Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: West RM | Judge: Sean Fee

Shell

Interpretation

The AFF must defend the resolution generally everywhere while the NEG must reject the resolution generally everywhere.

Violation

Their AFF only applies in the instance of nuclear-powered submarines.

Standards

First, the NSDA rules state that both debaters must defend their sides of the resolution’s text as general principles.

NSDA 16
(National Speech and Debate Association; Lincoln Douglas Debate Textbook; 2016; https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Textbook.pdf)
No question of values can be determined entirely true or false. This is why the resolution is debatable. Therefore neither debater should be held to a standard of absolute proof. No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. • Burden of proof: Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of his/her side of the resolution as a general principle. As an LD resolution is a statement of value, there is no presumption towards either side. • Burden of clash: Each debater has an equal burden to clash with his/her opponent’s position. Neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his/her opponent. • Resolutional burden: The debaters are equally obligated to focus the debate on the central questions of the resolution, not whether the resolution itself is worthy of debate. Because the affirmative must uphold the resolution, the negative must also argue the resolution as presented. Additionally, specific elements of arguments or case positions may create further burdens for a particular debater. If one debater places a burden on himself or herself, it must be met in order to win the debate. If one debater places a burden on another, it must either be met or the debater must argue, and win, why they do not need to meet the burden to win the debate.

Given that this event falls within the jurisdiction of the NSDA, we have an intrinsic duty to obey the few NSDA rules that exist. Otherwise, we’d justify breaking rules like timings and topicality.

Second, they had infinite prep on this AFF – while I learned about this school less than an hour ago. That means all of the DISADs and turns on case are severely prepped out.

Third, this allows AFF the specify a plan where no NEG literature exists – that’s especially harmful to small schools like mine where we don’t have a million coaches and files to facilitate prep.

Fourth, my INTERP is always net-better – they can garner offense off submarines, but must defend a ban that applies to all nuclear power-plants. That way I can read DISADs and we can weigh; this allows for critical turn ground for clash and critical thinking.

Voter

Fairness – debate’s a competitive activity so there need to be constraints on competition that both debaters are equally obliged to adhere to. Also, we can’t have educational debates if debaters don’t have the ability to engage with the opponent’s arguments.

Lastly, no AFF RVIs.

First, this discourages people from running T against non-topical AFFs.

Second, debates don’t have to be all T or all substance – there should be multiple ways to test the AFF. This encourages more clash.

Third, you had 6 minutes of speech time to preempt theory claims.