Short stuff for 2AC

Condo
Conditionality is a VOTER for fairness and education:
1. STRAT SKEW---kicking from offense and 2NC CPs skirts 2AC strategic decision-
making.
2. RESEARCH---sparks shallow debates and disincentivizes research from both
sides.
DISPO SOLVES---not kicking if offense or theory’s read checks.
 Process CP
Process cps are a voter---impossible to leverage offense, since they result in the
aff, wrecking deficits and incentivize recycling, guaranteeing clashless, unfair
debates
 Ban the Plan CP
Ban the plan cps are a voter---allows the neg to moot the entirety of the 1AC
and destroys any semblance of topic controversy, wrecking fairness and clash
F-Spec
F-Spec—1NC
 1NC—F-Spec
1---Interpretation: the 1AC’s plan text must specify the funding mechanism.
2---Violation: they don’t.
3---That’s a voter for:
a. Ground. Specification affects every neg argument – DA links, K links, CP
competition, and funding arguments on case.
b. Education & Clash. 2ACs can reclarify what the aff does- that guts education
and clash by making the aff functionally conditional.
c. Debate is meaningless if we ignore implementation---that’s 90% of debate---
vote neg on presumption.
Richard F. Elmore 80, Professor at Harvard on the modes of learning framework, 1980, Political
Science Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979-1980), pp. 605, HKeef

The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery
by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matters very little if
the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question,
"What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred
analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that, in the normal case, it was about 10
percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.
F-Spec—2NC
 2NC—Education
Key to education---allows us to learn about the political process, policy
implementation, workings of the government---equally important as the
mandates of the plan.
Thomas Stoddard 97, 11/xx/1997, professor of law at New York University, Vol. 72 New York
University Law Review: 967, "BLEEDING HEART: REFLECTIONS ON USING THE LAW TO MAKE SOCIAL
CHANGE”, pg. 991, HKeef

Many of my colleagues seeking social justice have deliberately avoided legislatures in recent decades,
both because of the difficulty of making change there and because of the perception that politicians
will not be receptive to their claims. They have turned by and large to the courts. While applauding the
changes these lawyer-activists have helped to bring about, and while acknowledging the shortcomings and frustrations of legislative change, I
submit that those of us in the business of "culture-shifting" should upend our traditional preference for judicial activity and embrace the special
advantages of legislative change.

E.M. Forster appended to the title page of his novel Howard's End the enigmatic aphorism: "Only connect...- 46 It is an apt injunction to lawyers
like me. If we lawyer-activists truly seek deep, lasting change, we have to "connect" with the public. We
have to accord as much attention to public attitudes as we do to the formal rules that purport to guide or mold those attitudes. That means
thinking as concertedly about process as we do about substance. Process matters. How a new rule
comes about may, in the end, be as important as what it says.

Turn: Delegation proves we need to look beyond the policy itself and focus on
process.
David Schoenbrod 99, 1999, Professor of Law at New York Law School, Vol. 20: 731, Delegation and
Democracy: A Reply to My Critics, pg. 748-749, Cardozo Law Review, HKeef
Mashaw's allocation of responsibility is wrong-headed on many levels. It is not as if voters get to choose between candidates who delegate and
those who do not. When
the Republicans in Congress think environmental regulation is too aggressive, they
do not replace the Clean Air Act with a regulatory regime in which Congress takes responsibility or
even use the Congressional Review Act to challenge regulations such as the new ambient air quality
standards for ozone and particulate matter. Instead, they introduce legislation that would delegate in
ways that would make it harder to regulate strictly. Indeed, the Washington Post took exception to a recent Republican
environmental bill on the basis that the way for Congress to change the EPA's priorities is to stop delegating and start taking some
responsibility.

That will not happen readily, however, because delegation gives the electoral advantage to those who duck the
hard choices. As I said before, delegation is not so much an issue of left versus right as insiders versus outsiders.
With insiders having such a significant stake in delegation, outsiders opposed to delegation face a tremendous organizational challenge.
Moreover, it is hard to get ordinary voters to focus on the issue. It
is human nature to care more about what a particular
piece of legislation does to one directly rather than whether the process by which the legislation is
passed will do indirect harm by undermining democracy in the long run. Even law students have to be hit on the
head by us professors to get them to look beyond the direct consequences in cases about the structure of government and see the long-term
stakes. Ordinary voters are apt to care more whether a particular bill seems to help them than whether it delegates. For example, even in 1970
when there was a public outcry against Congress because it had dropped the ball on air pollution by delegating broadly to agencies and
Congress promised explicitly that it would make the "hard choices," Congress easily got away with delegating again. The 1970 statute
camouflaged its delegation with the kind of spurious detail that even an expert such as Jerry Mashaw confuses with nondelegation.
 2NC—F-Spec—Turns Solvency
Policy debates must be about the nitty-gritty details to solve a significant
harm---regurgitating resolutional wording without specific mandates
circumvents the fruitful potential of debate---this matters because you can vote
negative on presumption---the plan can never solve without an explanation of
who, what, how much, what standards, etc.---this ensures bad policy and
unintended consequences.
Ray 9 — Dr. John Joseph Ray has a B.A. in psychology from the University of Queensland, an M.A. in
psychology from the University of Sydney, and a Ph.D. in behavioral sciences from Macquarie University.
He has taught psychology and research methods classes over authoritarianism, conservatism, politics,
and racism. (“Obama health plan: We need details” Blogger: Socialized Medicine, March 11, 2009.
http://socglory.blogspot.com/2009/03/obama-health-plan-we-need-details-los.html)//JLPark

The problem with such vagueness is that any informed public policy decision has to be based on specific
proposals. Absent concrete details, which is where the devil lurks, no one - including those proposing a
"reform" - can judge how it would fare or falter in the real world. So when the president wants approval for a $634 billion proposal
which offers too few details for evaluation, we must ask why.
Like salesmen, politicians strive to present their wares as attractively as possible. Unlike salesmen, however, a politician's product line consists of claimed consequences of proposals not yet

enacted. Further, politicians are unconstrained by truth-in-advertising laws, they have fewer competitors keeping
them honest, and they face "customers" - voters - far more ignorant about the merchandise involved than consumers spending their own money.
These differences explain why politicians' "sales pitches" for their proposals are so vague . However, if vague proposals are the

best politicians can offer, they are inadequate.

If rhetoric is unmatched by specifics, there is no reason to believe a policy change will be an
improvement, because no reliable way exists to determine whether it will actually accomplish what is
promised. Only the details will determine the actual incentives facing the decision-makers involved, which is

the only way to forecast the results, including the myriad of unintended consequences from unnoticed aspects. We must
remember that, however laudable, goals and promises and claims of cost-effectiveness that are inconsistent with the incentives created will go unmet.

Achieving intended goals

It may be that President Obama knows too little of his "solution" to provide specific plans. If so, he knows too little to deliver on his promises.

then necessarily depends on blind faith that Obama and a panoply of bureaucrats, legislators, overseers and
commissions will somehow adequately grasp the entire situation, know precisely what to do about it, and do it right - a prospect that,
given the painful lessons of history, should attract few real believers.
Alternatively, President Obama may know the details of what he intends, but is not providing them to the public. But if it is necessary to conceal a plan's

details to put the best possible public face on it, those details must be adverse. If details of a plan made a more persuasive sales pitch, a politician would not
hide them; they would be trumpeted at every opportunity as proof he really had the answers.

