Condo Good Frontlines:

We Meets: - We meet—we unconditionally advocate voting negative.- We meet—we were unconditional in the MO since you didn’t specify a speech. Hold them to the text of their interp—it’s the only stable locus of offense on theory.#### Relinks: - You violate—theory is a conditional advocacy since we can’t win off it. Even if theory is different from substance, it still establishes a locus for offense similarly.#### Competing Interp: Text: The negative gets 1 conditional advocacy.

**Counter Standards: **

• Good scholarship: Condo is key to test the aff from multiple angles to ensure it’s good scholarship. Otherwises, shoddy scholarships wins debates from kills education.- Diversity: Condo is key to having both K and policy education—without condo, we couldn’t read both because they’d be in tension and would contradict.- Reciprocity- Perms: The aff gets infinite condo perms so we need the reciprocal right to multiple condo advocacies. Even if perms are just tests of competition, if the neg advocacy is unconditional, they function the same way as advocacies.- Paths to Ballot: With uncondo, you can win off either a disad to the CP as well as an advantage to the plan. Since the CP is uncondo, you don’t have to win a single reason the plan is good in the PMR, which kills reciprocity since I have to win that both the CP is good and the plan is bad, while you only have to win one.- Neg Flex: Aff gets a qualitative ground advantage since they can pick the best plan under the rez. Thus, neg needs quantitatively more advocacy to overcome aff prep advantage.- Theory Prolif - Strategy: If we don’t read multiple condo advocacies, we will read more conditional theory in order to maintain our strategy. - Drop the Team: Uncondo incentivize theory because every theory objection becomes drop the team. We can’t go for drop the arg since we’re committed to the advocacy.This outweighs:

• It’s a worse ground skew: You can leverage the 1AC against advocacies, but not against theory.- Education: We at least get some education with condo advocacies, but none with theory.- Contradictions: It leads to the same contradictions. For example, neg can read 1 shell that says overlimiting is good and another that says overlimiting is bad.- Bad Perms: Uncondo incentivizes cheater permutations like severance and intrinsicness. They become massively strategic because they take 10 seconds to make, but the neg can’t avoid them by kicking advocacies.- Destroys CP ground: If the aff reads multiple advantages, it’s impossible to create a single uncondo CP that solves all of them while still avoiding a link to a disad. Uncondo destroys effective CP’s, which is key because rez’s are chosen with the recognition hat the squo is poor ground.#### A2: Reciprocity:- No abuse: you can link or impact turn the net benefit..#### A2: Timeskew/Side bias:- Side bias goes neg: parli is the only activity where the neg functionally has less speech times because there are 4 minutes in the LOR, where there’s no new args. That’s not reciprocal because the PMR gets new answers to inevitable MO developments.- non-sequiter: Side bias doesn’t disprove condo—perhaps the remedy is to reduce PICs or eliminate agent counter-plans.#### A2: Contradictions:- No contradictions: all of our arguments are even if scenarios.No impact to contradictions: all they mean is the aff is forced to take a nuanced stance in the middle, which is good for education and strategic thinking. Politicians do this all the time and have to defend critics from both the right and the left. Yet, nuance wins out, which shows that aff’s benefit of picking nuanced and specific plans outweighs contradictions bad offense.