Reject Alt Bad

INTERPRETATION: Kritik alternatives must topically specify a comparative world or

policy that is distinct from the world of the aff. To clarify, this means she cant just
advocate a rejection of a world or simply say vote neg.
Evaluate under spirit of the interp because the standards clarify the intent and the abuse
story, which is better then allowing him to get away with sketchy I meets.

VIOLATION: We have no idea what the world of the alt looks like/the alt rejects all
policy action.

STANDARDS
1) REAL WORLD APPLICABILITY
Reject alts make no sense in the real worldyou cant just criticize policy actions
without providing an better alternative course of action that is feasible. Rejection of a
world is not an option for a government actor because they have to choose the
comparatively better option.
EVEN IF policies are counterproductive, thats utopian and irrelevant to how
governments act, so theres always a risk of an abuse story. Real world is key education
since it provides meaningful application of portable skills we learn in debatezero
deficit to my interp because their alt sidesteps the entire process, so the abuse is verified.
This also controls the internal link to his discourse arguments because we have to
make sure we are thinking the right way.

2) FIAT ABUSE
Rejection is functionally the same as reading non-unique disads to the aff, since theres
no way to turn their advocacy if theres no competing world or policy to indict. Its
utopian for him to fiat that all people in the world change their minds. If debaters can
always claim lack of solvency and garner offense, then theres no viable way for me to
access the ballotthats uniquely key ground I need to counterbalance the preclusive
nature of the kritik and generating offense in general, which is key to fairness.
This also prevents me from engaging in the discussion he says is good, so this
turns his discourse arguments substantively. Moreover, this substantively shows that his
advocacy only makes us go backwards because his solvency authors DO NOT support
doing nothing. He cant exclude my theory argument with discourse because I am
criticizing HOW he uses that discourseit functions on a higher level.

VOTERS
Fairness is a voter because you cant objectively decide the winner of the round unless
both debaters are on equal footing. Fairness precludes substance b/c its a gateway issue
to evaluate the content of the round. This denies any impact we gain from the K because
it is skewed. Even if it doesnt preclude substance entirely, its an internal link to his
offense because fairness is key to stopping oppression.
Education is a voter b/c its the constitutive goal of debate and the reason why schools
fund debate. Links to both fairness and education outweigh because marginal loss in one
doesnt outweigh massive loss in the other

Drop the debaterthe substantive level of the debate round is skewed, youve claimed
structural advantages by running the unfair arguments in the first place that have skewed
my strategy and time. Also cant drop the argument on an advocacy since they would
functionally have no offenseif you drop their advocacy then you still automatically
vote for me.

No RVIs
1) Chilling effect: RVIs chill me from reading theory to check abusive practices because
I know they can turn the tables on me, outweighs other theoretical justifications for
RVIs because this means abuse will further proliferate because theres no check on it
2) Logically incoherent: I read theory because theyre abusive, winning that they arent
abusive doesnt warrant voting me down; kills fairness b/c they can win off defense
but I cant
3) Prep skew: debaters reading the abusive argument know that theory will be read on
them so theyll prep it out, so allowing them to go all in for theory with the RVI just
solidifies the advantage

AT Discourse First
1) I control the internal link: Discourse only operates in a world where both sides have a
fair opportunity to discuss the topics in the round. For example, if only one person is
talking then theres discourse but we wouldnt call it good.
2) Its a prerequisite: The reason discourse has meaning is because it empowers the
judge to make a choice, but if there is only one option to endorse because an abusive
practice then the discussion becomes meaningless. Empirically proven since anything
I advocate for links to the K.
AND, these arguments dont contradict the role of the ballot established in the 1AC,
because I accept that the terminal goal or impact is to deconstruct oppression, these are
all just internal links to having a better discussion about the issue.

PREEMPTS/WEIGHING
Policymaking first
1) STRUCTURAL SKEW: I speak first and am bound to the topics affirmation,
critical frameworks moot the 6 minutes of the 1AC and deprives it of the context to
which it was readkills fairness.
2) ROLE OF THE BALLOT: The resolution and our plan text serve as a cohesive
basis to productive and unambiguous debate. Critical frameworks justify finding
external flaws our speech while offering no consistent way to determine a winner
thats your role as a judge.
3) LIMITS: There are an infinite number of critical frameworks with which to evaluate
a round. The plan requires U.S. federal government action, which is the only
predictable frameworkkey to fairness because it ensures equal access to the ballot.
4) POLICYMAKING: Critical frameworks make it impossible to learn about the
positives and negatives of state action, which is a prerequisite to becoming a good
policymaker. The aff can never win in a world where the negative can get away with
reading counterwarrants to the plan every roundkills discussing the core of the
topic.