Claiming adherence to elevated principles while keeping detailed proposals from sight also has a
strategic advantage: It defuses criticism. Absent details, any criticism can be parried by saying "that was
not in our proposal" or "we have no plans to do that" or similar retorts. It also allows a politician to incorporate alternatives
proposed as part of his evolving reform, as if they were his idea all along.

adequate analysis cannot rest upon such flimsy

The new administration has already put vague proposals on prominent display. However,

foundations. That requires the nuts and bolts so glaringly absent. In the private sector, people don't spend their own money on such vague promises of
unseen products. It is foolhardy to act any differently when political salesmen withhold specifics, because political incentives guarantee that people would object to what is kept hidden. So

while vagueness may be good political strategy, it virtually ensures bad policy.
 2NC—F-Spec—UBI
Different ways of financing drastically change how the plan can be implemented
—lack of specification guarantees failure, which means you vote neg on
presumption.
Vandamme ‘21 [Pierre-Étienne, Moral and Political Philosophy, Political Theory, Theories of Justice,
Democratic Theory, Civic Education; July 2021, "Three models of basic income", https://www.cairn-
int.info/journal-raisons-politiques-2021-3-page-17.htm, Cairn International Edition, accessed 7-18-
2023 \\pa-zyg]]

Talking about basic income in the singular does not make much sense. Evaluating such a proposition in
the abstract, without specifying what kind of basic income we are talking about, even less so. For it is an
instrument that can be used for a diversity of purposes and with varied effects depending on the
political project guiding its implementation. Therefore, this article proposes to distinguish between three ideal types of basic
income: neoliberal, social-democratic, and of ecological and social transition. These ideal types distinguish
themselves by their internal characteristics (amount; financing; articulation with existing social
protection) and by the political projects that guide them. The question of the radicality of the basic
income proposal thus depends on the model envisaged. The “neoliberal” model is radical in the
simplification of the welfare state it proposes, while the “transition” model is radical in its aim to
transform social relations and economic dynamics. The “social-democratic” model, in contrast, does not
intend to revolutionise social protection, but rather to introduce a reform that, while being more
realistic in the short term, is likely to initiate a more gradual transformation of welfare states towards a
strengthening of social protection.
 2NC—F-Spec—JG
Empirics prove that lack of specification wrecks implementation.
Matthews 18, Dylan [He’s interested in global health and pandemic prevention, anti-poverty efforts in
the US and abroad, economic policy and theory, and conflicts about the right way to do philanthropy.]
"Job guarantees, explained." Vox, 24 April 2018,
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/6/16036942/job-guarantee-explained.
Working through the details on a job guarantee is crucially important, especially for political survival . American
history shows that even a mostly effective program can become politically toxic. In the 1970s, amid economic malaise
driven by the oil crisis, the federal government began funding job positions through the Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act (CETA). The program got some $47 billion in funding from its passage in 1973 to its dissolution in 1982; in 1977, President
Jimmy Carter started directing more and more of that money toward public sector jobs, until by 1978 some 725,000 people had public sector
jobs through CETA. “CETA’s size,” Temple University political scientist Gary Mucciaroni writes, “dwarfed not only the employment programs of
the 1960s but the entire War on Poverty effort.” If you believe job guarantee advocates, the program should have been
politically durable and popular, as it tied benefits to recipients’ willingness to work in the public sector and contribute to
society. It wasn’t. Instead, among its many opponents, the program became synonymous with corrupt liberal
governance — a “visible symbol,” Mucciaroni writes, “of what its opponents argued was the futility and failure of government attempts to
solve social and economic problems.” “Like any government program, there were problems … but by and large it was a pretty successful
program that got people employed quickly,” Carl Van Horn, a distinguished professor public policy at Rutgers and an expert on employment
policy, told me. “But when Ronald Reagan was elected to succeed Carter, he announced that we had to get rid of this program … It was more
about the symbol, of sorme people getting jobs to do things that weren’t perceived as worthwhile.” And to be clear, some people with CETA
jobs were doing things that weren’t worthwhile. Van Horn estimates that 5 to 10 percent of CETA projects were boondoggles or
otherwise wasteful. But those projects are easy to publicize, and can be used to doom the program as a whole. When the next recession hit,
in 1981 to 1982, the worst downturn until the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis, the CETA program was so “radioactive,” as Van Horn puts it, that no
one really proposed trying mass public job creation again. “It also became intertwined with race,” Brown political scientist and sociologist
Margaret Weir notes. Joblessness was seen as a black problem, and blacks were seen as primary beneficiaries of the public sector positions
created by CETA in cities. If CETA was effective but politically toxic, plenty of other public employment programs haven’t even been effective.
While job guarantee programs envision a broad, inclusive program that can integrate all participants into the broader economy, the result is
often a program that serves people who can’t get work anywhere else, and still can’t get work anywhere else after the program is finished.
Berkeley economist David Card recently conducted a meta-analysis of more than 200 evaluations of programs meant to boost labor markets,
along with fellow economists Jochen Kluve and Andrea Weber. While they found a variety of impacts of different programs, one
constant was that public employment programs that simply hired people directly performed worst . “Public sector employment
subsidies tend to have negligible or even negative impacts at all horizons," the study concludes. "This pattern suggests that private employers
place little value on the experiences gained in a public sector program.” One reason, they suggested, was that the programs did nothing to help
build skills that would make participants more employable. Job guarantee advocates counter that a well-designed program would get around
these concerns. CAP’s Martin argues that sound design would both permanently increase public employment, meaning unemployability in the
private sector isn’t a concern, and that it will involve training programs that can boost skills. Margaret Weir also expresses hope that a universal
job guarantee could be more politically viable than the 1970s public employment program. “The jobs problem is perceived as a white problem
now,” she notes. “I think that local government and nonprofits are more capable/professional now than they were in the 1970s, and could
more easily implement a jobs program.” Van Horn, on the other hand, expressed skepticism, fearing the same factors could doom public sector
employment this time around, especially America’s fundamental uneasiness with direct government intervention into also a reach,” he the job
market. “I’d say it’s more likely we’d have a single-payer health care system than a guaranteed job program, and that’s says. “There’s a very
long tradition in public policy and the history of this country that this is a lightly managed economy … The idea that the government would
suddenly change after 200 years of not doing that, and certainly not in the modern era, I just don’t think it’s likely.” All which means job
guarantee advocates should be thinking seriously about the details . The experience with CETA is a reminder that the
line between a brilliant idea and a political failure is narrow, and that funding even a handful of bad or bad-looking
projects can easily doom a program. After the initial energy for public jobs and even a jobs guarantee in the 1960s and 1970s , “the
flurry of new programs,” Weir wrote in her 1992 book Politics and Jobs, “was followed only a few years later by disillusionment and a sharp
scaling down of resources devoted to them.”
 2NC—F-Spec—GND
Affirmatives must specify their mechanisms beyond the Green New Deal—any
other interp drowns in vagueness—neg on presumption
HA, 3-25-2019, Think Tank, "The Eight Craziest Policies in the Green New Deal," Heritage Action For
America, https://heritageaction.com/blog/the-eight-craziest-policies-in-the-green-new-deal,LMS

The “Green New Deal” is officially titled ”Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a
Green New Deal” (H.Res. 109 and S.Res.59). These resolutions, if passed, would not change any law, but express the sentiment that it is
“the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.”

