Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Syosset AH | Judge: Ishan Rereddy
Interpretation: All arguments concerning fairness or education must be read first in the affirmative speech. To clarify, theory arguments must be read at the top of the affirmative case before all substantive arguments.
Violation:
Standards:
1 Neg strat – spikes change neg strat cuz they operate on the highest layer – if they read all the substance first, neg prep is screwed cuz my substantive strat would be nullified by your theory arguments i.e. no neg fiat would take out a CP I was planning to read for 5min
2 Substantive education – spikes on top means it’s easier for negs to plan a strategy that meets the spikes to ensure that debaters have better substantive debate. Outweighs: a) timeframe – we only have 2 months for each topic but 4 years for theory, b) it develops advocacy skills by learning more about real world policies.
3 No cross application of spikes and this shell outweighs – this indicts their ability to use spikes since they affected my strategy in the first place and any 1ar cross apps prove abuse
Fairness is a voter—debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation and ow other voters on irriversibilty. Education is a voter, it’s the benefit to debate. Drop the debater—the abuse has already occurred and my time allocation has shifted—also the shell indicts your whole aff—justifies severance which skews my strat. Use competing interps—leads to a race to the top since we figure out the best possible norm and avoids judge intervention since there’s a clear briteline. No RVIs—
Baiting—they’ll just bait theory and prep it out—justifies infinite abuse and results in a chilling effect