| ... |
... |
@@ -1,31
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====Interpretation: the affirmative debater must disclose the plan text, framework, and advantage area of the 1AC 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message.==== |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
- |
| 4 |
|
-====Violation: they didn't, check doc for screenshot==== |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-==== ==== |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-====Vote neg for prep and clash – two internal links – a) neg prep – 4 minutes of prep is not enough to put together a coherent 1nc or update generics – 30 minutes is necessary to learn a little about the affirmative and piece together what 1nc positions apply and cut and research their applications to the affirmative b) aff quality – plan text disclosure discourages cheap shot affs. If the aff isn't inherent or easily defeated by 20 minutes of research, it should lose – this will answer the 1ar's claim about innovation – with 30 minutes of prep, there's still an incentive to find a new strategic, well justified aff, but no incentive to cut a horrible, incoherent aff that the neg can't check against the broader literature.==== |
| 11 |
|
- |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-====Voters:==== |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
- |
| 16 |
|
-====Fairness: debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation – side constraint to substantive debate.==== |
| 17 |
|
- |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
-====Education: a) it's the reason schools fund debate and b) it's the only long-term impact.==== |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
-====Paradigm issues:==== |
| 23 |
|
- |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
-====DTD to deter future abuse and rectify time skew from reading theory.==== |
| 26 |
|
- |
| 27 |
|
- |
| 28 |
|
-====No RVIs – a) illogical – you don't win for being fair, and logic is a meta-constraint, b) good theory debaters will bait theory to win on the RVI, which causes abuse, c) chilling effect – makes debaters scared to call out real abuse because they'll be out-teched on the RVI.==== |
| 29 |
|
- |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
-====Competing interps – a) reasonability is arbitrary and requires judge intervention, b) collapses because brightlines concede an offense-defense paradigm.==== |