The resolution calls for a lot of big changes, but it doesn’t specify how to make them happen, only
that they should happen. The Green New Deal is laughably vague, making bold promises and ignoring
economic, social, and fiscal costs.
Liberals appear to believe that they can legislate free, green energy into existence. Their Green New Deal is more pipe dream than actual plan.

Here are some the wildest provisions in the Green New Deal (all quoted text below is directly from H.Res. 109 and S.Res.59):

1. Calls for a complete wipeout of the fossil fuel industry by 2030, which employs millions of Americans, with its provision of “meeting
100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources…”

2. Effectively eliminates air travel in favor of “high-speed rail” by calling for an overhaul of “transportation systems in the United
States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.” The liberal bastion of California tried and
failed to implement a high-speed rail—they canceled their plan in 2019 because it would cost too much and take too long.

3. Guarantees free college to all Americans at the expense of taxpayers with its provision to provide “resources, training, and high-
quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.” While rising tuition costs is a concern, completely
free tuition hurts students and would increase deficit spending.

4. Implements government run health care and decimates the private health insurance market by providing “all people of the United
States with high-quality health care.” Government controlled health care would hand the reigns of American’s medical care over to
Washington bureaucrats, reducing the quality of care. The Green New Deal is just a blur between an environmental proposal and a
government takeover of health care, which alone is expected to cost over $32 trillion in the first 10 years.

5. Pushes foreign investment in America elsewhere by ignoring the economic advantages of natural gas. In the last decade, it is
estimated that natural gas has spurred investment of over $200 billion. The Green New Deal seeks to undo all this by calling for
“zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing.”

6. Imposes government overreach into the private sector and threatens the ability of the free market to flourish independent of
federal regulation with its provision to ensure “a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair
competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies.” The left has continually called for greater government
involvement in the private sector and the Green New Deal is yet another attempt to do just that, while disavowing the successes of a
free and open market.

7. Reorders the American way of life towards socialism and ensures a reliance on government-run programs. One section asserts
that “it is the duty of the Federal Government to… create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic
security for all people of the United States.” A federal jobs guarantee is not the solution to getting Americans to work. The
government’s role is to enforce the rule of law and create a regulatory environment where private industry and markets have the
freedom to pursue innovation and to flourish.

8. With all these free giveaways, experts expect this egregious proposal will cost somewhere between $46 and $81 trillion. This is an
enormous financial burden on taxpayers and a nation already deeply in debt. It’s estimated that each American household’s share of
the national debt would skyrocket by upwards of $600,000.

The Green New Deal lacks clarity on the specifics, but it’s crystal clear on the broad strokes—It aims to
hand the federal government complete control of the energy, health care, and education industries. It
will squeeze out private industry, impose government control, and run up the government debt.
Americans from all walks of life deserve to know the truth: The Green New Deal is nothing more than a socialist takeover masquerading as
environmental policy.
 2NC—AT: CX Checks
1---Encourages vague plan writing---means we have to spend all our time in CX
figuring out how the plan works instead of talking about the substance of the
debate.
2---Plan text is key---only way to stick you to an advocacy, otherwise the aff is a
moving target and aff conditionality is always worse.
3---Many judges don’t listen to CX.
 2NC—AT: OSPEC Bad
1---Turn: Increase PIC ground---over-specification ensures an increase in PIC
ground and PIC ground is key to negative ground
2---Over-spec is better than under specification---even if we force you to specify
the agency and other parts of your aff it only increases your chance of solvency
and gives us all a chance at a unique form of debate education, the process of
implementation.
3---Over-spec is inevitable---Ks prove that when you read the aff, every word
you say is a form of specification. No unique offense.
 2NC—AT: No Abuse
1---Strategy skew---lack of specification has already jacked the 1nc, it forced us
to run this argument instead of our sick agency tradeoff DA’s.
2---Crushes CP ground.
3---Justifies vague plan writing---leads to the death of policy debate!!
 2NC—AT: Not A Voting Issue
There are 3 reasons to vote neg on the F-Spec.
1---Presumption---that’s Elmore.
2---Crushes Ground and Education.
3---At best they will win that you should reject the argument and not the team
in which case you reject the plan and vote negative.
The damage is done! Their refusal to specify their funding crushed pre-round
prep, 1nc strategy, we will never get those back, the only recourse is to vote
negative to protect us!!
 2NC—AT: Normal Means
1---Normal means is vague and could be anything.
R. Lanier Britsch 95, Professor of History and Director of the David M. Kennedy Center for
International Studies at Brigham Young University; Ph.D., Claremont Graduate School, 1995, 1995
B.Y.U.L. Rev. 347, Brigham Young University Law Review, INTERNATIONAL CHURCH-STATE SYMPOSIUM:
ARTICLE: The Current Legal Status of Christianity in China, HKeef

Considerable discussion has focused on the word normal, most observers concluding that the
intended meaning is "legal religious activities.” In other words, normal means whatever the state or
its representatives allow.

2---At best, F-spec guts Solvency:

a. Ensures judicial opposition
David W. Gartenstein and Joseph F. Warganz 90, Gartenstein is an attorney; Warganz is on the
Associate General Counsel at KPMG LLP, 3/xx/1990, RICO'S "PATTERN" REQUIREMENT: VOID FOR
VAGUENESS?, Columbia Law Review, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 489, pg. 505, HKeef

The vagueness doctrine is a judicial response to legislative abdication of responsibility for setting
standard of conduct. When a legislature drafts vague statutory language , it cedes vast authority to the
judiciary to determine what conduct has been prohibited, an authority the courts may be loath to
assume. The vagueness doctrine demonstrates that "attempts of the legislative authority to pass to
the courts … the awesome task of making … the criminal and the constitutional law understandably
meet[ing] substantial judicial opposition.

b. Interbranch battles hold up action---major delays on implementation.

Phillip Cooper 2, Professor of Public Administration at Portland State University, 2002, By Order of the
President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action, pg. 233, HKeef

The rulemaking orders have tied administrative agencies up in knots for years and have trapped them
in a cross fire between the Congress that adopted statutes requiring regulations to be issued and
presidents who tried to measure their success by the number of rulemaking processes they could
block. Reagan's NSD 84 and other related directives seeking to impose dramatically intensified
controls on access to information and control over communication during and after government
employment incited a mini rebellion even among a number of cabinet level officials and conveyed a
sense of the tenor of leadership being exercised in the executive branch that drew fire from many
sources. The Clinton ethics order was meant to make a very public and political point, but it was one
of the factors contributing to the administration's inability to staff many of its key positions for
months.
 c. 1ar clarification is worst---normal means still links to the violation
because there is not discussion in the plan what that is, now only the 1ar
can clarify how the plan works, late debates suck crush strategy, ground,
and education.

d. Spec is key to solve tyranny.

