We can kick out of the resolution Glass 2012, David, (David Glass is an assistant debate coach at Harvard.

He's published prior debate

theory articles in Rostrum, and two philosophy papers on scientific experimental design in peer reviewed journals. He has an M.D. and is the author of more than 70 other papers on molecular and cellular biology. He coached high school debate for over 30 years, and is a current board member of the Boston Debate League, and a former president of the National Debate Coaches Association.), February 2012, Neg-Neg Policy Debate Theory Escaping the Obligation to Defend a Resolution, https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Rostrum/0212_067_069a.pdf, Accessed 11/29/12

However, in the course of events, there comes to pass every now and then a resolution that is so egregiously written, so poorly conceived, or so incompletely thought out, that few affirmative debaters can defend it in good conscienceor with much plausible chance of being successful in a competitive debate round. Even in settings where the resolution is not on face indefensible, one might ask whether the affirmative, merely by being so-labeled, must in fact be obligated to defend a resolution. Indeed, one might ask why it absolutely must be the case that the affirmative argue in favor of a resolution that they might in actuality disagree with, and, if an alternate framework for debate is workable, why it might not be advocated by the academic Policy debater. This is to suggest that there is such an alternate possibilityto suggest that rather than the affirmative being obligated to defend the resolution, the affirmative could take the initiative of proving the resolution to be incorrect or falseand to do so in a way that does not require the negative team to defend the resolution (since to require such a thing would establish an untenable situation if the motivating factor for a Neg-Neg Framework is to allow for debate in the setting of a resolutions indefensibility. However, the negative team could choose to affirm the resolution given a particular affirmative approach its just important that they not be required to do so). This theory of debate is called Neg-Neg, in recognition that it would allow for competing reasons as to why the resolution should be rejectedthat the affirmative start with such a reason, and that the negative then argue for the rejection of the affirmative. In Neg-Neg Theory, the key aspect is competitionthat the affirmative and negative teams cannot be two ships passing in the night, but rather that the negative team has to do more than give an alternative rationale as to why the resolution is false the negative has to prove the affirmative rationale to be incorrect and thus deserving of rejection for some reason