Tournament: Yale | Round: 1 | Opponent: Montville RP | Judge: Scopa, Stephen
Interpretation: If the aff reads a standard, they must explicitly specify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must:
1. Clarify how offense links back to the standard, such as whether post-fiat offense or pre-fiat offense matters and which comes first.
2. Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, such as whether or not the aff comes before theory.
3. Clarify how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the standard is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement.
Standards:
1. Engagement – I can't engage in their standard because I don't know what type of offence would negate under it or how to weigh between them. Answers their claim about me reading a different standard bc that just means that there's is exclusionary which means you should be epistemically suspect of their standard.
2. Strategy Skew – They can always just change the way their standard functions in the 1AR so that any try to negate under their standard would be completely removed which always ensures that they will win.