SEHS
PICs BAD 
2AC FRONTLINE



1.  DESTROYS AFF GROUND.

The make us defend a tiny portion of the plan when we originally advocated
the plan as a whole.  This reduces the aff ground to whatever tiny thing
the neg feels charitable enough to give, and destroys the meaning of the 1AC.


2.  TRIVIALIZES DEBATE.

Policy debate is educational, because we learn about policies.  The neg
wants us to ignore policies and make debates about trivial details without
ever examining whether the policy itself is a good idea.


3.  CONCEDES THAT THE PLAN IS A GOOD IDEA.

If the part they excluded is the only bad part, then the plan is on the
whole a good idea, so you should vote affirmative; they're conceding that
the plan is 95% good.


4.  INFINITELY REGRESSIVE.

This justifies a counterplan that passes the plan but funds it a penny
less, with the net benefit of a penny saved is a penny earned; that would
suck.


5.  REAL WORLD MODEL IS INAPPROPRIATE.

In Congress, nobody would propose such a similar bill because committees
have limited bills they can bring to the floor, and because of fear of
splintering votes.  As a result, they would just compromise on the minor
dispute to get the law passed.  But in debate, we can't compromise on a
plan to pass; the adversarial nature of debate requires counterplans to be
non-plan inclusive.


6.  DESTROYS CLASH.

The goal of a PIC is to catch us off guard so that we won't have anything
to say.  It allows them to avoid discussing the merits of the plan.


7.  ENCOURAGES VAGUE PLANS.

PICs will just make affs write really vague plans so that counterplans
won't compete.  This creates superficial debate.


8.  PICS ARE GENERIC.

Negs can run the same PICs almost every round, destroying education.  For
instance, they could an exempt an industry from any regulatory plan this year,
and that industry would be all they learn about.