| ... |
... |
@@ -1,20
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-==Theory Deterrence UV== |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
- |
| 4 |
|
-====1. Don't vote on presumption or permissibility because human fallibility means there's always a non-zero risk of offense. If you do presume, then presume aff to offset 7-4-6-3 time skew and the 8 neg bias last year^^ ^^ and at the TOC specifically^^ ^^ which impact turn his shells. TOC stats come first; they account for time skew, highest level, and all other factors to determine net effect, and analytics get overstated by debaters to win rounds. ==== |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-====2. Neg burden is to win offense to a post-fiat advocacy. Offense-defense is key to fairness and real world education.==== |
| 8 |
|
-Nelson 8 Adam F. Nelson, J.D.1. Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. 2008. – Hebron AS |
| 9 |
|
-And the truth-statement model of the resolution imposes an absolute burden of proof |
| 10 |
|
-AND |
| 11 |
|
-know how the various options affect us and the world we live in. |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
-====3. The neg must defend one unconditional advocacy. Conditionality is bad because it makes the neg a moving target which kills 1AR strategy. He'll kick it if I cover it and extend it if I undercover it, meaning I have no strategic options. Also, it's unreciprocal because I can't kick the AC.==== |
| 15 |
|
- |
| 16 |
|
- |
| 17 |
|
-====4. Err aff against theory. Intervention's inevitable in blippy theory debates. Gut checking minimizes it long term by reducing the number of debates resolved on blippy, dropped spikes. I'm reading a stock aff at the core of the lit, and it's on the wiki.==== |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
- |
| 20 |
|
-====5. Independently, voting on theory encourages more frivolous theory in future rounds which crowds out topic education. Any aff abuse must be weighed against this innate DA to theory, which sets a non-arbitrary brightline for reasonability.==== |