Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
THEORY INDEX
2
TOPICALITY
KRITIK OF TOPICALITY
9
11
13
15
18
19
21
23
27
29
31
34
35
MICROPOLITICS BAD
NARRATIVES BAD
37
40
28
41
44
FAIRNESS IS A VOTER 46
FAIRNESS IS NOT A VOTER
47
49
TEXT TRUMPS EDUCATION/FAIRNESS 50
IN-ROUND ABUSE IS NECESSARY
51
POTENTIAL ABUSE IS A VOTER
52
EDUCATION IS A VOTER
53
FAIRNESS TRUMPS EDUCATION
55
54
59
57
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
60
65
67
64
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Topicality
Interpretation:
Provide counter definition and implications
Violation:
Their definition doesnt meet this definition/implication. Being non-topical means the
affirmative is never fulfilling the burden given by the words in the resolution.
Standards:
1. Ground standards
A. Limits: Non-topical definitions not only thwart the responses one can reasonably make
to a position but also gives the affirmative debater the ability to exclude me from the round by
making arguments that dont relate to the resolution. This allows the affirmative to claim impacts
that arent affirmative ground within the text of the resolution. In terms of fairness this is the
worst violation insofar as it takes away significant if not all portions of negative ground.
B. Division of Ground The affirmative interpretation defines affirmative and negative
ground in such a way where the affirmative is placed in a more preferable position. <Explain
why your ground is bad vis--vis the affirmative.> An unfair division of ground links to fairness
in so far as starting the round with unfair positions skews the substantive debate in such a way
where even superior debating cannot compensate for the relative starting points.
C. Moving target: The affirmative interpretation is so vague that it allows her to morph
her advocacy so as to link out of specific responses to it and other negative positions. This is the
worst violation of fairness insofar as it completely restricts my ability to respond to the
affirmative. It disables me from being able to predict the function of affirmative arguments or the
content of the affirmative advocacy.
D. Time skew The affirmative interpretation creates an unfair time burden on the
negative strategy by requiring me to respond to multiple sufficient methods of affirmation that
she can sever out of in the next speech, collapsing down to one. This prevents me from
constructing a positional strategy against a stable advocacy, setting unfair terms for the debate.
2. Predictability Standards
A. topical literature: by allowing them to falsely define the definitions in the resolution
its no longer predictable insofar as the topical literature is no longer applicable. This allows
them to draw upon whatever sources they want, which allows them to use obscure argumentation
and that possess no link to the resolution. This is no longer fair insofar as it takes away the ability
for the negative to answer the affirmative under the scope of the resolution. This is also links
back to education insofar as its no longer education because we cant make substantive,
developed, and supported arguments.
B. resolutional text: they no longer are restricted by the text of the resolution and so are
allowed to use impacts and arguments that are extra-resolutional meaning theres no way I can
predict what arguments theyre going to make nor how they will function in the round. This
impacts back to fairness because theres no way of knowing what facet of the resolution they will
chose to focus in on. Its also uneducational because it shifts the focus of the resolution away
from the topic at hand and allows the affirmative to make random arguments that arent logically
warranted and compatible with the topic were trying to debate.
C. Precision The negative interpretation is more precise than the affirmative one, taking
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
into account the context of the resolution as well as the nuances of the terms used in comparison
to the affirmative interpretation. This makes it more predictable as well as more educational for
the round.
D. Over or Under Specific: Allowing them to chose a random definition thats vague or
hyper specific limits my ability to make responsive arguments and precise arguments because I
no longer know what I need to link to. This is no longer insofar as I dont know how to impact
back and where the clear division of ground is. Its also no longer educational insofar as I cant
make substantive responses and have any direct clash that generates an educational discussion.
Voters: (look to section about why fairness and education are voters)
Weighing between standards (if your opponent is winning some and so are you):
Predictability is a more important standard than the division of ground because it is the basis of
any resolutional interpretation and is therefore the most stable and fundamental part of the
debate. Further, predictability is more important in terms of education because it is the only thing
that allows us to engage is substantive and well-prepared debate because any meaningful depth
of argumentation requires the ability to prepare it pre-round. Predictability is also more important
in terms of fairness because its the mechanism by which we hold debaters to the text of the
resolution, which is the only stable concept offered. If debaters are allowed to expand or shrink
the resolution, they have an advantage that could have never been foreseen, so there is no way
for the negative to challenge or prepare for it. Even if I can respond, I will be at a deficit given
that my opponent can prepare for the unpredictable interpretation.
Fair division of ground is more important than predictability because our ability to debate the
conflicting sides of the resolution is dependent upon the ability of each side to garner offense
which wed then evaluate. Its always better for education because each side has a fair position to
uphold. This is the only way to ensure direct clash, which requires the debaters to warrant and
develop arguments more fully. Its also a fundamental part of fairness because when Im denied
ground, Im at a disadvantage from the outset. Unpredictable arguments still allow us to engage
in the debate, especially since generic positions can still link. Comparatively, an unfair of
division of ground cannot be overcome or prepared for in any way.
Implications: (same as voter section)
[REJECT THE DEBATER:
-You reject the debater for reasons of fairness and education and the fairness or educational
aspects of the activity come before the truth value of the resolution insofar as they dictate how
we determine the validity of the resolution.
-you should also reject the debater in order to deter rather than endorse a continuation of this
practice. The way arguments are run, for example acceptable definitions of evaluative terms such
as ought, are influenced by what judges deem as acceptable. Therefore in order to prevent further
abusive practices you should reject the debater. Moreover, abusive practices create a disincentive
to debate insofar as no one wants to play a game where they have no chance of winning.
REJECT THE ARGUMENTS:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
-this means that all of their arguments are linking back to a flawed conception of the resolution
and therefore not truly affirming the resolution. This means you should a) reject the arguments
and b) theyre no longer meeting their fundamental resolutional burden. At this point the
affirmative has failed to meet their burden of proof and you should presume negative.
Time skew: I was forced into either accepting their biased definition which they could extend to
exclude all negative offense in which case I had to spend time running the T. The time I spent
running T prevented me from making substantive responses that could have already won me the
round, either way, I was placed into an unfair double bind. This is the worst violation of fairness
insofar as the negative is forced into a lose lose situation and fundamentally fairness ensures that
there is a chance for both sides to win.
]
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritik of Topicality
1. Topicality is a non-falsifiable claim insofar as its impossible for me to prove that my
interpretation provides sufficient ground for my opponent for two reasons. First, theres an
infinite amount of ground otherwise theyd have to prove that there are a finite number of
arguments. Second, its always in my opponents interest to deny that they have any ground. So
the T violation is a non-falsifiable claim insofar as theres no way to prove it false. Moreover it
never justifies why you should completely pull the trigger.
Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime?- 1985Clarifying Water Policy BY Dough Sigel,
professor at Northwestern University
There are three reasons why the largely rational process of debate judging breaks down under the
punishment paradigm. First, it is very difficult to decide when a practice does and does not
deserve punishment. Cindy Leiferman pointed to this problem when she noted that "since Sigel's
essay on punishment, nearly every issue is a 'voter.'" 3 The punishment tag-line has been thrown
out in more and more rounds against the most harmless practices. There is no logical way for a
judge to decide whether a tactic is bad enough to cross a threshold which requires punishment.
The problem really is that there is only one punishment --a loss--that a judge can impose. Many
practices may be questionable but it is difficult to tell when the "death penalty" for the round is
warranted.
2. No objective way to resolve: non-falsifiable, no reason to vote on a non-falsifiable claim. For
you to vote on topicality would automatically force you as a judge to intervene on an issue that
can never truly be resolved in the round. Reasons to prefer are not sufficient reasons to drop me
as a debater because there are many interpretations and claiming that one debater ought be
dropped for having an alternate interpretation is illogical. Even if you dont particularly like my
interpretation its not a reason to drop me; this is analogous to claiming that one debater ought be
dropped because of the quality of evidence. Furthermore, all independent reasons to drop me are
nothing more than assertions about your role as s judge that arent true to what your actual role in
this round is. It is absolutely impossible for you to adjudicate topicality arguments objectively so
you should use this as one of the last resort mechanisms for evaluating the round if at all.
3. Topicality is being used as a tool to win your ballot but is actually a self-defeating argument.
Topicality is meant to return our focus on the specific substance of the resolution but topicality
arguments do nothing more than actually distract us from the constraints and context that the
resolution presents us with. At the very least, topicality is not a reason to vote against me simply
for trying to address the resolution from a different perspective. In fact, it would make more
sense for you as a judge to reward me as a debater for presenting you with unique argumentation
that is actually distinct from the same hackneyed argumentation that attempts to defined the
resolution in the most unoriginal way possible.
