has more weight in T and 2.) T is no risk (except for the notorious, unstoppable RVIs).

Additionally, I find the interpretation of the resolution which is the basis for T (resolve distributes ground essentially) lends to terrible arguments like extra-t and effects-t. How do you justify those?! Even theoretically, it seems like things like extra-T have a hard time winning (negs have enough ground anyway). For example, if I say "vigilantes are justified in all instances" and by extension "when the government fails to enforce the law", how do I infringe upon the negs ability to contest that? There are plenty of outs, you can still run CPs (and most counterplans seem to be designed to avoid this problem), it doesn't seem to exclude PIC ground, there is still grounds for Kritik (you are still responsible for the words of the resolve, you just prove them via different means e.g. I can still K the usage of the word "person" in the resolve even if you're extra topical), you can still run vanilla T, and many more strats. It seems like there is little justifications for extra/effects T to me

as per your first question, the negative debater decides the status of the counterplan in all cases.

in terms of the claim that definitional debate is not no risk and therefore better, i'm not sure why that is the case. if the neg wins that a definition the affirmative uses is bad and that a counterinterpretation is preferable, and that the affirmative does not meet the counter-interpretation, how is that not A) offensive and B) no-risk? I'm also not sure why by their nature definitional debates are more substantive than T debates.

finally, with regard to your final claim, what is wrong with FX T and Extra T args when they apply correctly? your example about vigilantes is not an example of extra T because you are not claiming an advantage off of vigilantism in a case that is not when the government fails to enforce the law. And your arguments for why there is still ground with regard to extra topical affs seem specific to your example, so I'm not sure what your argument is.

P.Rai wrote:
as per your first question, the negative debater decides the status of the counterplan in all cases.

in terms of the claim that definitional debate is not no risk and therefore better, i'm not sure why that is the case. if the neg wins that a definition the affirmative uses is bad and that a counterinterpretation is preferable, and that the affirmative does not meet the counter-interpretation, how is that not A) offensive and B) no-risk? I'm also not sure why by their nature definitional debates are more substantive than T debates.

finally, with regard to your final claim, what is wrong with FX T and Extra T args when they apply correctly? your example about vigilantes is not an example of extra T because you are not claiming an advantage off of vigilantism in a case that is not when the government fails to enforce the law. And your arguments for why there is still ground with regard to extra topical affs seem specific to your example, so I'm not sure what your argument is.

So wait, couldn't the neg just say all the CPs are condo? Isn't that more strategic? When would you ever want a dispositional/unconditional case?

On the definitional debate, I think I was not that clear. I didn't mean all definition debate is not no risk and not offensive. In terms of most rounds, winning the interpretation debate can preclude all neg O coming from the NC, which I guess in a sense still makes it no risk. Sorry, just not being clear.

I think the problem with T debate is not that the concept is inherently flawed; T can be well developed. The problem is that T shells are generally run needlessly and for the sake of trendiness. If I dump 3 offs and a T shell in the NCR, that analysis in the T shell is not going to be that developed. It seems like it more arbitrary than anything. Why not just have framework level/definitional level debates without this structure? It seems like the need to conform to some structure lends itself to underdeveloped analysis ie without a T shell I can still make an attack on the definitional level and still phrase it as a voter (precludes aff O) much more naturally on the flow than to have a separate structure with various theory standards.

On the FX T and Extra-T discussion, for clarification, extra T is when the aff proves a separate statement which by being true proves the resolution true (the extra T you describe seems to be how its used in policy and perhaps comparative LD, which I'm unfamiliar with so it may just be different definitions) and effects T is just that some advantage/action occurs/is taken because of the effects of an advocacy right? My argument is that 1.)It seems like the aff still wins via proving the resolution true if they prove a separate statement that in turn proves the resolve true and 2.) Those previous examples of neg strats that can be used (which are not just specific to my example) can all be used in a situation where extra topicality is being violated.

Negs will choose the status of the counterplan based on a) what other arguments they run and b) if they think the aff will run theory. For example, if you run a 7 minute counterplan, there's no point running it conditionally because that would open you up to theory violations and you have to go for the CP any way. If you kick it, you lose, so negs will just run it unconditionally.

Alex Bennett wrote:
On the FX T and Extra-T discussion, for clarification, extra T is when the aff proves a separate statement which by being true proves the resolution true (the extra T you describe seems to be how its used in policy and perhaps comparative LD, which I'm unfamiliar with so it may just be different definitions) and effects T is just that some advantage/action occurs/is taken because of the effects of an advocacy right? My argument is that 1.)It seems like the aff still wins via proving the resolution true if they prove a separate statement that in turn proves the resolve true and 2.) Those previous examples of neg strats that can be used (which are not just specific to my example) can all be used in a situation where extra topicality is being violated.

My understanding of FXT is that the advocacy goes through multiple steps before topical action is taken. For instance, on the ICC topic, an example of an AC that would be FXT would be "The US should create a law mandating that all international action be checked by all UN-sponsored supernational organizations." The aff would be fiating the creation of the law, not the joining of the court. The law would then force the US to join the ICC. The abuse would come in if the aff claims an advantage off of joining some other UN-sponsored organization or off of the creation of the law itself. The standards would be ground, predictability, etc etc.

Extra-T is best seen as "resolution-plus." Going back to the ICC topic, it would be something like "The US should join the ICC and send aid to Darfur." The second part of the plan is not topical. The abuse here would come in if the aff claimed they stopped genocide, because that doesn't stem from resolutional action. The standards again would be something like predictability, ground, jurisdiction, etc.

As you can see, these terms make the most sense when contextualized to plans, not truth-testing AC's.