| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,28 @@ |
|
1 |
+====A. Interpretation: all substantive argumentation must assume a comparative worlds paradigm |
|
2 |
+B. Violations: (truth testing, triggers, etc.) |
|
3 |
+C. Net Benefits: ==== |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+====Advocacy skills – comparing advocacies only way to create solutions.==== |
|
6 |
+Advocacy skills is voter – tons of screwed up things in the world that we cant advocate without creating solutions to. |
|
7 |
+ |
|
8 |
+====Drop the debater:==== |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+====1~~ Time skew puts me at a disadvantage on substance.==== |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+====2~~ Sets a precedent that debaters can't run unfair arguments.==== |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+====3~~ Dropping them is key to rectify the abuse that has already occurred in the round.==== |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+====Competing Interps over Reasonability:==== |
|
17 |
+ |
|
18 |
+====1~~ Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable.==== |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+**====2~~ Competing interpretations creates an incentive to promote fair debate because it forces debaters to defend their interpretations.====** |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+====No RVIs:==== |
|
23 |
+ |
|
24 |
+====1~~ It's reciprocal—they could run theory and generate offense on the same layer of debate. ==== |
|
25 |
+ |
|
26 |
+====2~~ RVI's kill substance because it incentivizes both debaters to go all in on theory because it's the highest layer of the debate—outweighs because the topic only lasts two months. ==== |
|
27 |
+ |
|
28 |
+====3~~ Chilling effect—discourages checking abuse because cheap debaters will prep out common interps.==== |