TI : Definition and Its Problems FT : AU : Dubs, Homer H. SO : The Philosophical Review
Definition is not itself a discipline that exists for its own sake. Definitions are made for use in
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
connection with some purpose. They are subservient to other logical or practical interests. Hence
there can hardly be only one definition that is best. In some cases such might indeed be the
case, but in most cases there would seem to be several best definitions, each one being best
for some particular purpose. The classic statement, that definition is a statement of a things
essence must then be given up. Essence is vague and no one type of definition is always
best.
-
theres no objective way to determine the best definition and its impossible to determine
which definition is the best or primary one because it depends on the purpose. Therefore
you should prefer the affirmative definition because its contextually warranted and links
more directly to the resolution (or whatever warrant for your interpretation) and also to
combat the time disadvantage. The affirmative already has a time skew and if you except
their definition it excludes 6 minutes of my analysis, the AC, or justifies voting me down,
which is nonsensical (see reasons above)
The card can also be used to say that we should look simply to logical justifications or the
truth value of definitions to determine which one to use. This means that reasons of
fairness and education arent ways to determine the best interpretation/definition.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
are two impacts. First, you prefer my definition because it allows for the spread of minority
voices. Second, you vote on discursive arguments and impacts before theoretical objections
insofar as the impact and application of these arguments affect a much broader scope and provide
some real-world meaning for debate.
3. Herbert Hirsch elaborates,
"Steiner (1971) writes: "The apostle tells us that in the beginning was the Word. He gives us no
assurance as to the end" (p. 12). If the twentieth century is any indication, the end may result
from words used to motivate, justify, and rationalize murder on a scale unprecedented in human
history. Words can killor at least motivate a person to kill. It is through language that the
primal impulses, the likes and dislikes, the hatreds and enmities, the stereotypes and degrading
and dehumanizing characterizations of those who are not desirable or are rivals for political or
economic power or status are transmitted. The socialization process, which will be examined in
chapter 10, is the psychological process of transmission, but words are the carriers of deeds.
Language, like memory, is a powerful political tool."
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
doesn't require a briteline. Insofar as a vast majority of topical arguments are
excluded, it's abusive and a very clear briteline. The claim that my argument is nonfalsifiable has no real impact because there's no reason why I need to use falsifiable
claims to make my opponent's burden conceivably easier and there are multiple ways
to discuss language; my point is that some are better than others and allow us to have
a better debate. Claiming that an argument is non-falsifiable just grants that my
arguments are true. This isn't a reason to drop me; in fact, it's a reason that you ought
prefer my arguments since they are actually verifiably true according to my
opponent.
f. A/T: topicality is non-topical: It doesn't make sense to have an abusive debate and at
the point where the definition prevents me from clashing, the only way to allow for
this clash that we both want is by running topicality and using it as a check on
abusive definitions. The point of running topicality was that the neg. already
removed us from the context of the resolution by incorrectly or unfairly using the
phrasing of the resolution to his/her advantage. I didn't actually detract from the
debate; my opponent did when he/she ran non-topical arguments and tried to gain an
unfair advantage so I had no choice but to attempt to bring our focus back to the
substance of the debate. Topicality actually is topical because it attempts to address
the truth of the resolution as it is phrased; the phrasing of the resolution is contingent
on the way the words in it are defined and thus I am actually having a debate about
the statement made in the resolution that my opponent refuses to engage in by
actually discussing these interpretational issues.
g. A/T: no way to look to the best definition: at this point if there is no way to define a
term in the resolution, the resolution becomes impossible to debate so the affirmative
can never meet their burden and you should negate. But if you try to weigh between
which interpretation should be preferred theoretical objections come before the truth
value of the resolution insofar as they dictate how we evaluate the resolution. If we
don't actually have the rational capacity to evaluate which definitions are better than
others than debate becomes meaningless. As a debater I have to appeal to your
reason as a judge and if we can't rely on the ability to make some warranted but
subjective arguments then there is no conceivable way in which we can resolve the
debate.
h. A/T: drop my opponent b/c they read a sheet of paper: I can have a general T shell
without a specific interpretation yet. Moreover, an argument may be somewhat
predictable but that doesn't deny that it's abusive or doesn't apply to topical literature.
Just because I knew my opponent was going to be running a bad interpretation
doesn't change the fact that it is unreasonable for me to write cases to all conceivable
nonsensical positions. Also, predictability standards don't only apply to whether or
not I knew my opponent was going to be running a particular interpretation but also
to the fact that my ability to respond to arguments would have been limited at best.
This would harm the debate because if I have to prepare myself to face the most
outrageous positions possible then no one will ever engage in a meaningful debate.
Finally, even if I can predict the interpretation, I should not be expected to prepare
material against all conceivable positions, only the predictable ones. That is to say,
that it is easy to prepare T against many fringe positions, but not an entire strategy.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Conditionality Bad
[this is if they arent accepting the harms of args that fall outside their conditional advocacy]
I.
II.
III.
Interpretation:
a. The resolution is a categorical truth statement.
Violation
a. The affirmative is conditional because (they are picking and choosing to deal with
X aspect of the resolution, while ignoring Y & Z)
Standards
a. Predictable division of ground. (Internal Link to the interp:) If my opponent can
pick and choose aspects of the resolution, there is no way to predict before the
round which elements of the resolutions they will advocate.
i. A predictable division of ground is key to fairness because conditional
advocacies explode research burdens since the aff need only research one
specific part of the topic. This renders all non-specific neg pre-round prep
useless, whereas I have to prepare in depth responses to an infinite number
of possible conditional positions the 1AC could run.
b. Strategy skew. (Internal Link to interp.) Since the resolution is a statement of
truth, disproving one part of the statement warrants a negation, which is why the
negative can logically be conditional. However, the affirmatives conditional
advocacy means that I have to be categorical because it is impossible to resolve
competing conditional advocacies since they operate in completely separate
spheres. It was impossible for me to form a strategy prior to the round to deal with
this since the only predictable thing that both debaters have to base their strategy
on is the resolution. By denying the logic of the resolution, the AC denies the
negative the ability to create a cogent strategy which is unfair since it makes all of
my pre-round preparation useless
c. Preventing moving targets. (internal link to the interp) If my opponent can pick
and choose aspects of the resolution, they can kick out of any substantive
arguments I run against their case by narrowing their advocacy. For example,
(with native Americans, if I run a disadvantage to that advocacy, then the
affirmative can simply say Im talking about the Navajo and get out of my
arguments.
i. This unfair because the aff can sever out of every piece of offense.
d. Textual Primacy: The resolution doesnt place any conditions on the terms in the
resolution. This means that the only interpretation that retains textual primacy
addresses the entirety of the resolution. Textual primacy is more important than
any other standard because the resolution is the only universal, static, predictable,
fair thing about the debate. Since the affirmative isnt retaining textual primacy
since s/he is adding his/her own words, you cannot accept any of the affirmative
argumentation.
e. Fair division of ground: Any resolution has extreme examples that bolster each
side. That is why we weigh disadvantages and advantages. Allowing the
affirmative to pick and choose (her/his) advocacy allows (him/her) to choose the
most extreme example on the topic. Since the aff wants to win, giving the
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
affirmative the jurisdiction to choose (his/her) ground as opposed to making
her/him defend the entirety of the topic destroys a fair division of ground. Without
fair ground there is no way to make equally substantive arguments, making the
round unfair. In addition, the affirmative can choose one example that has such a
huge impact and focus all his/her time on this argument. This allows the aff to
explode the impact scenarios into something that is uncontestable, thus making it
impossible and unfair for the negative to have an equal chance to win.
f. Since the resolution has no limiting qualifiers, and the affirmatives natural
burden is to prove the resolution true, the only appropriate affirmation would
involve meeting what the resolution specifies. However, since the affirmative
adds words to the resolution to make it easier to affirm, it fails to meet its implicit
resolutional burden and thus is never sufficient to affirm. Thus, you can negate
defensively.
i. Discussion of how conditionality interacts with the affirmative burden to
prove the resolution true.
Implications:
a. You should reject all arguments that are conditional because they
a. Are inherently abusive and
b. Deny the logical structure of the resolution
b. You should reject the debater. The affirmative's conditional interpretation puts me in a
double-bind: either I grant their advocacy and dont run conditionality in which case they
can extend their definition in the 1AR to delink all of my ground (or insert other standard
here), OR I am forced to run conditionality and waste a lot of my 1NC time just in order
to make sure that he/she doesnt abuse me later. Either way, the affs interpretation
massively skews my time, preventing me from making substantive responses. So there is
REAL abuse that has ALREADY occurred in the round and the only way to rectify this is
to vote on fairness/education.
c. Potential abuse. Even if this debate hasnt been irreparably harmed by the conditional
advocacy in this round, the argument still shouldnt be accepted because it opens up the
possibility for this type of argumentation to be used in other rounds in which it could
constitute serious abuse.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
AT: Impossible to prove any statement categorically true or else there would be no point in
debating
1. My argument isnt that the 1AC has to defend a non-falsifiable advocacy; just that it has
to appeal to prove the truth of the categorical statement. That is, standards and values are
acceptable because they tell us the mechanism by which we achieve the truth of a
statement; conditional advocacies are not because they dont appeal to the truth basis of
the resolution since they place conditions on that truth claim.
