1NC

Effects T - The plan does (INSERT) - this justifies multiple non topical actions to
achieve a topical one - Separate Voter for education and Fairness.

2NC
Effects T = Separate voter for education and fairness - Their Steps justify multiple
non topical actions to achieve a topical one - A Plan must prima fascia be Resolved;
The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military
exploration and/or development of the Earths oceans- We don't have to win the rest
of the T flow just this one argument
1. Education a. Research burden: the more steps the more research,
allowing plans like theirs exponentially increases the amount of plans
to research
b. Clash: clash key to education, we cant possibly argue
against positions we never can prepare for.
c. Any education gained from effects-t is bad education,
since it is, by definition, outside the topic and unpredictable for the neg
d. Resolutionality: if their steps arent independently
defendable under the res. they are not good education
2. Fairness
a. Burden mixing: requires solvency to determine topicality,
which is mixing stock issues and muddies the basis of debate
b. Limits: under their interp anything could be effectually
topical. This room could be wired by the CIA and running this case
could get back to the president, he might think its a good idea. And
then running it would be topical, but ridiculous
c. Makes topicality a probabilities game: looking at solvency
to see topicality means they arent topical. {Just because the solvency
flow indicates theyre X percent topical doesnt mean they are. Its
either 100% or 0}
d. Adds untopical advantages: anything stemming from their
effectually topical portion of plan is not usable as an advantage
e. Briteline: aff plan text is only determination of advocacy.
{If plan text has effectually topical statements they lose on face}
f. {Ground: anything outside the rez proper is neg ground.
Theyre killing our ground with this case}
3. Voters on fairness and education

XT - T

1NC - A2 - GEN
Extra T the plans (INSERT) is extra topical because (INSERT) is a non topical
mandate that allows for anything. - Separate Voter for education and Fairness.

1NC - A2 - FNPP AFF - Construction and Deployment

Extra T the plans construction and deployment is extra topical - topic requires one
- New Polices allow any possible mechanism attached to the plan. - Separate Voter
for education and Fairness.

2NC
Extra T = Separate Voter for education and Fairness. - Their Extra Topical mandate
thus allows for anything - We don't have to win the rest of the T flow just this one
argument
1.

Education
a. Extra topical education is bad because its outside the
delineations of the rez, which they should be advocating
b. Research burden: if we had to research every case plus a
little bit it would exponentially and unreasonably explode our research
burden
2.
Fairness
a. Extra T legitimizes running a case with 1/100th devoted to
the topic, and the rest for strategic purposes
b. Ground: anything not in the resolution is ground of the
neg, including all extra topical parts of the case
i. This also kills the switchside set up of debate,
meaning there can really be no clash or argumentation
b. Spike outs: extra T legitimizes doing plan and anything
that would not link/turn our arguments. Which is pretty much game
c. Its totally unpredictable. They literally take a random
part of neg ground and make it the centerpiece of their aff, {we cant
argue with that}
d. Time skew: theyve already destroyed our strategic time
allocation by forcing us to focus on the extra topical planks of plan
3.
Voters for fairness and education
a. Extra t proves the resolution is flawed, they have to go
beyond it just to set up a decent case. vote them down on this alone
b. {Vote them down for precedent: if they just lose the extraT part theres no incentive to not take it out, which means youre
complicit with them causing the harms listed above every round

Moving Target

1NC
Moving target - The plans (insert) allows them to shift their interpretation of their
argument in every speech to dodge method criticisms, counter-methods and impact
turns to their understanding of scholarship- a moving target affirmative makes all
of their truth claims falsifiable. - Independent Voter for education and fairness.

2NC
XT - Moving target - The plans (insert) allows them to shift their interpretation of
their argument in every speech to dodge method criticisms, counter-methods and
impact turns to their understanding of scholarship- a moving target affirmative
makes all of their truth claims falsifiable. - Independent Voter for education and
fairness. - We don't have to win the rest of the T flow just this one argument
Key to predictability- There is no way to be able to prepare for a case if they can
claim they solve for everything
Justification- They must justify their claims that they can change their advocacy
(read the rest only if they didnt answer it) they did not answer our justification
standard. By them not justifying their claims then they admit it is an abusive
strategy and by them not justifying the reason why then that is an independent
reason to vote them down.
Ext potential abuse- They could literally mute the entire 1nc if we gave them the
chance- By reading potential abuse we have proven in round abuse because they are
mooting are arguments and potential because they can continue to in more rounds
and this should be stopped.
Time constraints- we have only 8 minutes in the 1NC to make arguments and there
is not enough time to do so if they can claim that they solve for everything by there
funds if they cant explain the funds. This overloads the neg and is bad education.
Extend Fairness- They skews the neg ground by changing their advocacy. By doing
that they can 1ink out of many Disads and Counter plans that is key to neg ground.
They decided how the round was going to be debated by changing what they are
doing
Justice- You as the judge must vote down the aff or you will risk allowing them to
keep running an abusive case
Moving target mean that since they are shifting their advocacy of what they are
doing.