David W. Gartenstein and Joseph F. Warganz 90, Gartenstein is an attorney; Warganz is on the
Associate General Counsel at KPMG LLP, 3/xx/1990, RICO'S "PATTERN" REQUIREMENT: VOID FOR
VAGUENESS?, Columbia Law Review, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 489, pg. 506-507, HKeef

The issue of institutional competence is closely related to protection of individual freedoms. In the words of Justice Brennan, " The
requirement that government articulate its aims with a reasonable degree of clarity ensures that state
power will be exercised on half of policies reflecting an authoritative choice among competing social
values." The vagueness doctrine often reflects a balancing of interests, in which the decision whether or not to find a statute
unconstitutionally vague depends on the type of conduct that the legislature is seeking to prevent. For example, in Papachristou v. City of
Jacksonville, the Court invalidated a vagrancy ordinance on vagueness grounds because the ordinance criminalized "activities [that] are
historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them,” including strolling, wandering and walking at night. In contrast, in Grayned v.
City of Rockford, an antinoise ordinance that pro making noise near a school in session that "tended to disturb” the school's functioning was
upheld against a vagueness challenge because the law's purpose was to prevent the disruption of normal school activity. In general, statutes
restricting conduct seen by the Court as within the legitimate realm of government regulation tend to survive vagueness challenges, while
statutes exceeding the legitimate reach of government control tend to fall as overly vague.
AT Disclosure theory
AT: Disclosure—2AC
 2AC—AT: Disclosure
Counter-interp: Debaters from small schools should not have to disclose before
a round.
Prefer it:
A. Reasonability—being from a small school, none of our strategies are anything
our opponent hasn’t seen before—most, if not all, of our arguments are straight
off the wiki.
B. Turn—Their interp directly harms small schools- disclosure theory destroys
any chance for debaters from under-resourced areas to succeed- undermines
fairness and clash and destroys the debate space.
Fiala 23 Fiala, Ava. “Effects of Disclosure Theory on Small Schools.” Equality in Forensics, 4 Oct. 2023,
www.equalityinforensics.org/blog/effects-of-disclosure-theory-on-small-schools. Accessed 11 Oct. 2023.
Theory is centered around upholding the rules of debate while also pointing out critical issues. I think the motive behind it is beneficial, but running Ks and
disclosure is not the way to accomplish our goal. In reality, most debaters run these arguments to try and get ahead rather
than make a change. This is especially true when it comes to disclosure. The most common links behind disclosure deal
with small schools not having resources and sharing cases lessening the intel disparity between debaters. However, most of the time smaller
schools are the ones that don't disclose and get hurt the most by this norm.

Smaller schools often have fewer coaches, and sometimes none at all. Larger schools have multiple experienced coaches
who can help students navigate complex issues. When cases are disclosed, smaller schools lack the guidance and expertise to properly disclose or even know how to
Less established programs are already facing an uphill battle in terms of resources and
find the wiki.
disclosure theory can discourage them from participating in debate, ultimately limiting the diversity and
inclusivity of the activity as a whole. Theory only raises the entry barrier in an already complex event
and reinforces the status quo of large school success.

Oftentimes, private schools dominate the circuit because they have access to coaching and funding, leaving smaller schools to fend for themselves. Focusing
on topicality rather than norms makes the circuit more inviting for less experienced teams . Additionally,
disclosure brings up strategic challenges. Larger schools commonly have more prep than others. In order to overcome this, creating smarter arguments and relying
on creativity can lessen the gap. By disclosing, schools don't have the opportunity for surprise. This also reduces the fun of the
debate by creating an environment that doesn't allow for as much creativity with arguments.

Supporters of disclosure often argue that resources are available to assist small schools, yet the reality is
that they may not be as accessible as everyone thinks. Take, for example, organizations like Equality in Forensics, which can be
extremely helpful to debaters when they know how to access them. However, these programs often remain hidden from schools in
more remote areas, primarily because they tend to be spread through word of mouth. The lack of awareness concerning
resources puts small schools at a significant disadvantage. It's not just about organizations; it's also
about the information gap that prevents these schools from tapping into the support they provide.
 AT: Disclosure—1AR
Counter-interp—debaters from small schools should not have to disclose.

Prefer our C/I:

1. Reasonability- we’re not reading anything insane or new—our aff is
generic and has two of the most popular advantages for UBI affs. Being
from a small school means that we don’t have multiple coaches to write
arguments for us, so all of our cards and scenarios are straight off the
wiki. That means there’s no real abuse done on disclosure. Prefer
reasonability because competing interps creates a race to the bottom.
2. Fairness- we’re from a small school with one coach for everything, very limited
resources, and no ability to travel to more than a couple big tournaments a year
for monetary and geographic reasons. The neg turns their own voters.
Debaters from small schools are at a huge disadvantage already, and the
neg running disclosure against us kills fairness- how are we supposed to
promote equitable models if small schools are forced to give their very
limited resources and prep to big schools?
3. Clash- we don’t have resources to prep as much as our opponents can, so
we shouldn’t have to give our limited prep to them so that we can close
the gap and ensure that the debate has high quality clash. We have
literally 3 people on our team who actually prep. The only way small
schools can make up for the resource gap is often by using things like
openev or running creative arguments, which makes disclosure either
unnecessary or directly harmful.
4. Kills debate- the neg’s model disincentivizes debaters from small schools
to compete at higher levels, which reifies inequities in debate. That’s 2AC
Fiala 23—small schools like ours are directly hurt by disclosure theory. In
no world is it bad for us, a small school with very few resources, to not
disclose to [opp].
Vagueness
 1NC—Vagueness—[SS]
Interpretation: the AFF must specify the exact proposal of Social Security reform
they endorse, or the SS programs they add or change.
Violation: They don’t.
There’s no universal definition of ‘social security’—that means it’s necessary to
specify.
Haber ’48 [William Haber and Wilbur J. Cohen; 1948; world-famous economist, economics professor
at the University of Michigan, economics PhD at the University of Wisconsin; one of the pioneers of the
U.S. Social Security system, once dubbed ‘The Man Who Built Medicare’ and John F. Kennedy tagged
him ‘Mr. Social Security,’ Director of the Bureau of Research and Statistics, which was renamed the
Social Security Administration in 1946; Readings in Social Security, “Theory and Philosophy of Social
Security,” Ch. 2]

THERE IS NO universally accepted definition of social security. Different definitions of the term stress different elements.
Some definitions are very broad; other are narrow. The term "social security" is broader than "social
insurance" and has been used to cover a wide range of governmental and even private voluntary
arrangements. Although the term has been used in such a variety of ways and so broadly as sometimes to lose any value as a
term of precise meaning, it does have the advantage of describing a number of different programs
which are related in their general purpose. Since private and public plans are in different stages of evolution in the United States, and
there are many variations of these plans throughout the world, social security is a more useful general term to cover all programs both in the United States and
abroad. The term "social security" originated in the United States and has spread throughout the world. Its origin
is of interest in indicating the emphasis which its authors attempted to achieve. The late Abraham Epstein, Executive Secretary of the

