Condo Bad:

A) Interp: The negative may only defend a single, unconditional advocacy in the LOC.#### B) Violation: [should be self-explanatory]#### C) Standards:1. Ground:

a) Quantity of ground: This explodes the negative’s quantity of ground because it allows them to have multiple different advocacies from which to generate offense. It destroys the quantity of turn ground for the affirmative because any turns made can be kicked out of in the next speech. Multiple conditional advocacies forces the affirmative to make arguments against each that are externally contradictory, further giving the negative more ground to use these same arguments to win their chosen position.

b) Quality of ground: This explodes the in round quality of ground for the negative because they have the ability to pick which advocacy is the most advantageous after hearing the affirmative’s responses such that the relative quality of their arguments in the round will always be optimal. It destroys the affirmatives quality of ground because the best turns the affirmative makes can always be kicked out of, forcing the affirmative to rely on only their worst responses to win. Prefer these abuses of ground because debate structures mean that the quality of an argument is determined by how it can be responded to in the debate round rather than the argument’s correctness in the outside world.

2. Strategy Skew: Multiple conditional advocacies skews the strategy of the affirmative because it forces the MG to split its time between responding to each of the possible advocacies the block could collapse to, this creates a twofold problem.

a) MG Skew: The MG is fundamentally unable to have strategic vision on par with the block because of the great diversity in how the block could collapse, meaning that the MG is structurally unable to create strategies for the PMR that are of equivalent strength relative to the block.

b) Tradeoff: The affirmative is put at a massive time tradeoff with regards to the final strategy to the negative. The MG can only spend at most half of its time against either possible conditional advocacy, whereas the block can collapse to one advocacy for 12 minutes. Not only does the block already have an advantage from the nature of which position they choose to collapse to, but they fundamentally have at time advantage where they have 12 minutes to answer at most 4 minutes of MG time, which the PMR has at most 5 minutes to come back from. In addition to a total lack of time, only during the 4 minutes of the MG responses can new arguments be made, meaning that the PMR is additionally worth less because it is only as strong as the bifurcated MG.

3. Reciprocity: Running multiple conditional advocacies gives the negative a disproportionate ratio of positions that are game over issues. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that these positions function on varying levels of the debate. This is fundamentally different than the negative simply reading multiple disadvantages because disadvantages can be all outweighed simultaneously whereas counterplans and kritiks require different forms of argumentation in order to leverage portions of the PMC against them. This unrepriprocal skew gives the negative an unmatched structural advantage in the quantity of paths they can take to the ballot.

4. Depth of Education: Multiple conditional advocacies takes away from the depth of education in the debate because it forces the debate away from one specific issue and instead introduces many shallower positions.

a) Depth: This destroys the depth of argumentation that can be made on each position in both the LOC as well as the MG. The lack of depth in the earlier constructive speeches is uniquely harmful because it impacts the depth of the responses in the block and PMR. This is additionally worse in the case of multiple conditional advocacies rather than multiple disadvantages because multiple conditional advocacies generate different directions of uniqueness whereas disadvantages are all localized around the same stable world.

b) Preempts: Depth of education is the internal link to clash because it determines how many responsive arguments can be made for or against a specific position. Depth of education is the internal link to critical thinking because it forces debates to engage in the nuances of each position rather than relying on generic blocks that attempt to respond to positions as a whole and makes debaters think about specific warrants for more detailed scenarios in research. Depth of education is also the internal link to real world education because not only does it force debates to do more research about the nuances of the real world in order to write and respond to arguments, but also real world policymakers are forced to discuss the nuances of each position as evidenced by hyper-specific bills.

D) Voters:1) Skews Eval: Fairness is a voter because the ballot imbues debate with competition. The judge’s evaluation of other arguments’ truth is skewed without fairness, meaning that fairness is an a priori issue that must be considered first.

2. Reject the team: Theory is a reason to reject the team, not just the argument.

a) Incoherent: Rejecting the argument is incoherent in this case. If it means rejecting the fact that the counterplan was conditional in the first place, they would be left with multiple unconditional advocacies at the end of the debate. If rejecting the argument meant rejecting the advocacy itself, that would only be the same as them just kicking the advocacy conditionally, which is an action disputed by the entire theory shell.

b) Chills Abuse: Rejecting the team is the only way to punish the debaters for fairness violations of running the positions. If the arguments were conditional, they were already prepared to not advocate for them, so only by voting against the team can they be dissuaded from running such positions in the future.

c) Debate collapse: Fairness violations lead to debate collapse. Continual lack of fairness means that not everyone can compete on the same level playing field, which means teams will leave the activity due to inaccessible competition. Additionally, a lack of fairness makes the game of debate lose its ability to be a competitive activity, meaning that those looking to compete will no longer do so in debate.

3. Evaluate theory under competing interpretations.

a) Weighing Offense: Theory is just like any other argument; only under competing interpretations can one compare the advantages and disadvantages of an interpretation versus a counter interpretation.

b) Judge intervention: Competing interpretations minimizes judge intervention. Anything other than objectively weighing the standards under each interpretation invites the judge to bring his/her subjective considerations of the value of each argument into play.

c) Race to the bottom: Reasonability leads to a race to the bottom to be the most abusive possible on substance but escape theory by the subjectivities of the judge or by an impossible to meet interpretation of reasonability.