2. That might be true in a real world context, but within the confines of a debate round we
can prove the categorical truth of a statement by the merits of the arguments presented by
each debater. Moreover, there is always conflicting topic-specific literature, so just by
presenting said literature, we still cant come to an inherent conclusion about the truth of
the proposition.
AT: Neg can conditionally negate (reciprocal burdens)
1. The most reciprocal burdens in the debate round are requiring the aff to prove the
resolution true and the neg to proving the resolution false. This burden is also the more
predictable since the resolution as written is the only thing both debaters have in preround prep, so burdens specific to the advocacies would take away the predictability of
the rounds burdens. The fact that the negative can be conditional and the aff not being
able to is merely a byproduct of the burdens in that there is always more ways to say no
to something than to say yes.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
between my advocacy and any of those commonly acceptable scope-narrowing
mechanisms.
AT: Fair division of ground
1. Every argument in debate serves to constrain and interpret the resolution, such as
framework arguments, spikes, contentions, and even the criterion. Thus, the only reason
you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful brightline
between my advocacy and any of those commonly acceptable scope-narrowing
mechanisms.
2. Dont punish me for running smart and strategic arguments; affirming is already hard
enough with the structural time disadvantage (4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech),
any being strategic by taking as much ground as possible is a form of balancing that
disadvantage.
AT: Resolution doesnt imply conditional affirmation
1. This is predicated on a logical interpretation but theory frames what logical
interpretations of the resolution are admissible. Meeting the burden of proof through
conditional advocacies is justified because:
a. Conditionality allows us to discuss an issue more in depth by narrowing the scope
of evaluation. Depth is always better than breadth because it has more educational
value, since the only time that knowledge is valuable is when we can apply it to
other aspects of life. However, such connections cannot be made from a disjointed
collection of facts. (Its better to read an entire book than the first page of 100
books) (remember that just because you are talking about one specific instance of
the resolution in your affirmative case, other people will affirm differently, so you
arent limiting the breath of argumentation)
b. Categorical discussions of a topic always exclude minority and dissident views
because such a broad analysis requires that we view things only from the
perspective of the majority to gain the biggest impacts. In addition, any time we
try to take a sweeping view of an issue we are forced to focus on the majority. [for
example, when we evaluate the demographics of India, we would notice it was
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number
of Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
historically continue to be shunned in contemporary discussion. This is uneducational because our conception of how we ought to debate a) always reenforce the majority ideology and b) we marginalize the voices of minorities, thus
excluding meaningful topic-specific arguments from ever entering a debate round.
c. It is impossible to prove any statement completely, categorically, and 100% true;
if we could then there would be no point in debating, since the absolute truth of
the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia and the same side would win
every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the ground in order to
discuss it. Moreover, every argument in debate serves to constrain the resolution,
such as framework arguments, spikes, and even the criterion. Thus, the only
reason you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful
brite-line between my advocacy and any of these commonly acceptable scopenarrowing mechanisms.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
d. Reciprocal burdens. The negative can disprove the affirmative in an infinite
number of ways by conditionally negating or disproving any presupposition of the
resolution. Even though allowing the affirmative to be conditional does not
completely rectify this huge ground skew by still giving the negative the ability to
question every pre-supposition to takes a step to balance out the burdens. Just as
all arguments can be weighed at the criterion level when affirmative and negative
offense is speculative, competing conditional advocacies can be weighed in terms
of a standard.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Conditionality Good
I.
II.
III.
definition
violation
standards
a. Conditionality allows us to discuss an issue more in depth by narrowing the scope
of evaluation. Depth is always better than breadth because it has more educational
value, since the only time that knowledge is valuable is when we can apply it to
other aspects of life. However, such connections cannot be made from a disjointed
collection of facts. (Its better to read an entire book than the first page of 100
books) (remember that just because you are talking about one specific instance of
the resolution in your affirmative case, other people will affirm differently, so you
arent limiting the breath of argumentation)
b. Categorical discussions of a topic always exclude minority and dissident views
because such a broad analysis requires that we view things only from the
perspective of the majority to gain the biggest impacts. In addition, any time we
try to take a sweeping view of an issue we are forced to focus on the majority. [for
example, when we evaluate the demographics of India, we would notice it was
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number of
Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
historically continue to be shunned in contemporary discussion. This is uneducational because our conception of how we ought to debate a) always reenforce the majority ideology and b) we marginalize the voices of minorities, thus
excluding meaningful topic-specific arguments from ever entering a debate round.
c. It is impossible to prove any statement completely, categorically, and 100% true;
if we could then there would be no point in debating, since the absolute truth of
the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia and the same side would win
every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the ground in order to
discuss it. Moreover, every argument in debate serves to constrain the resolution,
such as framework arguments, spikes, and even the criterion. Thus, the only
reason you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful
brite-line between my advocacy and any of these commonly acceptable scopenarrowing mechanisms.
d. Reciprocal burdens. The negative can disprove the affirmative in an infinite
number of ways by conditionally negating or disproving any presupposition of the
resolution. Even though allowing the affirmative to be conditional does not
completely rectify this huge ground skew by still giving the negative the ability to
question every pre-supposition to takes a step to balance out the burdens. Just as
all arguments can be weighed at the criterion level when affirmative and negative
offense is speculative, competing conditional advocacies can be weighed in terms
of a standard.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
because its impossible for me to know which minority voice the 1AC is going to pick.
Predictability is a prerequisite for eduction as negative debaters have to have some ability
to know what to research in order to have any type of substantive discussion on any topic,
since most of the educational function of debate occurs while preparing.
4. Trying to prove the resolution categorically true is not preclusive of running positions
that include minority voices. While it may prevent the affirmative from claiming a
totalizing impact from a minority viewpoint, there is always at least the possibility of
running that minority viewpoint as an impact to a standard.
AT: Impossible to prove any statement categorically true or else there would be no point in
debating
1. My argument isnt that the 1AC has to defend a non-falsifiable advocacy; just that it has
to appeal to prove the truth of the categorical statement. That is, standards and values are
acceptable because they tell us the mechanism by which we achieve the truth of a
statement; parametric advocacies are not because they dont appeal to the truth basis of
the resolution since they place parametric on that truth claim.
2. That might be true in a real world context, but within the confines of a debate round we
can prove the categorical truth of a statement by the merits of the arguments presented by
each debater. Moreover, there is always conflicting topic-specific literature, so just by
presenting said literature, we still cant come to an inherent conclusion about the truth of
the proposition.
AT: Neg can parametrically negate (reciprocal burdens)
1. The most reciprocal burdens in the debate round are requiring the aff to prove the
resolution true and the neg to proving the resolution false. This burden is also the more
predictable since the resolution as written is the only thing both debaters have in preround prep, so burdens specific to the advocacies would take away the predictability of
the rounds burdens. The fact that the negative can be parametric and the aff not being
able to is merely a byproduct of the burdens in that there is always more ways to say no
to something than to say yes.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Parametrics Bad
I. Interpretation:
a. The resolution is a categorical truth statement.
II. Violation
b. The affirmative is parameterized the resolution because of X (running a plan)
III. Standards
c. Predictable division of ground. (Internal Link to the interpretation) If my
opponent can pick a specific aspect of the resolution and advocate that we pursue
a particular course of action pertaining to that aspect, there is no way to predict
what it will be before the round.
d. A predictable division of ground is key to fairness because parametric advocacies
explode research burdens by allowing the affirmative to research one specific part
of the resolution; because this gives me only the ability to run specific advantages
and disadvantages against the case. This renders all non-specific negative preround prep useless, whereas I have to prepare in depth responses to an infinite
number of possible parameterized positions the 1AC could run.
e. Textual Primacy: The resolution doesnt place any conditions on the terms in the
resolution. This means that the only interpretation that retains textual primacy
addresses the entirety of the resolution. Discussing specific plans of actions and
forms of implementation effectively limits the debate by placing words in the
resolution Textual primacy is more important than any other standard because the
resolution is the only universal, static, predictable, fair thing about the debate.
Since the affirmative isnt retaining textual primacy since s/he is adding his/her
own words, you cannot accept any of the affirmative argumentation.
f. Fair division of ground: Any resolution has extreme examples that bolster each
side. That is why we weigh disadvantages and advantages. Allowing the
affirmative to arbitrarily select (her/his) advocacy allows (him/her) to choose the
most favorable argument for her on the topic. Since the affirmative wants to win,
giving the affirmative the jurisdiction to choose (his/her) ground as opposed to
making her/him defend the entirety of the topic destroys a fair division of ground.