American Association of Social Security, is credited with originating and popularizing the term. Epstein has described
the origin of the term in the following words: "As you will recall, when our Association was first organized in 1927 its name was the American Association for Old
Age Security. We hit upon the word 'security' during a walk in Harrisburg with my friend, Emil Frankel, who is now head of the research department of the New
Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies. I believe the credit for the term 'security' really goes to Frankel. "The change early in 1933 to the American
Association for Social Security was entirely my own idea and I had definite reasons for using the words 'social security' rather than 'economic security' or 'social
insurance.' Indeed, Dr. I. M. Rubinow definitely opposed the new name as being all too-encompassing and some time later criticized me for this in a speech or
article. "I insisted on the term 'social security' because by that time I had a clear conception of the differences which lay between the concept of social insurance as
worked out by Bismarck in Germany and the conception of social protection as elaborated in England. I definitely did not want 'social insurance' because this would
give it the German twist of the actuarial insurance concept in terms of compulsory savings which do not justify governmental contributions. I did not want
'economic security' because what I hoped for was not only a form of security for the workers as such but that type of security which would, at the same time,
promote the welfare of society as a whole as I was convinced that no improvement in the conditions of labor can come except as the security of the people as a
whole is advanced. In other words, the concept of 'social security' meant to me a clear distinction from the German concept of more or less actuarial social
insurance. My aim was definitely in the direction of the concepts underlying the English system of social protection wherein governmental contributions become
part and parcel of the program. "This, perhaps, may help to explain to you why I was burning up in 1935 when our program reversed the concepts which were
precious to me. "I am convinced that the naming of the Perkins-Witte committee *economic security' was a deliberate attempt to get away from our name,
probably because it was thought wiser to disassociate the governmental committee from a private propaganda organization. Naturally, I was quite happy that
Congress restored our name which became definitely popular by that time, and I am particularly glad to see that even in Europe today the term 'social security' is
very commonly used." * The theory and philosophy of social security is not something static. It is not always so explicit that it can be precisely
stated nor so separate from the programs themselves that it can be divorced from them. Some of the readings in Chapters IV, V, VI, and VII contain material bearing
on the theory and philosophy of the various social security programs. Chapter IX contains readings which also have a direct bearing on the theory and philosophy of
social security.
1] Ground skew—vagueness allows 2AC clarification of central link premises of
what the plan includes. The aff gets infinite prep to write the most strategic plan
—unpredictable shiftiness opens the floodgates to skew our strategy.

2] Clash—no stasis on a particular proposal means we cannot come with a

prepared strategy for adequate engagement.

3] Education—specific designs are key to productive discussions.

4] CX doesn’t check—the plan text ensures detailed strategies are researched in

advance AND 3 minutes is too short to put together a new 1NC.

5] Reject the team—skewed construction of the 1NC affected the whole debate.
Competing interpretations—prevents judge intervention.
 2NC—Vagueness—[SS]
There’s 12 different proposals for SS expansion – each is radically different.
AARP No Date [AARP, private insurance company; No Date, "The Future of Social Security: 12
Proposals On The Table", https://goyff.az.gov/sites/default/files/meeting-documents/materials/
social_security_options.pdf, No Publication, accessed 7-20-2023 \\pa-zyg]]

12 Proposals on the Table in Washington Raise the Full Retirement Age The age when a person becomes eligible to receive full Social Security
retirement benefits (the full retirement age) has been increasing from age 65 on a schedule set by Congress in 1983. It has reached 66 and will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 and

later.Raising the full retirement age further is one option to help close Social Security’s funding gap. The earliest
age for claiming reduced benefits could remain at age 62, but the benefit at that age would be further reduced. One proposal would raise the full

retirement age to 68. Starting in 2023, the age would increase by two months each year until it reached 68 in 2028. This is estimated to fill 18 percent of the funding gap.
Another proposal would raise the full retirement age to 70. Starting in 2023, the age would increase by two months each year until it reached
70 in 2040. This is estimated to fill 44 percent of the funding gap. Pro: People are living longer than ever before, and the full benefits age should be increased. Otherwise, recipients will spend
an ever-greater amount of their lives living in retirement, which we simply cannot afford. When Social Security started in 1935, 65-year-old men expected to spend about 13 years in
retirement. Soon, men will live about 20 years in retirement. Women in 1935 averaged 15 years in retirement. Soon, they will live almost 22 years. (David John,Heritage Foundation) Con:
Raising the full retirement age is a benefit cut no matter what age you begin taking benefits. The increase from 65 to 67 already in law cuts benefits by 13 percent. Low-earning workers have

Raising the full retirement age for everyone simply because well-off Americans are
seen little or no gains in longevity.

living longer is a stealth benefit cut that is unnecessary and unjust. We can afford to improve and pay for Social Security without benefit
cuts. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance) “I’vebeenpayinginto Social Security for years” Begi n Lon gevi tyIndexing If, as projected, Americans continue to live longer from one

one option
generation to the next, individuals will, on average, receive Social Security benefits for a longer period of time. The trend contributes to Social Security’s funding gap, and

to offset it is longevity indexing. Indexing would automatically modify Social Security to pay smaller monthly
benefits as lifespans increase. Reducing the monthly payments could be accomplished either by increasing the age at which a person becomes eligible for full,
unreduced retirement benefits (full retirement age) or by changing the benefit formula. Depending on the specific proposal, this is estimated to

fill 20 -26 percent of the funding gap. Pro: Indexing the Social Security retirement age is a fair way to handle the fact that Americans are expected to live longer in
the future. Assuming lifespans continue to increase, this method would increase Social Security’s full benefits age by about one month every two years; if it started in 2025, the retirement age
would increase from 67 to 68 by about 2049. This increase does not necessarily mean that someone would have to retire later. The alternative is a very slightly reduced monthly benefit. The
individual retiree would have this information in plenty of time to decide which approach to take. (David John,Heritage Foundation) Con: To index benefits for longevity would unfairly cut
benefits for almost everyone. Low -earning workers and other disadvantaged groups have seen little or no gains in longevity. Cutting benefits for everyone just because well -off Americans are
living longer would be profoundly unjust. Moreover, this change would violate the purpose of Social Security, which is to ensure basic economic security. Rent, utilities, groceries and medical
care don’t cost less just because some people are living longer. (Virginia Reno,National Academyof Social Insurance) Reca lcu l a t eth e COLA Social Security benefits generally keep up with
inflation through a cost - of-living adjustment, or COLA. Since 1975, Social Security has based such adjustments on the consumer price index, which measures changes in the prices of consumer

One option to modify Social Security would be to use an alternative price index for calculating
goods and services.

the COLA . Options include: • Chained consumer price index: By applying a different formula to the same goods and services data, this index
aims to account for ways consumers change their buying habits when prices change. Experts predict that the annual COLA would be on average 0.3 percentage points lower under this new
formula. For example, if the current formula produced a 3.0 percent annual COLA, the chained consumer price index might yield a 2.7 percent COLA. Permanently reducing the size of the

benefit adjustment by this amount every year is estimated to fill 23 percent of the gap. • Elderly index: This method aims to reflect specific spending patterns of older Americans, in
particular the greater amounts they spend on health care costs. Experts predict that the annual COLA would be on average 0.2 percentage points higher under this formula. For example, if the
current formula would produce a 3.0 percent annual COLA, the elderly price index might yield a 3.2 percent COLA. Permanently increasing the size of the benefit adjustment by this amount
every year is estimated to increase the funding gap by 16 percent. Pro (chained consumer price index): The index used for the COLA must provide the most accurate estimate of inflation. The
best index is the chained consumer price index, which both measures the inflation experienced by a larger part of the population than the current index and better represents the way that real
people react to price changes in different types of goods and services. (David John,Heritage Foundation) Pro (elderly index): The current COLA doesn’t keep up with the inflation that seniors
face because they spend more than other Americans for out -ofpocket health care costs and those costs rise faster than average inflation. The chained consumer price index would make
matters worse by reducing the COLA. A more accurate Social Security COLA would compensate for the higher inflation that seniors actually experience by using an elderly index. (Virginia

