SEHS
PICs GOOD
2NC/1NR AT: ``INFINITELY REGRESSIVE/JUSTIFIES PLAN MINUS A PENNY''



1.  COMPETITION ALWAYS CHECKS ABUSE.

No one writes net benefit cards to the plan minus a penny counterplan, and
if they did then the aff should be ready for it.  If people discuss the
counterplan as an option in the literature, then the aff should be ready.


2.  NO SPECIFIC ABUSE.

We're not running the plan minus a penny counterplan in this round, so
there's no reason to vote against us for abuse.


3.  POTENTIAL ABUSE IS NEVER A VOTING ISSUE.

You should never vote on potential abuse arguments, because in-round abuse
arguments always check abuse whenever it happens; when some team runs plan
minus a penny, they'll lose, and the problem will be solved.  No reason to
punish us.


4.  NONUNIQUE.  LOTSA PEOPLE HAVE RUN PICS FOR AWHILE AND WILL CONTINUE
TO.

If this snowball is going to happen, it'll happen regardless of whether
you vote on this argument, so there's no unique impact.  Also, the fact
that we haven't seen plan minus a penny proves it empirically false.


5.  REASONABLE EXPECTATION.

The aff should be able to defend their specific funding level, and other
implementation parameters of the plan.  If something else is optimal,
that's what the plan should have been all along.  If they missed it in
their survey of the literature, it *should* cost them a round to find out.