OK, hopefully everything should be more clear now.
Unless you want to dispute the core logic of my position, the only remaining question is: "Is advocacy (that is, having arguments disappear when kicked) sufficiently good for debate that we should act like it exists anyway, even though there's no logical basis for it?" None of your arguments seem to show that it is - after all, you agree that kicking CPs is bad for debate.
As far as what the "correct" definition of advocacy is, somebody like Dr. Srader might be able to answer that better. (The Aff's arguments in the example I linked, as well as a lot of my own theory reading, seem to back up my definition. See further down in that thread - in the 2AR, they argued that kicking their other plans resolved the contradiction between "build nuclear power" and "ban nuclear power" - in other words, that kicking an argument removed it from the round.)
Second, logically equating CPs and DAs (or plans/Advs) significantly weakens your other tools for defending against conditionality, which largely rely on saying there are fundamental differences between CPs and DAs.
I don't really see how this is true, because:
a) It doesn't weaken the tools, it just removes the convenient(?) theoretical notch you were sliding them into. It's still just as easy to win that conditionality is bad for debate. It's not like Negatives are going to argue, "Yeah, what we're doing is bad for debate, but you should ignore that because they don't have a larger arbitrary framework to wrap their smaller arbitrary rules with!"
b) Except for mandate severance (which is kind of a different issue anyway), you don't actually need
the other tools, because conditionality becomes logically meaningless anyway. (See below.)
However, if you look at a CP as an opportunity cost DA (as you phrased it, and the position that everything is just claims for/against the res implies), there's no benefit to aff to still have the CP on the flow. Getting rid of one bad option does not mean another option is good. If it did, affs would come up and talk about tons of terrible plans proposed in congress they'd keep from passing.
I agree with the last part, but I don't see why this proves that we should allow kicks.
You're basically saying "letting the Neg kick a bad CP is OK, because bad CPs are already irrelevant anyway." In other words, kicking a bad CP doesn't influence the round. This is true; but it does not follow that kicking a good
influence the round.
My framework makes conditionality useless:Kicking a good CP
is irrelevant: it's still true even if it's kicked.Kicking a bad CP
irrelevant: it's still false even if it's kicked, AND it wouldn't influence the round even if they didn't
One question I'd like answered is how do you see a round where neg runs a conditional CP, and aff attacks it with this strategy playing out? (on a speech by speech basis)
Sure. Here's the first example from the OP, fleshed out a little more:Resolution
: something like "Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policy on alternative energy sources."1AC
: Aff presents a plan to federally subsidize nuclear power.1NC
: Neg straight-turns the case with a bunch of killer DAs - waste, terrorism, accidents, water shortages, politics impacts, you name it. Then, they run a counterplan to ban nuclear power.2AC
: Aff attempts to respond to the DAs, with mixed results. They also point out that the counterplan is topical, so even if the Negative wins the nuclear-power-bad debate, they've just proven the resolution true in a different way.2NC/1NR
: Neg carries the DAs and runs a massive parametrics justification for the counterplan, arguing that parametrics is necessary to prevent offtopic DAs and counterwarrants, yada yada yada.1AR
: Aff takes a look at their flow and realizes they have no chance of beating the DAs. Instead, they go straight for the parametrics justification, and spend the full 5 minutes grinding it into a pulp with incredibly detailed logical analysis. Even if the judge decides to go for the counterplan instead of their plan, they conclude, it's still a reason to vote for the resolution.2NC
: Rather than fight a losing battle over parametrics, the Neg decides to cut their losses and go for the easy win with the DAs. "Remember that the counterplan is conditional," they say. "We're going to kick it now. We're no longer endorsing it, so it's entirely removed from the round. Since the Aff's plan is terrible, and our counterplan is no longer in the round, there's no longer any reason to endorse the resolution, so you should vote Negative."2AR
: "The round is about whether we should reform alternative energy," says the Affirmative. "The Negative's counterplan conclusively shows that yes, we should
reform alternative energy. Kicking it didn't magically make that stop being true. Yeah, they're not officially endorsing it any more, but it's ridiculous to say that that somehow removes the argument from the round. You should vote Affirmative, because their counterplan proves the resolution true."
(In this particular example you might be able to get into a picky argument about whether the Aff implicitly conceded conditionality by not bringing their 2AR argument up earlier, or whether the Neg is allowed to run a conditional CP without announcing it as such - but that's beside the point. Nothing prevents the Aff from running conditionality-meaningless earlier in the round.)