The Social Security

Reno,National Academyof Social Insurance) “Th emidd l e c l a ss n eedSocia lSecuri ty t osurvi vethei r reti remen t yea rs .” Increa seth e Payro l l TaxCap

payroll tax currently applies to annual earnings up to $110,100. Any wages earned above $110,100 go untaxed for Social Security. This cap
generally increases every year as the national average wage increases. Today, the cap covers about 84 percent of total earnings in the nation. Raising the cap to cover a

higher percent of total earning would help close Social Security’s funding gap . How much depends on how high the cap is set
and how quickly the cap would be raised to reach that level. One commonly mentioned goal would raise the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings, which in 2012 would have meant a cap of
about $215,000. Raising the cap to 90 percent is estimated to fill 36 percent of the funding gap. Pro: Lifting the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings is sensible and fair. Only 6 percent of
workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. It is fair for top earners to pay more into Social Security, and they would get a bit more in benefits. This change reflects the intent of
Congress in 1977, when it set the cap to include 90 percent of earnings. Congress also provided for automatic adjustments for average wage growth so that the cap would continue to cover 90
percent. But with today’s top earners enjoying much bigger gains than everyone else, the cap now covers only about 84 percent of all earnings. This proposal, together with other changes,
could keep Social Security strong and pay for benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno,National Academy of Social Insurance) Con: In general, increasing taxes is a serious mistake. It reduces the
amount that Americans have to spend on their family’s food, housing, clothes, education, etc. This bad idea would cause a hefty tax increase for middle -income taxpayers while not affecting
the rich. It would especially hurt the self-employed and certain smaller business owners.To make matters worse, this tax increase delays Social Security’s problems by only eight years. It does

Eliminate the Payroll Tax Cap The Social Security payroll tax currently applies to annual earnings up to $110,100. Any
not fix them. (David John,Heritage Foundation)

wages earned above $110,100 go untaxed for Social Security. This cap generally increases every year with increases in the national average
wage. Today, the cap covers about 84 percent of total earnings. Eliminating the cap so that all earnings would be subject to Social
Security’s payroll tax would help close the program’s funding gap. If all earnings were immediately subject to the Social Security tax, the new revenue is estimated to fill 86
percent of the funding gap. Pro: Eliminating the tax cap would make Social Security’s financing more fair. Only 6 percent of workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. They would
pay on all their earnings throughout the year just as everyone else does, and would get a modest increase in benefits. This change alone would just about eliminate Social Security’s long -term
financing gap. Combining this with other changes could wipe out the gap and pay for needed benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance) Con: At first blush,
the idea that people should pay Social Security taxes on all of their earnings seems both fair and attractive. However, this “solution” would cause huge Social Security checks for very high -
income people. To avoid this, Congress must change the fundamental nature of the program, and then some people would end up paying higher taxes and getting nothing in return. Once that

process starts, it could lead to making Social Security a welfare program. (David John,Heritage Foundation) “Washingtonneedsto openupisdoorsandlisten .” Reduce Benefits for
Higher Earners Social Security benefit payments are based on the portion of a worker’s earnings that was subject to Social Security payroll taxes. While higher lifetime earners
receive higher payments than lower lifetime earners, their benefits replace a smaller share of their past earnings than do the benefits provided to lower earners. One option to

help close Social Security’s funding gap would be to reduce benefits for higher lifetime earners . This could
be done by modifying Social Security’s benefit formula in a number of ways, depending on who is classified as higher earners and
how much their benefits are reduced. Most options use a sliding scale to reduce the benefits most for higher earners, make smaller changes for middle earners and make no benefit changes

for lower earners. Options include: • Reduce benefits for the highest-earning 25 percent. Gradually reducing benefits over time for the highest-
earning 25 percent of individuals by a sliding scale up to a 15 percent benefit reduction for maximum earners is estimated to fill 7 percent of the funding gap. • Reduce benefits

for the highest-earning 50 percent. Gradually reducing benefits over time for the highest-earning 50 percent of individuals by a sliding scale up to a 28 percent
benefit reduction for maximum earners is estimated to fill 31 percent of the funding gap. Pro: In coming years, when Social Security won’t have enough payroll tax money to pay full benefits to
everyone, it seems only fair to pay full benefits to lower-wage workers and lower benefits to those who had higher earnings. Wealthier retirees have other ways, such as pensions and savings,
to fund their retirements. They don’t need full benefits. Everyone would still receive a benefit, but higher-earning retirees would receive less than they do now. (David John,Heritage
Foundation) Con: These proposals would actually cut benefits for middle-class workers making as little as $35,000 a year. They are not “high earners.” Benefits are already modest. Retirees’
health care costs are rising while other retirement resources – home equity, pensions, lifetime savings – are at risk or unavailable for too many Americans. Most seniors get most of their
income from Social Security. Cuts are not the answer. We can afford to preserve Social Security’s promised benefits. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance) Benefi t Improvemen
ts Social Security provides benefits to retired workers and their families; to the spouses and dependents of workers who have died; and to workers who have become disabled and their
families. Those benefits are too low for certain groups, according to some who argue that as part of any effort to strengthen Social Security, lawmakers should consider increasing benefits for
more -vulnerable recipients. Some of the proposals to improve benefits are: • Increased benefits for a surviving spouse • Earnings credits for people who are not in the paid workforce because
they are caring for a child or other family member • A new minimum benefit that’s guaranteed to keep low -paid workers with long careers above the poverty level Each of these proposals
would require other adjustments to benefits or revenue. Proposals to improve benefits for caregivers and low -wage workers have been estimated to increase the funding gap by 5 -13 percent.
There are no available estimates for proposals to improve benefits for surviving spouses. Pro: Social Security has features of an ideal pension plan: It is portable from job to job, keeps up with
inflation and lasts as long as you live. Most seniors rely on it for most of their income. Yet benefits are modest —$1,230 a month on average. We can afford to improve it. We could ensure that
people who pay in at least 30 years will not be poor in retirement, give working parents’ credit for care giving and improve benefits for survivors. We could also help any child of workers who
die or become disabled by continuing benefits until age 22 if the child is in college or vocational school. (Virginia Reno,National Academyof Social Insurance) Con: Although Social Security
benefits for some groups are too low, they should only be improved as part of an overall reform. Otherwise, the added costs would only exhaust the trust fund faster. If that happens, benefits
would be reduced for everyone. Instead, all of Social Security’s benefits should be reviewed so that some can receive improved amounts, while ensuring Social Security will be able to pay every