Without fair ground there is no way to make equally substantive arguments,
making the round unfair. In addition, the affirmative can choose one example that
has such a huge impact and focus all his/her time on this argument. This allows
the affirmative to explode the impact scenarios into something that is
uncontestable, thus making it impossible and unfair for the negative to have an
equal chance to win.
g. Since the resolution has no limiting qualifiers, and the affirmatives natural
burden is to prove the resolution true, the only appropriate affirmation would
involve meeting what the resolution specifies. However, since the affirmative
adds words to the resolution to make it easier to affirm, it fails to meet its implicit
resolutional burden and thus is never sufficient to affirm. Thus, you can negate
defensively.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
ii. Discussion of how parametric interacts with the affirmative burden to
prove the resolution true.
Implications:
Licensing parameterization allows the affirmative to choose from a spectrum. Therefore we have
a biased evaluation of resolutions.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Parametrics Good
I. definition
II. violation
III. standards
a. Internationally Consistent Ground: Parametrics are more likely to be internally
consistent because the evidence in the case must be specific to the narrow
interpretation of the topic and the affirmative can be held to the explicit AC
rhetoric. Comparatively, vague interpretations of the topic allow the affirmative to
advocate multiple contradictory interpretations because they all link back to the
framework. Internally consistent ground is key for fairness because I cannot
answer arguments if there is no coherent argument coming out of the AC.
b. Preventing advocacy shifts: Parametricizing forces the affirmative to clearly
articulate his/her advocacy and the ways in which (s)he will achieve it. This
means the affirmative will not be able to shift ground because there is a clear
conception of an affirmative world, whereas a general interpretation of the topic
gives the affirmative large potential to shift links to different ideas that still fit
under the large interpretation. Preventing advocacy shifts is key to fairness
because knowing what arguments my opponent can extend is a pre-req for having
an equal opportunity to win the round.
c. Parametricizing the resolution allows us to discuss an issue more in depth by
narrowing the scope of evaluation. Depth is always better than breadth because it
has more educational value, since the only time that knowledge is valuable is
when we can apply it to other aspects of life. However, such connections cannot
be made from a disjointed collection of facts. (Its better to read an entire book
than the first page of 100 books) (remember that just because you are talking
about one specific instance of the resolution in your affirmative case, other people
will affirm differently, so you arent limiting the breath of argumentation)
d. Categorical discussions of a topic always exclude minority and dissident views
because such a broad analysis requires that we view things only from the
perspective of the majority to gain the biggest impacts. In addition, any time we
try to take a sweeping view of an issue we are forced to focus on the majority. [for
example, when we evaluate the demographics of India, we would notice it was
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number of
Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
historically continue to be shunned in contemporary discussion. This is uneducational because our conception of how we ought to debate a) always reenforce the majority ideology and b) we marginalize the voices of minorities, thus
excluding meaningful topic-specific arguments from ever entering a debate round.
e. It is impossible to prove any statement completely, categorically, and 100% true;
if we could then there would be no point in debating, since the absolute truth of
the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia and the same side would win
every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the ground in order to
discuss it. Moreover, every argument in debate serves to constrain the resolution,
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
such as framework arguments, spikes, and even the criterion. Thus, the only
reason you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful
brite-line between my advocacy and any of these commonly acceptable scopenarrowing mechanisms.
f. Reciprocal burdens. The negative can disprove the affirmative in an infinite
number of ways by conditionally negating or disproving any presupposition of the
resolution. Even though allowing the affirmative to parametricize does not
completely rectify this huge ground skew by still giving the negative the ability to
question every pre-supposition to takes a step to balance out the burdens. Just as
all arguments can be weighed at the criterion level when affirmative and negative
offense is speculative, competing parametricized advocacies can be weighed in
terms of a standard.
AT: Predictable division of ground
1. No Link: this argument assumes that a) there is a finite division of ground and b) an
ability to distinguish between predictable and non-predictable division of ground.
Because there are infinite numbers of unique to prove a resolution true, it is impossible to
quantify the number of positions or the ability to predict certain positions in comparison
to others.
2. There is no brightline for when the taking of ground is sufficient to vote against the
debater. Every argument in the debate that is offensive takes away my opponents ground
(i.e. extending a deontological standard to exclude utilitarian impacts).
3. Research burdens arent infinite since the neg should just run arguments that disprove the
resolution. (my opponent should choose better arguments) --- Prep skew is non-unique:
the AC has just as much time as the NC to answer the arguments presented in the NC. I
dont know the NC arguments before the round starts, so I have to come up with just as
many deep and substantive arguments that might not link to every NC advocacy.
AT: Cant weigh competing conditional advocacies
1. This isnt true and this is why we have standards in LD to actually compare the impacts
of conditional advocacies. This argument assumes that there is some fundamental
difference between arguments with conditions and arguments without said conditions
other than the conditions. However, both still have impacts that can be weighed against
each other (i.e. a conditional impact of Nuclear War may outweigh a categorical impact
of punching people), so you would still vote off of it.
AT: Moving target
1. This argument only matters to the extent that Im de-linking negative arguments since
that is the only way I can actually narrow my advocacy any more than it is presented in
the 1AC. Insofar as this isnt true, this standard is irrelevant.
2. Theres no brightline for how much of a moving target is actually abusive. That is, people
can kick arguments that have defense attached to them and that is a shift in advocacy but
not abuse, just strategic.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
AT: Adding words to resolution, so harming textual primacy
1. The ability to debate comes before all other standards since they all only exist to make
debate as fair/educational as possible. However, its impossible to prove any statement
completely, categorically, and 100% true; if we could then there would be no point in
debating, since the absolute truth of the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia
and the same side would win every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the
ground in order to discuss it.
2. Every argument in debate serves to constrain and interpret the resolution, such as
framework arguments, spikes, contentions, and even the criterion. Thus, the only reason
you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful brightline
between my advocacy and any of those commonly acceptable scope-narrowing
mechanisms.
AT: Fair division of ground
1. Every argument in debate serves to constrain and interpret the resolution, such as
framework arguments, spikes, contentions, and even the criterion. Thus, the only reason
you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful brightline
between my advocacy and any of those commonly acceptable scope-narrowing
mechanisms.
2. Dont punish me for running smart and strategic arguments; affirming is already hard
enough with the structural time disadvantage (4 minutes to answer a 7 minute speech),
any being strategic by taking as much ground as possible is a form of balancing that
disadvantage.
AT: Resolution doesnt imply parametric affirmation
1. This is predicated on a logical interpretation but theory frames what logical
interpretations of the resolution are admissible. Meeting the burden of proof through
conditional advocacies is justified because:
a. Conditionality allows us to discuss an issue more in depth by narrowing the scope
of evaluation. Depth is always better than breadth because it has more educational
value, since the only time that knowledge is valuable is when we can apply it to
other aspects of life. However, such connections cannot be made from a disjointed
collection of facts. (Its better to read an entire book than the first page of 100
books) (remember that just because you are talking about one specific instance of
the resolution in your affirmative case, other people will affirm differently, so you
arent limiting the breath of argumentation)
b. Categorical discussions of a topic always exclude minority and dissident views
because such a broad analysis requires that we view things only from the
perspective of the majority to gain the biggest impacts. In addition, any time we
try to take a sweeping view of an issue we are forced to focus on the majority. [for
example, when we evaluate the demographics of India, we would notice it was
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
predominantly Hindu and fail to acknowledge that it has the 2nd largest number
of Muslims in the world] The problem is that those who have been excluded
historically continue to be shunned in contemporary discussion. This is uneducational because our conception of how we ought to debate a) always reenforce the majority ideology and b) we marginalize the voices of minorities, thus
excluding meaningful topic-specific arguments from ever entering a debate round.
c. It is impossible to prove any statement completely, categorically, and 100% true;
if we could then there would be no point in debating, since the absolute truth of
the resolution could just be found in an encyclopedia and the same side would win
every time. Thus, the affirmative must always constrain the ground in order to
discuss it. Moreover, every argument in debate serves to constrain the resolution,
such as framework arguments, spikes, and even the criterion. Thus, the only
reason you would vote on conditionality is if s/he can demonstrate a meaningful
brite-line between my advocacy and any of these commonly acceptable scopenarrowing mechanisms.
d. Reciprocal burdens. The negative can disprove the affirmative in an infinite
number of ways by conditionally negating or disproving any presupposition of the
resolution. Even though allowing the affirmative to be conditional does not
completely rectify this huge ground skew by still giving the negative the ability to
question every pre-supposition to takes a step to balance out the burdens. Just as
all arguments can be weighed at the criterion level when affirmative and negative
offense is speculative, competing conditional advocacies can be weighed in terms
of a standard.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritiks Bad
1. Interpretation: the debate should be predicated on a clash of ideas.
2. Violation: The kritik destroys clash in the debate round
1. Time skew Excluding kritiks is the only way to balance our speaking time. The 6
minutes of the AC become irrelevant when the K is run since it operates on a
completely separate level and winning my offense doesnt matter if Im losing the
K since it challenges peripheral assumptions of the case rather than engaging in the
topic. Time skew is detrimental to fairness since it structurally disadvantages me in
that I have only 7 minutes to engage the k while the neg has 13 minutes to defend it.
