| ... |
... |
@@ -1,23
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-**A-Interpretation: The negative must not read a plan inclusive counter-plan.** |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
-**B-Violation: The negative is running a counter-plan that lifts restrictions on the constitutionally protected speech.** |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
-**C-Standards:** |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-First, time skew. PICs moot the 6 minute AC giving neg a 13 to 7 advantage. Also, PICs force me to read new offense, which creates time skew for the 1AR. |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
-Second, ground. I can’t access free speech advantage if neg can just PIC out of it in the NC. |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
-Third, predictable limits. There’s no limit on what they can PIC out of. I have to prep answers to every minor alteration because I don’t know which one they’ll go for. |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-Fourth, clash. PICs kill clash because they refocus the debate on minor details of the plan that have nothing to do with AC offense. Clash outweighs other education standards because it’s the only form unique to debate. You can get topic education by staying home and doing research. |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-**D-Voters:** |
| 16 |
|
- |
| 17 |
|
-First, fairness is a voter since it’s a gateway issue to deciding the better debater.** |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
-Second, education is a voter since it’s the end-goal of debate; substance doesn’t matter unless there’s an educational value to discussing it.** |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
-Third, I’ll go for rejecting the argument is sufficient (A), The 1AR was skewed: I can’t redo it after the 2NR shifts. (B), Key to stop abuse: Drop the arg means neg still has a chance at winning. (C), Depth: Reject-the-arg theory allows substance which is net beneficial. |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
-Fourth, prefer competing interps because reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention. |