Increase the Payroll Tax Rate Employees and employers each currently pay a 6.2
person appropriate benefits for decades to come. (David John,Heritage Foundation)

One option to help

percent tax to Social Security on earnings up to $110,100. Self-employed workers pay both the employer and employee share for a total of 12.4 percent.

close the Social Security funding gap would raise the payroll tax rate for all workers and employers . For
instance, on a $50,000 annual salary, increasing the payroll tax to 6.45 percent would increase both the annual employee and employer contribution by $125 each. Changing it to 7.2 percent
would increase the annual employee and employer contribution by $500 each. The rate increase could occur gradually or all at once. Increasing the payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 6.45
percent immediately is estimated to fill 22 percent of the funding gap. Increasing the payroll tax rate gradually over 20 years on employers and employees from 6.2 percent to 7.2 percent is
estimated to fill 64 percent of the funding gap. Pro: Gradually increasing the Social Security tax rate from 6.2 to 7.2 percent over 20 years makes good sense. Most Americans say they would
rather pay more than see Social Security cut. This change —just 50 cents more a week for an average earner —would close just over half of the financing gap. Together with eliminating the
earnings cap, it could pay for much -needed improvements and keep Social Security strong for the long - term. (Virginia Reno,National Academyof Social Insurance) Con: Increasing Social
Security’s payroll tax rate is a bad idea that would increase everyone’s taxes, no matter their income. Economists have known for decades that if the cost of employees gets too great,
employers will start to replace them with machines or move to locations with lower taxes. Unfortunately, this does not hit all employees equally. Employers are most likely to replace younger
workers and those with lower skill levels. (David John, Heritage Foundation) “SocialSecurityneedssomechangesbut theymust protectretirementecurityoffuturegenerations .”
TaxAllSalaryReductionPlans Employees now pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on their contributions to tax-preferred employer-sponsored retirement accounts, such as 401(k)
plans. They don’t, however, pay these payroll taxes on their contributions to some other types of benefit plans at work, like Flexible Spending Accounts. Collecting payroll taxes on all such
benefit plans would increase the Social Security program’s funds, as well as increase the earnings used to calculate the Social Security benefits of workers who have those benefit plans. Taxing

Congress should
these salary reduction plans for Social Security the same way we tax contributions to 401(k) plans is estimated to fill 10 percent of the funding gap. Pro:

complete a reform it launched in 1983 when it treated workers’ contributions to 401(k) salary reduction
plans as earnings that are taxed and counted toward Social Security benefits. Extending the same treatment to other such plans would be consistent, it would ensure
workers that all of their earnings will count toward their future Social Security benefits, and it would reduce the Social Security funding gap. (Virginia Reno,National Academy of Social
Insurance) Con: This would be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Changing the tax treatment of salary reduction plans would increase the cost of health care and other employee benefits
because the tax savings help to offset the employer’s cost of operating the plans. The result would be fewer employers that are willing to offer these types of benefits. Individual workers
would either have to buy these benefits themselves or to do without. (David John,Heritage Foundation) Ibelieveit’simportant tostrengthen bothbutwiththecurrentgridlockin
Washington,I’mnotsureit’spossible.” CoverAllNewlyHiredStateandLocal GovernmentWorkers About 25 percent of state and local government employees are not covered by Social Security.
Rather, these workers are covered by retirement plans provided by state or local governments that have chosen not to participate in the Social Security program. Under one proposed change,
Social Security would cover all newly hired state and local government workers. Those workers and their employers would each pay their share of Social Security payroll taxes, and the workers
would receive Social Security benefits. Current state and local government workers would not be affected. This proposal is estimated to fill about 8 percent of Social Security’s funding gap. Pro:
Social Security works best for everyone when it covers everyone. Workers gain seamless, portable life and disability insurance as well as basic retirement income protection. Any employer-
provided pensions are then added to Social Security. Extending coverage to newly hired workers, as was done with federal employees in 1983 legislation, would ease the transition for the
workers and jurisdictions that would be affected. (Virginia Reno,National Academyof Social Insurance) Con: Making newly hired workers join Social Security would increase revenue now, but
eventually the program would have to pay these workers benefits. That would make Social Security’s financial problems even worse. In addition, certain already underfunded state and local

government employee pension plans would see reduced contributions, and almost certainly need tax hikes to pay promised benefits. (David John, Heritage Foundation) Increase
Number of Year sUsed to Calculate Initial Benefits Social Security retirement benefits are based on a worker’s average earnings history. Average
earnings are computed from a worker’s highest 35 years of annual indexed earnings that were subject to Social Security payroll taxes. If a worker has fewer than 35 years of earnings, each year
needed to reach 35 is assigned zero earnings. One option to help close the Social Security funding gap would increase the number of years of earnings used to calculate Social Security benefits
from 35 to 38 or even 40. Because that method would typically include more years of lower earnings, the average earnings would decrease and benefits would be lower. Increasing the number
of computation years to 38 is estimated to fill 13 percent of the solvency gap. Pro: Increasing the number of years an individual must work to qualify for full Social Security benefits recognizes
that most people are living and working longer than they did in the past. Today’s method produces a skewed picture of an individual’s full employment history and inaccurate Social Security
benefits. Adding more years would encourage younger people to start working sooner, and the resulting small benefit changes would help to preserve Social Security for everyone. (David
John,Heritage Foundation) Con: This proposal would reduce benefits the most for people who need them most: women and lower-income, less-educated and minority retirees. It would reduce
benefits not only for retired workers, but also for their dependents and survivors. Social Security benefits are modest and are already being cut as the retirement age goes up. We can afford to
preserve, improve and pay for the Social Security benefits that today’s workers are earning with their Social Security taxes. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance)

“Whenpeopleworkhard all their lives,thereshouldbe somepeaceof mindinretirement.” Begin Means-Testing Social Security Benefits Social Security
benefits have always been provided to anyone who has paid into the system and who meets the work and age requirements. That’s regardless of other income—investment, pension, savings
—the person receives in addition to Social Security benefits (although a portion of Social Security benefits is taxable if the total income exceeds a certain threshold). One option to help close
Social Security’s funding gap is to “means test.” Means testing would reduce benefits for higher income recipients and could even eliminate benefits altogether for the highest- income
households. Unlike Option 4, which uses a measure of career average earnings to reduce benefits, means testing would reduce benefits based on the full range of current income. Who would
be affected and by how much depends on how the income thresholds are defined. One version of means testing is estimated to fill about 11 percent of the funding gap. Pro: In an era of scarce
resources, Social Security can’t continue to pay benefits to all retirees regardless of what other retirement income they have. Instead, the program should provide monthly benefits only to
retirees who have less than a certain amount of non-Social Security annual income. Social Security would continue to be insurance against retirement poverty for everyone, but would focus its
benefit payments on those who really need them. (David John, Heritage Foundation) Con: Means testing would change Social Security from an earned right to welfare. It would penalize you if
you saved or earned a pension because that income would reduce your Social Security. And it would cost more to administer. The government would have to routinely check your income and
assets in order to adjust your benefit. Means testing would be a huge breach of faith with working Americans who earned their benefits by paying in over the years. (Virginia Reno, National
Academy of Social Insurance)
Condo
2AC—Condo Bad
1AR—Condo Bad
1AR—Condo Bad—Top
1AR—Condo Bad—AT: Neg Flex
1AR—Condo Bad—AT: Risk Aversion
1AR—Condo Bad—AT: Idea Flex
1AR—Condo Bad—AT: Reasonability
1AR—Condo Bad—AT: Skew Inev
1AR—Condo Bad—Dispo
Full Res affs bad
 1NC—Full Res Theory
--in 1AC cross ask “is the 1AC advocating for all topic areas at the same time or each one separately” or
“if we win that one topic area is bad, do we get the judge’s ballot”

