| ... |
... |
@@ -1,73
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-===T-FW=== |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
- |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
-====Interpretation: The affirmative should defend the hypothetical implementation of the resolution==== |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
- |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
-====Resolved means a legislative policy==== |
| 10 |
|
-**Words and Phrases 64** Words and Phrases Permanent Edition. "Resolved". 1964. ED |
| 11 |
|
-Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-AND |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". |
| 16 |
|
- |
| 17 |
|
- |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
-====They violate—they don’t defend the resolution enacted in law==== |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
-====Standards: ==== |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
- |
| 26 |
|
- |
| 27 |
|
-====1~~ Competitive equity – 3 warrants: ==== |
| 28 |
|
- |
| 29 |
|
- |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
-====A~~ Ground: they get to pick the topic ex post facto which incentivizes vague argumentation that’s not grounded in a consistent, stable mechanism – they’re playing dodgeball with hand grenades – caselists are concessionary, unpredictable, beaten by perms, and don’t justify their model. ==== |
| 32 |
|
- |
| 33 |
|
- |
| 34 |
|
- |
| 35 |
|
-====B~~ Limits: their model has no resolutional bound and creates the possibility for literally an infinite number of 1ACs. Not debating the topic allows someone to specialize in one area of the library for 4 years giving them a huge edge over people who switch research focus ever 2 months. Cutting negs to every possible aff is a commitment even large squads can’t handle, let alone small schools like us. Counter-interpretations are arbitrary, unpredictable, and don’t solve the world of neg prep because there’s no grounding in the resolution==== |
| 36 |
|
- |
| 37 |
|
- |
| 38 |
|
- |
| 39 |
|
-====C~~ Causality: debating the resolution forces the affirmative to defend a cause and effect relationship, the state doing x results in y. Non topical affs establish their own barometer "I think x is good for me" that aren’t negatable – that independently decks clash cuz there’s no way for me to engage with the affirmative.==== |
| 40 |
|
- |
| 41 |
|
- |
| 42 |
|
- |
| 43 |
|
-====D~~ Fairness is an impact – ~~1~~ it’s an intrinsic good – some level of competitive equity is necessary to sustain the activity – if it didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be value to the game since judges could literally vote whatever way they wanted regardless of the competing arguments made ~~2~~ probability – your ballot can’t solve their impacts but it can solve mine – debate can’t alter subjectivity, but can rectify skews ~~3~~ internal link turns every impact – a limited topic promotes in-depth research and engagement which is necessary to access all of their education ~~4~~ comes before substance – deciding any other argument in this debate cannot be disentangled from our inability to prepare for it – any argument you think they’re winning is a link, not a reason to vote for them, since it’s just as likely that they’re winning it because we weren’t able to effectively prepare to defeat it. This means they don’t get to weigh the aff. ==== |
| 44 |
|
- |
| 45 |
|
- |
| 46 |
|
- |
| 47 |
|
-====2~~ Switch-side debate – ==== |
| 48 |
|
- |
| 49 |
|
- |
| 50 |
|
- |
| 51 |
|
-====A~~ the reason debate is a unique process is because it demands rigorous testing of advocacy skills through not getting to pick and choose what to defend – it’s the only plausible explanation for the form of the activity – it also solves their offense.==== |
| 52 |
|
-**Poscher 16** Ralf Poscher, Diat the Institute for Staatswissenschaft and Philosophy of Law at the University of Freiburg "Why We Argue About the Law: An Agonistic Account of Legal Disagreement", Metaphilosophy of Law, Tomasz Gizbert-Studnicki/Adam Dyrda/Pawel Banas (eds.), Hart Publishing. 2016. |
| 53 |
|
-Hegel’s dialectical thinking powerfully exploits the idea of negation. It is a central feature |
| 54 |
|
- |
| 55 |
|
-AND |
| 56 |
|
- |
| 57 |
|
-concept of justice to art such as to engage in an intelligible controversy. |
| 58 |
|
- |
| 59 |
|
- |
| 60 |
|
- |
| 61 |
|
-====B~~ Vote negative – A~~ this procedurally evaluates whether their model is good, which is a prior question B~~ they can’t get offense: we don’t exclude them, only persuade you that our methodology is best. Every debate requires a winner and loser, so voting negative doesn’t reject them from debate, it just says they should make a better argument next time.==== |
| 62 |
|
- |
| 63 |
|
- |
| 64 |
|
- |
| 65 |
|
-====3~~ Skills – multiple warrants==== |
| 66 |
|
- |
| 67 |
|
- |
| 68 |
|
- |
| 69 |
|
-====A~~ Argument Refinement and research – forcing them to defend the resolution makes them have to cut new positions every two months and forces them to explore the depths of the literature as opposed to just recycling the same set of non T affs over and over that lead repetitive and stale debates – they reject argument innovation and force every non t debate into either k vs t or k v k. ==== |
| 70 |
|
- |
| 71 |
|
- |
| 72 |
|
- |
| 73 |
|
-====B~~ Education is an impact – it’s the only reason schools fund debate ==== |