The way you should evaluate this round is on the flow on the line by line even if their

rationale is good our 1NR fair parameters arguments indicates that debate is strategic
game which means its all about what their interp justifies not necessarily what they did in
this round

Our interpretation accesses the best standards for education
A. diversity topical education forces changes in the discussion from year to year, their
interpretation allows debate to become stagnant because teams can read the same aff no
matter what
B. coercion education about policymaking is necessary to prevent totalitarianism their
form of debate encourages suspicion of institutions that disavows political
understanding and cedes control over powerful instruments to forces of evil our
evidence provides a brink to this impact because our policy on Cuba is straining
political accountability in the status quo
C. predictability - Switch-sided debate is by its nature more suited to political deliberation
than intellectual interrogation *gender modified

they exclude any discussion about the benefits and negatives of decentering focus on Western
education maybe that would be a better debate but their interp limits any discussion out
the 1AC might talk about the resolution but that doesnt meet our interp that the plan action
has to be topical their advocacy doesnt mean anything its incredibly vague that allows
them to shift out of anything - and they give no reasons why not defending a plan is good for
debate group their discussion good arguments none of these are responsive to our
arguments that their specific form of discussion is not a defense of a plan action which is key to
fair parameters and education

They say the plan is topical this is predicated off of advocating a different form of engagement
doesnt meet our interp nowhere does that involve USFG action only engaging the state
can bring effective change more on that later

Theyve conceded that there is tons of in-round abuse they no linked out of everything saying
a discussion solves everything you can discuss literally anything like what I had for breakfast
this morning
their interp justifies this it doesnt even have to be true even if you dont grant us abuse
they have conceded that its about what their interp justifies under this framing even potential
abuse could be a voter

Their only offense is that the USFG action is flawed -
1- This isnt offense- our framework does not force you to support the state- but voting
affirmative ought to mean that the government should do the resolution
2- If the state is bad, then we ought to learn about it- Extend our education impacts
3- Even if its marginally bad to talk about the state, its much worse for the affirmative to get to
pick their own resolution. Extend our limits impacts
4- Impact is non-unique If the aff criticizes the state, then it forces the neg to defend it.
Smith is not spec to USFG action specifically
Conceded 1NC McClean Reece extended this in the 1NR only engaging in politics solves
flawed policymaking you have to fix the system by engaging it
That is a reason why advocating state action within the resolution is key -
Cant access ethical obligation args plan cant create change disad to s

No discussion theres no education anyways because if there arent limits on what they can run
that means we can never be prepared to have the discussion that they advocate because we
havent been educated it makes one sided debates inevitable its also a link to dogmatism
they seize the opportunity in every round to present their problem in a good/bad fashion rather
than acknowledging the complex underlying issues within the notion of Eurocentric thinking
being inherently colonialist that discussion can never take place because the other side is
never educated on it b/c of how unpredictable the 1AC is - that turns their absolute ethics
arguments

Even if you grant them that their discussion provides education our ground args indicate that
the education they provide would be skewed because we could not access any arguments they
can only talk about what they want to talk about and always control the debate fairness is
largely conceded

Competitive Equity is a precursor to effective debate. Our evidence explains that
contestation within discourse is only possible if we proceed from a level playing field based
on predictable ground. In order to effectively debate we must be able to prepare for the
debate based on a shared understanding of terms of the debate. Topics are chosen to
equitably distribute fair and predictable ground based on the literature.

Their interpretation skews debate away from predictable negative ground our evidence
says that their framework allows teams to make advocacies in favor of principles in the
abstract which avoids most real world arguments that are based on the adoption of policies.

Fairness can only be determined through recourse to competing interpretations. This is the
only way to avoid subjective judge intervention. Interventionist decisions should be
discouraged because they reduce the value of debaters personal performances which
should be preferred since debaters are the focus of the activity.
They say that the judge only has to agree with the 1AC to let the aff win our disads to
narratives mentioned above prove why that is a one sided biased system that necessitates
judge intervention some judges might have conflicting views about maquiladoras in
Mexico for example because the neg has no ground, the judge cannot be persuaded and
informed of the other side

Fairness is the basis of debate if debate were unfair it would be uninteresting and nobody
would participate. This is proven by the fact that the NBA is more interesting than the
Harlem Globetrotters. The loss of interest in debate turns all of their arguments because it
means:
A. Their activism will fail because it succeeds in a rigged game and risks destroying
debate in its entirety thats the Shively evidence
B. They destroy effective interpersonal communication policy debate allows
consensus-building debate that finds common ground focused on centralized forces
the Gunderson and the Spragens cards say that this is the only route to social
peace
C. They can only win on what their policy option does.