2. Reciprocal burdens Kritiks let the neg criticize any assumption made by the
resolution, while I have to defend the text in its entirety. Every statement relies on
an infinite number of assumptions and forcing me to defend every one of them
creates a massive burden skew. This harms fairness by forcing me to defend far
more than the neg, putting me at a structural disadvantage since theres a whole
level of ground I cant generate offense on but need to beat to get any chance to
win.
3. Predictability there are an infinite amount of assumptions that any statement relies
and the negative can pick any one and use it as a reason to negate, without being
topic specific. For instance, a Nietzsche kritik criticizing objectivity could be run on
any topic. Thus, theres no way coming into round I could be expected to predict
that a K will be run or what its content will be. Topic specificity narrows scope of
argumentation to the specific content that will generate topic specific learning.
Predictability is key to fairness because if arguments arent predictable it severely
hurts my ability to engage them on a substantive level and education because
unpredictability arguments encourage non-responsive blocks and off case which
results in debaters reading positions and arguments without having to debate the
merits of the argument for which I invested 6 minutes of time.
4. Research burdens since any argument relies on an infinite number of assumptions,
like the existence of the universe, the kritik could deal with anything regardless of
its link to the topic. That forces me to research an infinite number of arguments to
be prepared for what (s)he might run in the round, while she has infinite prep time
to write the argument of his/her choice. Equal research burdens are key to fairness
since without them one debater is inherently disadvantaged before entering into the
round by being expected to fulfill a much larger burden.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
4. Research burdens
1) Everybody has the same research burden because anyone can run a kritik. Just because
you had to research a lot to engage the kritik doesnt mean there are unfair research
burden. I had to research a lot to justify and run this Kritik as well as a lot to defend
against others.
2) Theres no reason why research is necessary to engage the argumentation of the Kritiks.
Kritiks function on analytical arguments so there are easy to engage even without
preround research on the subject.
3) Reading certain schools of philosophy that are used in Ks such as postmodernism, NeoMarxism, and semiotics are considered part of necessary reading for understanding
arguments run in debate rounds. Thus because it is generally known that Ks are based on
these and similar schools of thought everyone has the same burden to research them.
A/T Kritiks harm education
1. T/Running kritiks engages the resolution on a new level by evaluating it critically rather than
just accepting all the assumptions we usually operate under. Henry Giroux1 explains that
education relies on constant critique. He writes: Education as a critical practice could
provide[s] the means for disconnecting commonsense learning from the narrowly
ideological impact of mass media, the regressive tendencies associated with hypermasculinity, the rituals of everyday violence, the inability to identify with others, as well
as from the pervasive ideologies of state repression and its illusions of empire. Adorno's
response to retrograde ideologies and practices was to emphasize the role of autonomous
individuals and the force of self-determination, which he saw as the outcome of a moral and
political project that rescued education from the narrow language of skills, unproblematized
authority, and the seduction of common sense. Self-reflection, the ability to call things into
question, and the willingness to resist the material and symbolic forces of domination
were all central to an education that refused to repeat the horrors of the past and
engaged the possibilities of the future. Adorno urged educators to teach students how to be
critical, to learn how to resist those ideologies, needs, social relations, and discourses that led
back to a politics where authority was simply obeyed and the totally administered society
reproduced itself through a mixture of state force and often orchestrated consensus. Freedom
in this instance meant being able to think critically and act courageously, even when
confronted with the limits of one's knowledge. Without such thinking, critical debate and
dialogue degenerate into slogans, and politics, disassociated from the search for justice,
becomes a power grab.
2. Kritiks increase the types of argumentation in debate which means we get a wider scope of
education. This doesnt trade off with the depth of education we get on other parts of the
resolution because there are still plenty of debates that occur on stock positions. The content
of Kritiks is arguments that we do not traditionally engage within the confines of debate.
Kritiks uniquely add a new type of educational position to the activity.
3. Kritiks force debaters to be accountable for their arguments and understand their
implications. Running the K will teach debaters to increase research of positions and to learn
the impacts of their arguments before using them in the round.
1
Henry A. Giroux, What Might Education Mean After Abu Ghraib: Revisiting Adorno's Politics of Education,
"Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24.1 (2004) 3-22"
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritiks Good
1. Kritiks force us to deal with the actual impacts of our arguments rather than being
disengaged spectators just playing a game. Gordon Mitchell2 notes: While an isolated
academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment
has significant pedagogical value (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the
academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing
implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the
academic space begins to take on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers
demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow
taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions,
argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with
students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical
thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds
outside the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students
witness argumentation beyond the walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no
apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see Mitchell 1995;
1998). The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted
during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or
misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of
human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest
round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such
evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For
example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a
disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical
parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator"
mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary
education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind
of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of
our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute
and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8) Kritiks
remove us from the game of debate and let us address the actual harms of advocacies.
Were humans before were debaters, so the kritik is inherently valuable. Kritiks let us
recognize the people actually impacted by the arguments were willing to defend in
abstraction. Jayan Nayar3 writes: Located within a site of privilege, and charged to
reflect upon the grand questions of world-order and the human condition as the third
Christian Millennium dawns, we are tempted to turn the mind to the task of abstract
imaginings of "what could be" of our "world," and "how should we organize" our
"humanity." Perhaps such contemplations are a necessary antidote to cynicism and
skepticism regarding any possibility of human betterment, a necessary revitalization of
critical and creative energies to check the complacencies of the state of things as they are.
2
Mitchell in 98 [Gordon R., Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh, PEDAGOGICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR
ARGUMENTATIVE AGENCY IN ACADEMIC DEBATE Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p41-60]
3
Nayar in 99 [Jayan, Fall, School of Law, University of Warwick Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems
Orders of Inhumanity]
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Albert Yee, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, Winter
1996, p.95. (MHSOLT1214)
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
can not be proved true. Predictability is key to fairness because if arguments arent
predictable it severely hurts my ability to answer them and education because it is a
prerequisite substantive clash in the round. If arguments or strategies arent predictable it
forces us to read generic responses and off case. Without clash debates become
meaningless as debaters read arguments without have to understand them or debate their
merits.
7. Kritiks force debaters to be accountable for the entirety of their arguments including the
assumptions that their arguments rely on. This increases education because there will be a
shift towards more in depth research on arguments and positions as debaters will have to
be able to defend them.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Kritik Perm
By making reject the AC on face and refusing to enter into discussion about it, the kritik
identifies a particular viewpoint which excludes others at all cost. John Goldhamer notes: "A
one-sided viewpoint always creates conflict. By identifying with one position we automatically
make an enemy out of any opposing position...Being caught in one viewpoint breads war and
violence on every levelOne-sidedness demands struggle against some perceived enemy who
must...be destroyed.
Perm: Hold the aff and neg in a non-violent collision of opposites. Holding conflicting
ideas in a state of tension starts a process of individuation which is the only way to avoid the
harms of one-sidedness. John Goldhamer5 notes: "The unconscious responds to such on-sided
identification...with violent emotions...lack of control...outbursts of rage coupled with lack of
self-criticism and the misjudgments, mistakes, and delusions which this entailsOne-sided
identification with a groups mission or belief system activates a silent agony of existential
despair, which, through the psyches compensatory nature, must eventually burst into outer
consciousness as rage against what we have done to our selves. The remedy for such one-sided
identification depends upon brining the repressed side of the personality to consciousness; it
means undertaking a conscious process of individuation in order to lift the psyche out of a state
of identification with some idea or leader. This requires a confrontation and collision of
opposites, which one must...tolerate as a necessary part of the...process to greater...awareness."
The perm accepts the kritik without rejecting the AC, thus avoiding one-sided identification. You
vote aff (1) to stop the real-world harms of the K and (2) since once you buy the perm the K
gives you no reason to reject the AC or vote neg.
5
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Micropolitics Bad
1. Debate is the wrong medium for political change because the political sphere is distinct
from the debate sphere judges are expected to enter rounds with no biases on the
resolution, whereas there are no such prohibitions on their political beliefs. Judges are
thus unlikely to be swayed from their political beliefs, nullifying the impacts of
micropolitics.
