Tournament: TFA State | Round: 3 | Opponent: Anthony Du | Judge: Joseph Georges
====Interpretation: The affirmative debater must have carded evidence that clarifies and specifies what objectivity is in the context of the 1AC, and its use in the 1AC policy – to clarify, spec what objectivity actually entails====
Violation: you don't – a doc wasn't sent out nor was their evidence read in the spoken 1ac
Prefer – The meaning of Objectivity differs.
Cunningham '03 ~Brent Cunningham (CJR's managing editor), Aug 2003, Columbia Journalism
AND
code. It also changed "the truth" to simply "truth."
Standards
Strat Skew – I never know what arguments link to the 1AC, which allows the 1AR to stand up and moot 7 minutes of offense. If I were to read a Movements DA, you could reclassify the aff as non-balanced objectivity in the 1ar. Kills 1NC construction before the round since I can't verify links which gives the aff a huge prep advantage in conjunction w/ infinite prep.. Means you also negate independent of the interp since we don't know what form of objectivity the aff applies to.
Stable basis: no lit consensus means that carded definition is key:
AND
to substance and get that education rather than debating T the whole time.