Short THEORY due to the time restrictions A.

Interpretation The AFF cannot just offer a both an utopian or imaginary policy that closes all loopholes without specifying a way to actually do it. B. Violation The Con tries to offer the policy that closes loopholes without specifying a law that actually solves. C. Standard Time skew: They force the pro to prove why every single nuance of the law is not flawed. This makes it impossible to make other arguments that are offensive given the amount of time. This links to education because when a side gets more allotted time to argue, this inevitably leads to a one sided debate by violating the time frame's fairness. The purpose of public forum in the TFA rules is to increase the depth of analysis within debate which is rendered impossible when the only layer is an blippy alternative with no text. Ground Skew: They force the pro to defend the exact law instead of the principle of the law which turns the debate into a policy debate, this means they destroy the purpose of public forum and even if we debate like they do in CX they don't specify a counter pla. All the negative has to do is change the law a single time and mitigate offense from the pro. When the ground is uneven in this case, one side has a larger field to score the touchdown and we only have this narrow bottleneck which destroys the integrity of debate. Research burden: They force the pro to research in every single nuance of the law. Specifically they don't use topic literature to engage in an educational debate that is specifically relevant and commonly used in this topic, making their position entirely unpredictable. This destroys education when one side is able to walk into the round

knowing exactly what their opponents will say and the other side has absolutely no clue. VOTERS Education is the voter for this round because without education, the violation of the purpose of debate according to the TFA constitution occurs and there is no funding for debate and there is no reason to debate in order to learn when every time someone enters the round, they know they will have an incredibly hard to proving their side to the judge because they have less time to make constructive arguments, the other side can pre write their positions, and they steal ground when the only pro/con difference is a word. Because our opponents violate this principle of ethics and education in debate, you should drop the debater and because we have had to spend way too much time on this issue, the theory shell is a gateway issue, if it goes conceded, a priori affirm