2. Micropolitics is only used as a tool to win the ballot, because in order for debaters to
prove that they actually care about the political issue, they would have to forfeit all of
their (neg) rounds to avoid contradicting themselves. Insofar as the debater debates both
sides, you ought to drop him/her because they either face an ideological conflict or they
prove that theyre only using micropolitics without believing in the idea.
3. TURN: If a debater wanted to create effective political change, the better alternative
would be to lobby Senators or join a protest because the scope of people affected is larger
than two people in a debate round, increasing the likelihood for political change.
Additionally, changing the forum has the propensity to reach more politically powerful
characters as opposed to a college-aged judge with little ability to create change.
4. TURN: Voting on micropolitics creates a false sense of efficacy because the debaters feel
as if using the ballot as a tool creates real change. Instead, the ballot serves as nothing
more than a win or a loss for one side, creating a ruse of solvency that can never be
fulfilled, making the micropolitics argument senseless.
5. TURN: Taking micropolitical action desensitizes us to the political issues when we view
them as a tool to win the round, which stops individuals from caring about the issues in
the real-world context. This outweighs the micropolitics insofar as this has an impact on
us outside of the debate context.
6. Political action in debate rounds denies the existence of a stable symbolic order and
prioritizes issues into a priori matters as opposed to recognizing their contingency. Zizek
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
in 2004 writes:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
7. Since context doesnt matter for micropolitical actions, debate rounds dont uniquely
foster any kind of benefit in terms of the political issue. Laclau in 2000 writes:
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Narratives Bad
1. Narratives fail to make explicit claims. At most, they suggest conclusions, but the
conclusion is ultimately in the hands of the judge, not the debaters. This means that
A. The narrative doesnt directly [affirm/negate] the resolution, so it doesnt matter in terms of
the round, and
B. The judge has to determine the narratives impact in terms of the ballot, which constitutes
intervention.
2. In every round, debaters tell stories in one way or another, whether they are emotional or
if they describe a causal chain of events. Narrative is a broad form of argument that extends
beyond fiction or personal testimonial. But my use of narrative is superior because it involves
explicit discursive claims, and articulates explicit reasons to vote.
3. If I were to run a counter-narrative, which the affirmative would consider a proactively good
thing, there is no standard to resolve the discussion, so the judge is forced to decide arbitrarily.
Thus, in order to avoid intervention, you should accept my arguments and reject the narrative.
4. Privileging one side of a binary of subordination is a reversal of the relation, not a challenge to
its logic. This means that the narrative only reinscribes the logic of domination by privileging
one side of the binary, so it doesnt effectively challenge what it means to stop.
5. Bringing a real-world narrative into the sterile academic environment of debate destroys its
political value. The AC gives the false impression that it is sufficient to hear the voice in the
debate round, but in reality those voices are not really helped by voting either way. This makes
solvency a ruse and simultaneously precludes real solvency. We become complacent under the
narrative framework since we come to erroneously believe that exposing silenced voices is
enough.
6. Narratives essentialize subordinated groups. The narrative gives the impression that all
members of the group share a certain experience, and that defines them. This polices differences
within groups, destroying agency and the potential for progressive action to break down
stereotypes and biases.
7. The narrative can be cooped by the oppressors, because the state can use narrative to fuel
public fears through descriptions of impending disaster. This turns the narrative, because it only
reinforces the situation of domination.
8. The narrative presupposes the legitimacy of the hermeneutical tradition, which attempts to
discover a meaning or implication from the text. But Hermeneutical interpretation of texts
cripples critical resistance. David Couzens Hoy, Critical Resistance, Pg. 32-33
The idea that there is no interpreted bedrock to anchor interpretation raises the specter of
relativism. If critique is a matter of interpretation, and if interpretation goes all the way down,
then hermeneutics would not appear to be a sufficient basis for critical resistance. If there are no
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
limits to what interpretations can say, critique becomes vacuous and resistance becomes
directionless.
9. Storytelling kills public discourse.
Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Professors of Law, 1997, Beyond All Reason, 11
Second, radical multiculturalism lends to disturbing distortions in scholarship and public
discourse. Because they reject objectivity as a norm, the radicals are content to rely on personal
stories as a basis for formulating views of social problems. These stories are often atypical or
distorted by self-interest, yet any criticism of the stories is inevitably seen as a personal attack on
the storyteller. More generally, because radical multiculturalists refuse to separate the speaker
from the message, they can become sidetracked from discussing the merits of the message itself
into bitter disputes about the speakers authenticity and her right to speak on behalf of an
oppressed group. Criticisms of radical multiculturalism are seen as pandering to the power
structure if they come from women or minorities, or as sexist and racist if they come from white
men. This makes dialogue difficult at best.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
if this werent true, the fact that the negative didnt run a narrative in round in the same sense
that I did in actually telling the story of events that took place in the real world means that the
objection doesnt matter/ has no impact.
4. A/T Privileging one side of an oppressive binary doesnt solve for oppression, it just reentrenches the binary
Privileging one side of an oppressive binary DOES mitigate the oppression caused by the binary
because it gives voice to oppressed groups and confirms their plight as being subjected to unfair
cruelty. The oppressors dont NEED to have their side of the story heard because they already
have the political clout and representation necessary to attain representation. Moreover, even if
my narrative does privilege the oppressed over the oppressors to the point that the binary of
oppression is reversed, we would still favor this outcome over allowing the oppressors to
continue dominating because such a tradeoff would allow for equality in access to agency and
discourse. Insofar as oppression should be fought, we should still try to help people who are
being unfairly oppressed even if we cant destroy the binary.
5. A/T Narratives kill the academic value of debate people think its enough to hear a
voice when its really not
Bringing a narrative into the realm of debate actually increases the academic value of the activity
because it broadens the scope and perspective of the type of discourse introduced into the round.
Rather than couching the activity in banality, the narrative broadens debate through its
introduction of ideas and/or methods rarely used in an academic forum. Further, the argument
being made assumes that my advocacy is that the only affect of my reading the narrative is that
people in round hear it; however, this ignores the other implications of the narrative that I explain
in case and is therefore non-responsive.
6. A/T Narratives essentialize subordinated groups
My narrative does not claim to represent all the members of a minority it simply tells the story
of a particular individual and applies it to the resolution. Even if this were not the case, you
would still prefer the narrative because it at least gives voice to minorities that otherwise might
have absolutely no recourse through traditional political modes, even if it cannot recognize every
nuance of every individual within that minority.
7. A/T Narratives can be co-opted by the oppressors
Anything can be co-opted this harm is not unique to the narrative itself, so you have no reason
to exclude the narrative on this basis alone; the narrative bad answers themselves could be coopted. Furthermore, the idea that we should avoid potentially liberating actions for fear that the
oppressors will respond in some way is a nihilistic attitude that entrenches oppressive norms by
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
eliminating the possibility for political activism on the part of the oppressed.
8. A/T Story telling interpretations of text cripples critical resistance
Anti-oppression movements gain momentum and credence by allowing relative perspectives to
play a roll in the movement because individuals will feel included in the process of resistance
and rebellion against the oppressors. Rather than claiming a single objective truth, the narrative
seeks to understand situations from an individualistic perspective that broadens the scope of
discourse and allows the possibility for a redress of harms. Moreover, rather than making
resistance directionless by articulating the specific circumstances of a situation and explaining
how such an articulation warrants political or micro-political action, the narrative directs
resistance of oppressive norms towards a very specific end.
9. A/T Storytelling kills public discourse
I dont advocate conflating the situation of the author with the author themselves the fact that
Im running this narrative in a debate round implies that substantive discourse is the object of my
reading the narrative. This means that there is no reason why the narrative itself cannot be
discussed on a level different from those involved in the narrative and thus still be the legitimate
object of societal discourse. Additionally, the fact that Im making substantive responses to the
takeouts of the narrative empirically denies the idea that all advocates of narratives simply appeal
to the authority of the subject of the narrative and preclude discussion. Moreover, for centuries
storytelling has been a key method within societies for communicating advocacies or ideals to
individuals, especially in the days before technology had progressed to a point that allowed
convenient physical recording of a story. For example, Aesops fables have been discussed for
centuries as bearing important lessons crucial for individuals in a functioning society to be aware
of. Thus, rather than killing public discourse, storytelling arouses the publics interest and sparks
further discourse on the subject matter dealt with in the story.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Irony Bad
1. Irony as an effective political tool would require the judge to share the debaters
predispositions about the nature of certain ideologies. This is true because arguments can
only appear ironic if both the debater and judge believe that the implications of certain
arguments are able to be mocked via their annunciation. This puts the (Aff/Neg) in a
double bind. Either:
a. No one gets the irony and it loses its political/discursive value.
b. The judge already recognizes the value in criticizing certain ideologies and thus
the (AC/NC) isnt actually subversive.
