| ... |
... |
@@ -1,40
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-T-Plural |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
- |
| 4 |
|
-===A. Interpretation: The aff must defend countries in general and not specify one or several countries === |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-===B. Violation – The aff specifies one nation or group of nations === |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-===C. Standards === |
| 11 |
|
- |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-====1: Predictability – ==== |
| 14 |
|
-They can pick any of 200 countries to avoid neg prep. Each one of the countries in the world has a unique nuclear power situation, which would create a huge burden on the neg to prep out each country. Also the aff could do any combination of the 200 countries meaning that there are over 40,000 scenarios that the neg would have to prep out. Predictability links to fairness because if I can't predict and prepare a debate, there's no way I could ever be fairly prepared to engage it. And predictability links to education because if I have no prep or knowledge on the countries they spec, we will never have educational and clashing debates. |
| 15 |
|
- |
| 16 |
|
- |
| 17 |
|
-====2: Grammar – ==== |
| 18 |
|
-The resolution uses the grammatical term known as zero + plural which implies that we are using first) a plural noun, in this case, "countries", and second) the "zero" is the lack of an article in front of the plural noun. The resolution "Countries ought to prohibit the use of nuclear power" meets this by having a subject without an article. Therefore, the resolution requires us to generalize. Grammar is key to education because if we don't follow the basic rules of grammar, every argument that follows is nonsensical and educational in regards to the resolution at hand. |
| 19 |
|
-And, this is the internal link to common usage too – no one would |
| 20 |
|
-AND |
| 21 |
|
-says. Common usage is key to predictability which is key to fairness. |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
- |
| 24 |
|
-====3: Clash – ==== |
| 25 |
|
-By specifying one country or a specific group of nations you are avoiding clash because you could just avoid any general neg evidence I use by creating a combination of countries that somehow does not apply to my Das. Clash is key in order to have the most educational round and in order to truly challenge each other's ideas. |
| 26 |
|
- |
| 27 |
|
- |
| 28 |
|
-===D. Voters === |
| 29 |
|
- |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
-====First is Fairness ==== |
| 32 |
|
-When debate's rules are unfairly skewed, the activity becomes more risky while the payoff remains the same. If risk calculations assume that we have an equal chance of winning on either side, but in reality we do not, there is a disincentive to participate. |
| 33 |
|
- |
| 34 |
|
- |
| 35 |
|
-====Second is Education ==== |
| 36 |
|
- The impacts garnered from education are lasting, and impact our real lives, as well as the lives of those around us. Additionally, it's the reason schools fund debate in the first place – if debate ceased to be educational, the activity would cease to exist. |
| 37 |
|
-And Drop the debater |
| 38 |
|
-1. The abuse has already happened and cannot be |
| 39 |
|
-AND |
| 40 |
|
-the advantage that my opponent takes with the affirmative strategy is by rejecting RVIs |