What does it apply to?

Anything on the NEG that changes the status quo.

Conditionality determines weather or not you can kick out of a counterplan, and argues that the neg has created an undo burden on the AFF by running too many conditional advocates (counterplans, kritiks, and pics) plans to answer.

Why are too many counterplans unfair for the AFF?

If the NEG runs too many counterplans, the AFF can only answer the unique parts from the plan, however after a certain extent they will contradict themselves, thus it becomes unfair over time.

How do you start?

In every 1NC cross exam ask them:

“Status of the OFF?”

<aside> <img src="/icons/warning_red.svg" alt="/icons/warning_red.svg" width="40px" /> Conditionality is a last ditch effort, it will take up the entire 2AC.

</aside>

Conditional 🔓

If the NEG runs two conditional counterplans, you can argue one should be excluded. For example, if they are running two conditional counerplans, you can argue one.

Dispositional 🔐

The NEG can kick out of the counterplan as long as the AFF doesn’t straight turn it.

Unconditional 🔒

The NEG cannot kick out of the counterplan.

Arguing conditionality

1. Interpretation - How should the debate be run, and what is right in the game?
2. Violation - Why the NEG violates.
3. Standards - Why is our model better? (breadth over depth, education vs logic, etc, see Topicality for more)

What do you do as the AFF?

Answer like topicality! Turn their violations or standards, break their links, and offer a counter interpretation (Again, see Topicality to learn more about this, since Conditionality and Topicality work in very similar ways)