2. Stating that ones position is ironic eliminates the subversive aspects of irony. Gordon
Teskey explains: Of course one cannot really use irony: it is not an implement but an
ethical category. One can be ironic, like Socrates, or a little like him. But when irony is
objectively determined by markers- changes of expression and tone, or the marginal
notation ironice- it spoils. Thus, because the (AC/NC) is recognizing itself as ironic, it
ceases to actually trick or subvert dominant ideologies in that it no longer is covertly
exposing their flaws, rendering irony as a tool useless.
3. If engaging in actions that are unexpected and subversive is truly an ideal course of
action, then you would always vote for me because the ultimate irony would be to vote
for the person who is being unironic.
4. If the (aff/neg) truly thought that discursive arguments were valuable, and that we ought
to subvert dominant ideologies; instead of reading semi-humorous debate cases for six
minutes they would be out on the streets doing random acts like staging ironic proexploitation rallies or crapping on sidewalks.
5. Using irony presupposes the truth of certain social conditions, thus becoming self
defeating in that it fails to allow resistance to oppressive aspects of society. David J.
Amante explains: Ironic speech acts clearly are indirect speech acts, ones that
communicate their covert negatives using seemingly normal speech acts as a vehicle.
Knowledge of the social system, manners, principles governing conversations and
knowledge of speech acts all contribute to our awareness of irony. Even in the minimal
form of irony like sarcasm, there is a place for, a necessity for, these different kinds of
linguistic and social facts. Thus, recognition and knowledge of preexisting conditions is
intrinsic to the expression of ironic arguments, mitigating the political value of irony.
6. There is no intrinsic weighing mechanism for determining the amount of ideological
disruption that needs to occur in order to justify voting for an ironic position. Any critical
argument could theoretically have some political implication, and without any standard to
calculate or weigh between such competing advocacies you will never be able to vote for
an ironic position because its benefits are speculative at best.
IRONIC RESPONSES TO IRONY. (Purposely blippy. Will also seriously fuck with 1ars.,,)
1. The eternal golden rule dictates that thou ought treat people how thou wishes to be
treated meaning that the AC shouldnt be mean and criticize things so vote the bastard
down.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
2. Wrong forum, everyone in the debate community is conservative so they will all just
ignore you.
3. All of the warrants are just FIVE WORDS LONG. No one even cares about FIVE
WORD warrants. Irony cases suck.
4. Irony can be funny, NOT! Debate cases cant be funny. Only movies, comics, and interp
rounds can be funny. Thus the real irony is in ironys unfunniness.
5. Irony is unfair because some jokes arent funny and you are privileging people with good
senses of humor which is unfair and kills all of my ground and I cant debate anymore
and I have infinite research skew because I need to do infinite research because aliens
might have different senses of humor and fairness is a gate way issue.
6. The ultimate irony would to be to vote for me because the affirmative wouldnt even
expect it, thus tricking HIM or HER.
7. There is no brightline for irony in that it is vague and unweighable and cant be
quantified but at the very least respecting rights as side constraints comes as a
prerequisite because tortured people dont think stuff is funny.
8. Why dont we all just watch Comedy Central? Wouldnt that be ironic? That we join
debate for the sake of being educated but simply just go back to watching the television.
Bet you didnt think about that one did you?
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Fairness is a Voter
1. Fairness guarantees that every debater comes into the round without any structural
advantages. This is important as debate is a game of skill for three reasons
1. Tournaments are run on the basis of wins and losses as well as ballots say who the better
debater is and not who was most educational, etc.
2. We craft arguments so that we win easier rather than discuss the best issues
3. If debate werent a competitive activity, people would stop playing.
So, vote on fairness as if ensures an equal footing to all debaters, leading to the most skilled
debater winning.
2. Fairness is a voting issue because unfair debates cannot be objectively evaluated. This is
evaluated before any other ________ position because theory frames the way all other
arguments are evaluated and creates the context for the round. Vote here because the violation
nullifies all other arguments because it shifts the context of the round
3. Fairness is a prerequisite to having acceptable rounds because if both sides dont have a
reasonably equal chance to win the round, rounds get decided by pairings, rendering the
competition meaningless. Thus, fairness is a constraint.
4. Procedural checks on debaters are key or else I could keep on talking after my time goes out,
tear up my opponents cases, or get up and sign the ballot for myself right now.
5. Unfair standards skew the adjudication of the round as they encompass more than the
resolution, meaning one side has to defend things out of the scope of the resolution. Since a
judge is by definition supposed to be neutral, accepting unfair frameworks maligns adjudication
as you there is a bias to one side.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
education is acceptable in a round there is no way for the judge to arbitrarily vote on some
decrease in education, as it would only be infusing their own subjective conception of education
into the round.
3. This argument is non-unique. By my opponents conception in every round one position will
be less educational than the other, meaning every round would be decided on a debate about
whose case is educational which would destroy the educational value of debate in the first place.
In order to vote on theory there must be some sort of minimum threshold for education
established by opponent otherwise debates would always be decided purely based on whose
position was more educational. This undermines education itself because we are not able to
discuss positions, think critically about arguments and we never have an incentive to read topic
literature.
4. Education as a voting issue legitimizes reading positions that have absolutely nothing to do
with the resolution, i.e. they could randomly get up and read out of their physics textbook. This
logic destroys the educational value of debate from the beginning because it destroys the ability
for a clash of ideas to ever take place in the round because there is no way to predict an
opponents advocacy.
5. Theory is by nature un-educational because it keeps us from actually debating real issues and
real ideas about the topic. Because of the ridiculousness of theory itself, I have to waste my time
reading this block and writing it beforehand as opposed to doing research and writing about this
topic. In order to vote on theory there must be some sort of minimum threshold for education
established by opponent otherwise debates would always be decided purely based on whose
position was more educational. This undermines education itself because we are not able to
discuss positions, think critically about arguments and we never have an incentive to read topic
literature because it would benefit us as debaters in any way.
6. This argument presumes that the goal of debate is to be educational. The motivation to join
the activity varies from person to person, some debate just to win or because they enjoy it. Any
decision by the judge to vote on education is imposing their ideal motivation onto debaters,
which is not their role. Just like referees dont throw athletes out of the round for playing only for
the money a judge cannot vote against a debater because they disagree with their idea of what
debate is about.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Education is a Voter
1. The only thing of lasting endurance from a round is the education we receive. This means
that the most important aspect of our arguments is their educational qualities. Therefore, you
ought to vote on the most valuable argument in the round, and the method by which you
determine value is education.
2. Most debaters participate in this activity because to some extent of the funding of their
schools. This is money that otherwise would have been spent on these students education, so it is
only logical that these rounds are educational because they are providing something the
institution of education is paying for. This means that you should vote on education because that
is the fundamental purpose of these rounds and the debater who is most educational should win.
3. The only reason the resolution is chosen for debate is because the panel of coaches, of
educators, feels that it would be worth the countless hours their students would spend
researching and writing cases discussing its salient features. Thus, the value of arguments lies in
their educational merits and that should be the method by which we determine which argument
to prefer in round.
4. When people run educational arguments that discuss interesting issues it engenders interest
in other debaters about that issue. Interest is important because the more interest there is in
debate the more people join debate and continue debating which creates a larger pool of
competitors and ensures better tournaments because there is better competition. The best way to
ensure this trend continues is by giving preference to arguments that provide for the better
education.
5. debate rounds have a unique structure which allow for honest debate about certain issues. it
is important that we use this opportunity to discuss issues of educational import because those
will be the most beneficial to us as citizens
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Contradictions Bad
INTERPRETATION:
Contradictory arguments are bad for debate.
VIOLATION:
Their arguments are contradictory...
STANDARDS:
1.
This strat is unpredictable which a strat skew. They
allow my opponent to shift advocacies in his next speech because he
cannot go for all of his contradictory arguments. Shifting advocacies
is abusive because it amounts to a strategy skew since my opponent can
pick and choose whichever arguments he wants and I have no way to
prepare for the next speech. This is a reason to vote because strategy
skew harms fairness as it becomes easier for my opponent to win if his
arguments hurt my strategy.
2.
It becomes impossible for me to predict my opponent's strategy
insofar as he can choose to go for either advocacy of the
contradiction if the other argument has too much ink against it.
Predictability is necessary for fairness since if I cannot predict my
opponent's strategy, I cannot respond to my opponent's case
sufficiently, and thus do not have an equal chance of winning which
makes the round unfair. That means you reject the contradictory
arguments because they are harming my strategy in round.
3.
Furthermore, my opponent choosing one of the contradictory
advocacies in his next speech necessarily requires that he makes new
links in his next speech which is a reason to reject both advocacies
of the contradiction because they require that my opponent go new in
the 2.
4.
