Study counterplans are illigit
CPs can’t result in the plan
Kills fairness – no way for the aff to get offense
Kills education – shifts debate away from the aff
Conditional fiat is an independent voting issue – creates additional worlds – justifies perm – do the CP if the study finds the aff is good
Voter
Justifies perm – do the CP
C/I- PIC out of a stated functional element of the plan
Permutation- do both solves- we can develop the framework for future doctrine
Perm – do the counterplan – we are the correct response to current geopolitical conditions
Their ev is in the context of military doctrine – not asteroids
Flexibility undermines the value of doctrine and stable doctrine is key to groom future leadership
Temple ’92 Lt Col L. Parker Temple III, (USAF, Retired (USAFA; MBA, University of Northern Colorado; MS, West Coast University), is a private consultant on space policy and programs. “Of Machine Guns, Yellow Brick Roads, and Doctrine” Airpower Journal, Summer http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj92/sum92/temple.htm
Doctrine does not imply universality and must be developed only after relevant experience allows us to extract lessons learned. Lessons learned within a framework may or may not be valid across the boundary to subsequent frameworks. If a new framework is initiated, past experience may be irrelevant and dangerously misleading. Determining when a framework has changed and judging which are the proper lessons to be learned from history's experience is part of the art of doctrine. Unger's frameworks allow locally applicable laws within stable frameworks. Doctrine comprises locally applicable laws--not universal principles of war. So long as the framework remains relatively stable and experience within it grows, doctrine can be usefully and productively pursued. The more flexible a framework is, the harder it will be for doctrine to remain valuable over time. A framework that evolves easily and adapts to changing conditions may undermine the pertinent experience base from which doctrine is derived. Thus some doctrinal thoughts about aerial combat in the Korean conflict may not apply to the advanced tactical fighter, while others may. Again, judgment is required. An unquestioning acceptance of experience as relevant to the present would lead to trouble. Luckily, frameworks resist change. This argues for the ability to extract usable lessons learned from experience (judgment) and the relative longevity of such doctrine. In this sense, doctrine is critical for helping people cope within the military. The embodiment of experience in doctrine is an ideal way to explain the framework to people entering into the military without prior background. Doctrine would be an important aspect of helping assure survival in the military in times of war when the regular force is augmented. Furthermore, people who not only cope within the military framework but who thrive in it may be the best sources of understanding what it takes to succeed (an essential element of writing doctrine).
Demand for precise doctrinal methodologies confounds the formulation of doctrine and hurts warfighting (specifically answers the 1NC
