1ar v Buddhist chef
Theory
They assume that any NC abuse was because of the AC but that allows the NC to
literally do anything abusive and scapegoat the AC – even saying the n-word
Interp: debaters must have necessary and sufficient burdens
Violation: theory label as “No RVI” is a not a necessary and sufficient burden
[1] Time skew – time crunched 1ar can’t respond to NIB’s especially when the neg just
goes for whichever is less covered – kills fairness
[2] No risk - Necessary but insufficient burdens set up a no risk situation for my
opponent. Either I
a. Fulfill the burden, and break even, or
b. Ignore the burden, and lose.
Perm DTD, CI and Fairness voters
A2 Extra T
First I delink from the shell, the interp specs “from topical links between their
advocacy and the resolution to clarify, we’re not saying that plans are bad, just that
the plan must fall only within the bounds of the resolution”. The interp clearly is
linked to a case that implements a plan but the aff has no plan text and even uses the
words “I affirm” to differ itself
CI: debaters may garner offense as long as it can relate back to the topic but doesn’t
need to be completely within the bounds – I meet – compulsory is to compel and no
counter definition was given
[1] Education – a world in which affs can be bent to be non-topical
[2] The neg gets access to PIC’s which means that neg actually has more ground still
than the aff – ow on fairness
Prefer additionally
A2 Ground
[1] Both sides have ground
[2] If the NC chose better DA’s or prepped more they would be fined
[3] Extra T doesn’t remove ground it just shifts where the ground is
A2 Limits
Don’t let the negative dodge the fact that the Extra T shell is nothing but limits
Over-limiting creates strategy skew. My strategy to win this round was ___This means
that my strategy has been completely changed because of the limits the affirmative
advocacy places on the resolution.
Over-limiting allows one debater to become a specialist in the particular argument
that they advocate; this skew in depth of research on an issue chosen by the advocate
determines who garners the ballot. This is creates an unfair disadvantage for the aff as
over limiting causes the aff to provide only few arguments under this standard. This
would undermine the value of fairness in that debating ought not have an unbalanced
ratio on who wins the round.
No bright line for how many limits is too many or too little
DA ground fails because there also is K’s, CP’s and PIC’s the NC could have gone for
Predictability fails because everything is different to someone else so what is
predictable to one is not to another
A2 T-FW
CI: I defend the violation
[1] Resolved also means
https://www.google.com/search?q=resolved+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS845US850&oq=resolved+d
efinition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.4943j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
“firmly determined to do something.”
Definitions are irresolvable and can be specced to exclude other debaters – aka
irresolvable
[2] Garnering offense off of grammar is racist – litmus tests that use grammar to
exclude black people for decades have proven effective at exclusion and the NC is
trying to push this further by not allowing people to embrace their own literature
[3] Cross apply limits bad
[4] Grammar in debate is bad – a) foreign students who have English as a second or
third language would be excluded from the debate space and they don’t get ed from
the grammar because they will end up going back to their country – this literally
happened with one of my teammates who was from the Netherlands 2 years ago b)
the T-shell was basically a Res-K that is trying to avoid debate and up layering on the
Aff
[5] Small school debaters can also be extra T so they are not hurt
[6] The ground standard examples refer to off topic completely statements and not
extra-T so delink it
[7] No prep skew – PIC’s, K’s and CP’s solve – the neg could go for 1 of many K’s, or
really any other generic arg and I can’t fully prep them all out
RVI’s
Theory is an RVI
[1] Reciprocity – it isn’t reciprocal to have an argument that takes up all the time of
the opponent – is highest layer and you can just drop when you no longer want to
deal with it
[2] Coherent – in courts you can counter sue – theory is basically a lawsuit of the rules
of debate and the pay out is a win for whoever wins the lawsuit – me having to CI is
my counter sue
[3] Norm setting – it isn’t fair if the neg can use theory haphazardly and just drop it
because they no longer feel like going for it after I spent my entire 1ar going for it just
so I don’t lose – if the interp is a good one then they should go for it
[4] Eval theory debate after 1ar [a] if their NC shell doesn’t stand to my 1ar responses
when they had a 7-4 skew that means their rules wasn’t better [b] on the theory
debate it will be a 13-7 skew so it is more fair at a 7-4 skew plus they will have 6
minutes to LBL my shell and have only 3 minutes to defend
[5] No chilling effect – debaters win on RVI all the time, yet debaters still use theory
A2 UWOT
[1] Delink – he can’t steal credit for a policy action if the aff isn’t a policy action
[2] The impact card is from a top 10 article and was a haters example of what would
happen so it doesn’t actually have any merit – ev ethics challenge is an independent
voter
[3] The link is about a dispute between talyor swift and Kanye and the AC isn’t taylor
so the card actually doesn’t link
A2 Not on ballot
A2 Kanye won’t get elected
[1] The Affirmative literally is a case trying to break this narrative because we need
Kanye to get elected
[2] The judges ballot helps turn this by pushing the narrative that we need Kanye
A2 Kanye not running
[1] The aff is just proving we should vote for Kanye in the hypothetical situation – the
judge doesn’t have to physically go to the polls and vote for Kanye because
hypothetically biden or trump could either drop out b4 the election so there is no
jurisdiction in either of those arguments
[2] If the affirmative proves a compelling story that voting for Kanye would prove a
net benefit then you affirm
[3] Not an abuse on T because you just chose some bad off’s to use – don’t punish the
AC for the NC not being prepared or having good arguments
A2 LBL
Ext the entire advantage, the DA’s apply to the solvency and say Kanye is bad but
trump and biden both show extinction scenarios – if Kanye is has less impacts than
Trump or biden there is an obligation to vote for Kanye then the case affirms
A2 Presumption
All you need to prove the res is a moral obligation – they say that it must be a policy
action but that is only under their FW – we don’t need policy actions to see more
guidelines
All the args that trigger presumption require the T-shells to be true so disregard them
if T is kicked