Any responses I make to either of my opponent's arguments will
bolster his argument because if I respond to one advocacy of the
argument, then I will be promoting the other one this is abusive
insofar as I can't respond to his arguments because any response I
make will be helping his position. This skews ground by putting me in
a double-bind. Either I respond to both advocacies of the argument and
then indirectly bolster both advocacies, or I don't respond to either
and my opponent can extend this offense cleanly. This leads to a
strategy skew because no matter what actions I take, my opponents'
arguments will be winning. Strategy skew is abusive and unfair insofar
as my opponent has to do less work in order to win the round and has
more options to do so than I do. This harms my strategy because I
won't be able to allocate my time or determine where to make arguments
in my next speech. This directly impacts back to fairness since my
opponent is able to more easily win the round if you accept the
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
contradiction.
5.
By responding to arguments that contradict my opponent forces me
into defending ground so that I am forced to contradict myself. This
is bad because
a.
I won't make any sense because my responses will be contradicting
themselves. At the point where I am not understandable then my
opponent can't learn anything valuable from what I am discussing,
which is bad for education.
b.
He can use my contradictory responses against me in the next speech
which is unfair because he was the one who initiated the
contradictions.
c.
This means you reject the arguments in which he is being unfair
because they allow for future potential abuses such as using arguments
against me.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
all of them because a) it is the entirety of the counterplans as a whole that proves unfair
and b) rejecting only one argument doesnt fight the abuse because the debater can still go
for others.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Stine, Elizabeth L., Wingfield, Arthur, & Poon, Leonard. (1986). How much
and how fast: Rapid processing of spoken language in later adulthood.
Psychology and Aging, vol. 1, no. 4, 303-311. P.303
"At a very fast rate, several things must be accomplished. The
various processes required to recode linguistic stimuli into
meaning have been articulated for both spoken language (Just
& Carpenter, 1980; Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1980) and written
text (Kintsch & vanDijk, 1978; J. Miller & Kintsch, 1980).
There must be some initial phase in which the stimulus is
encoded, physical features (visual or acoustic) are extracted,
and lexical access is achieved (Just & Carpenter, 1980). Next,
the language content must be parsed into meaningful idea units
in which relationships are determined among words (Kintsch &
vanDijk, 1978). These relationships are typically represented
in terms of propositions consisting of a predicate and one or
more arguments that are related by the predicate. Third,
relationships between idea units of the text must be established
in order to construct overall structural cohe rence in the text.
Finally, the text must be related to and integrated with world
knowledge. Although such processes would undoubtedly have
to work in both a top-down and bottom-up fashion, the output
at each of these stages would have to be held in an online
working memory for an effective integration of meaning.
An increase in working memory allows for an increase in the
ability to analyze texts, understand syntactic relationships, and other
crucial linguistic functions.
Hulme, Charles & Mackenzie, Susie. (1992). Working Memory
and
Severe Learning Difficulties. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. Pg 21
"In its broadest sense, working memory refers to the use of
temporary storage mechanisms in the performance of more
complex tasks. So, for example, in order to read and
understand prose, we must be able to hold incoming
information in memory. This is necessary in order to compute
the semantic and syntactic relationships among successive
words, phrases, and sentences and so construct a coherent and
meaningful representation of the meaning of the text. This
temporary storage of information during reading is said to
depend on working memory. In this view the ability to
understand prose will depend on, among other things, the
capacity of a persons working memory system. Such
temporary storage of information is obviously necessary for the
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
performance of a wide variety of other tasks apart from
reading, such as mental arithmetic (Hitch, 1978) and verbal
reasoning (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974)."
Working memory is beneficial because it increases understanding of
text, verbal reasoning, and mental arithmatic. It's like upgrading the
RAM in your brain. This is the highest educational impact, because it
helps you in every aspect of your education like if you did upgrade
the RAM in your computer, every task would work better. This also
outweighs in round impacts because the ability to effectively reason
verbally is crucial to any debate argument.
5. The increase in processing spreed and working memory
provided by learning how to speak fast and think fast assists in
problem solving.
Kail, Robert V. (2004) Cognitive Development Includes Global
and Domain-Specific Processes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 50.4
(2004) 445-455
However, Kail and Hall (1999) argued that global skills may
also contribute to the accuracy with which children solve such
problems. Increased processing speed might contribute, for
example, by allowing more rapid retrieval of schemata for
different types of problems. In addition, increased working
memory might contribute by facilitating understanding of the
problem (i.e., facilitating reading comprehension) and
facilitating storage of problem facts during problem solving. To
evaluate global and domain-specific contributions to age-related
change in word-problem performance, Kail and Hall (1999,
Study 2) had 8- to 12-year-olds attempt to solve arithmetic word
problems of the sort, "Pete had 7 marbles. Then Sam gave him 5
more. How many marbles does Pete have now?" In addition,
they measured children's knowledge of addition and subtraction,
as well as processing speed and working memory. All measures
were related positively to performance on word problems. More
importantly, the critical multiple regression analyses showed (1)
that arithmetic knowledge accounted for additional variance in
word-problem performance beyond that associated with global
cognitive skills (i.e., processing speed, working memory), and
(2) that in complementary fashion, global cognitive skills
accounted for additional variance in word-problem performance
beyond that associated with arithmetic knowledge.
Problem solving is critical for education because it is the basis of
academic study. Morever, it is assists the efforts of our day to day life,
fundamentally outweighing all my opponents arguments. Reasons why
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
you prefer my carded analysis about psychologicly from above still
hold true.
6. Speed reeces the breadth v. depth trade-off. There is always conflict whether or not to
run a few good arguments or a lot of bad arguments, and the slower you go the
harder that decision is. When you are speaking faster, the trade-off is much less; a
slow debater may have a choice between 3 good arguments and 6 bad ones, but a fast
debater probably can manage 6 good arguments. This is much more educational
because it allows the debater to deeply warrant their arguments, which otherwise
might have been blippy. Also, speed is more educational because it allows you to
make types of arguments that require a lot of set up and that would have taken too
long to do if you go slowly. This increases the amount of topic area that can be
debated, teaching us more.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Speed can check back bad unwarranted arguments that would otherwise be difficult to
fully answer. If the debater is going slowly, it is difficult to explain why exactly the
opponents arguments are bad, because there is a higher need for each second of their time
in the speech. Without speed, the other debater could take advantage and make a lot of
really bad arguments that become key pieces of offense because they are dropped. This
means allowing speed is key to fairness because it prevents strategy skew and also
prevents the specific strategies that involve making bad arguments. Strategy skew links to
fairness because without a solid strategy, the opponent has a greater competative
advantage. Also, strategies involving bad arguments are unfair because the ballot is
totally binary; they get rewarded the same amount as I do if one of us wins, so it is
illegitimate for them to have to do that much less good work.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
Speed Bad
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
i. The standard is accessibility. Speed is not educational because if I cant
understand your arguments I cant respond to them and neither of us can
learn from the debate because there is no clash.
ii. The standard is depth, breadth, etc. Speed is not educational because it
encourages a focus on speed as a skill instead of substantive
argumentation. Speed is used to throw many arguments onto the flow and
if any are not responded to, they can be extended. The debater wins the
round through extensions instead of substantive argumentation which
means that debaters dont learn valuable skills such as substantive
argumentation instead they just learn how to speak fast which has no realworld use.
iii. The standard is accessibility. Speed is not educational because when
rounds come down to who can read faster, potential members of the debate
community who cant read fast are excluded from the activity. This is
harms education because fewer people can gain access to the educational
benefits of the activity but furthermore the exclusion of certain individuals
excludes their unique ideas and beliefs which enable a greater degree of
education because I gain exposure to new ideas I might have otherwise not
have been exposed to. Debaters with specific handicaps such as blindness
are immediately excluded from the round in that they can only so quickly.
I. Response to no brightline on speed
a. There can never be a specific brightline on speed, however in certain situations it
is intuitively true that the debater is going excessively fast. These arguments
would not be run on somebody who is not going excessively fast. Additionally
they never would be read against someone who is not excessively fast because
without a specific brightline the judge would ignore them. Only when it is so
apparent that the debater is abusing speed would it be beneficial to run the
argument. This serves as an internal check against the use of speed violation
theory which nullifies the unique use of the brightline.
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
VBI@LMU 2007
Top Lab Theory File
you actually have to prove that Im abusing you not that Im abusing you
if you happened to be someone else.
C. Needs to be brightline on speed
The attempt to provide a brightline for how fast I can go only destroys the predictability of
debate because it is totally arbitrary. There is no way for my opponent to pick a rate of speed.
That would make sense for every single situation and every single judge. I can't predict how fast
I should go in order to avoid the abuse resolution. This has two implications. First, it means that
there is no reason to vote on the Neg/Aff theory violation because it can have no tangible impact
on future rounds. Second, it means that it would be unfair to punish me for