1---Interpretation
Affirmative plans that endorse all 3 topic areas must win the debate over every
topic area.
2---Violation
The 1AC advocates for all 3 topic areas- jobs guarantee, basic income, and social
security, and in 1AC cross they said
3---Voters
a. Fairness- full res affs enables affirmative conditionality, which kills the
possibility of a fair round.
b. Education- in-depth debate about one topic area is key to creating an
educational debate. Lack of education disincentivizes people from joining
debate, which kills the event.
c. At best, they cant solve- there is no way we could fund 3 major proposals
at the same time.
d. Vote aff on presumption- it is incredibly likely that at least one topic area
has a problem with it.
Voting neg is key to promoting fair, educational debates.
2NC—Full Res Theory
Plan Text needed
 1NC—Plan Text Theory
A. Interpretation-
It is literally the first rule of policy debate that the aff must provide a plan text.
National Speech & Debate Association no date National Speech & Debate Association. “Competition
Events.” National Speech & Debate Association, www.speechanddebate.org/competition-events/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023.

Policy Debate is a two-on-two debate where an affirmative team proposes a plan and the negative
team argues why that plan should not be adopted. The topic for Policy Debate changes annually, so debaters throughout the
course of the year will debate the same topic. One member of each team will perform the ‘first’ speeches, the other the ‘second’ speeches. So
the person who reads the 1AC wil also perform the 1AR, for example. Note that the debate begins with the affirmative speaking first, and then
switches midway through the debate where the negative speaks first, thus giving the affirmative the ability to speak last.

The plan text must be provided in the 1AC.

Bosch no date Bosch, Keegan. “Lesson 11 - Constructive Speeches.pptx.” National Speech & Debate Association,
drive.google.com/file/d/1Uqytr7PnwVr6a1u6IjThDUjstGdH-pFA/view. Accessed 6 Sept. 2023.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE

Let’s go in order of the round and start with the First Affirmative Constructive or the 1AC
The 1AC is when the Aff presents their plan, meaning they must fulfill their burden of the stock issues
- Harms/Advantages
- Inherency
- Topicality
- Solvency

B. Violation- they don’t prove a plan text in the 1AC

C. Voters-
1. Fairness: absent a plan text, the aff become a moving target. This kills
fairness- do not let them have the ability to change their advocacy mid-
round.
2. Potential abuse is abuse: the fact that the aff is not fulfilling their utmost
burden is reason to vote against them, regardless of what happened in-
round. Vote neg to penalize unfair behavior.
3. Presumption: advantages exist to give reason behind adopting the plan
text. If there is no plan text to adopt, there is no reason to vote aff- you
vote neg on presumption.
2NC—Plan Text Theory
Disclosure theory
 Disclosure—1NC
1---Interpretation: debaters from large schools should disclose to debaters from
small schools.
2---The current state of disclosure theory destroys any chance for debaters from
under-resourced areas to succeed- undermines fairness and clash and destroys
the debate space. Our interpretation is key to reverse course and eliminate
these inequities.
Fiala 23 Fiala, Ava. “Effects of Disclosure Theory on Small Schools.” Equality in Forensics, 4 Oct. 2023,
www.equalityinforensics.org/blog/effects-of-disclosure-theory-on-small-schools . Accessed 11 Oct. 2023.
Theory is centered around upholding the rules of debate while also pointing out critical issues. I think the motive behind it is beneficial, but running Ks and
disclosure is not the way to accomplish our goal. In reality, most debaters run these arguments to try and get ahead rather
than make a change. This is especially true when it comes to disclosure. The most common links behind disclosure deal
with small schools not having resources and sharing cases lessening the intel disparity between debaters. However, most of the time smaller
schools are the ones that don't disclose and get hurt the most by this norm.

Smaller schools often have fewer coaches, and sometimes none at all. Larger schools have multiple experienced coaches
who can help students navigate complex issues. When cases are disclosed, smaller schools lack the guidance and expertise to properly disclose or even know how to
Less established programs are already facing an uphill battle in terms of resources and
find the wiki.
disclosure theory can discourage them from participating in debate, ultimately limiting the diversity and
inclusivity of the activity as a whole. Theory only raises the entry barrier in an already complex event
and reinforces the status quo of large school success.

Oftentimes, private schools dominate the circuit because they have access to coaching and funding, leaving smaller schools to fend for themselves. Focusing
on topicality rather than norms makes the circuit more inviting for less experienced teams . Additionally,
disclosure brings up strategic challenges. Larger schools commonly have more prep than others. In order to overcome this, creating smarter arguments and relying
on creativity can lessen the gap. By disclosing, schools don't have the opportunity for surprise. This also reduces the fun of the
debate by creating an environment that doesn't allow for as much creativity with arguments.

Supporters of disclosure often argue that resources are available to assist small schools, yet the reality is
that they may not be as accessible as everyone thinks. Take, for example, organizations like Equality in Forensics, which can be
extremely helpful to debaters when they know how to access them. However, these programs often remain hidden from schools in
more remote areas, primarily because they tend to be spread through word of mouth. The lack of awareness concerning
resources puts small schools at a significant disadvantage. It's not just about organizations; it's also
about the information gap that prevents these schools from tapping into the support they provide.

3---Voters:
a. Fairness- debaters from small schools are at a huge disadvantage already,
and the aff’s refusal to disclose to us kills fairness- how are we supposed
to promote equitable models if large schools don’t disclose to small
schools.
b. Clash- we don’t have resources to prep as much as our opponents can, so
we should be allowed to prep their disclosure pre-round to close the gap
and ensure that the debate has high quality clash.
c. Kills debate- the aff model disincentivizes debaters from small schools to
compete at higher levels, which reifies inequities in debate.
 Disclosure—2NC
1---Interp
Debaters from large schools should disclose to debaters from small schools
We’re from a small school with one coach for everything, very limited resources,
and no ability to travel to big tournaments except state and NSDA for monetary
and geographic reasons. Vote neg for equitable debate practices- their school
[insert their school info].

2---
The current state of disclosure theory destroys any chance for debaters from
under-resourced areas to succeed- undermines fairness and clash and destroys
the debate space. Our interpretation is key to reverse course and eliminate
these inequities

3---Voters
a. Fairness- debaters from small schools are at a huge disadvantage already,
and the aff’s refusal to disclose to us kills fairness- how are we supposed
to promote equitable models if large schools don’t disclose to small
schools.
b. Clash- we don’t have resources to prep as much as our opponents can, so
we should be allowed to prep their disclosure pre-round to close the gap
and ensure that the debate has high quality clash.
c. Kills debate- the aff model disincentivizes debaters from small schools to
compete at higher levels, which reifies inequities in debate.