A is the interpretation.

Debaters must only use evidence that is objective or analytical

B is the violation. My opponent is running narrative evidence and is requiring voting on
narratives.
C is the standards 1. Ground By presenting a case which relies on intuitive arguments such as the harms of
racism my ground is significantly reduced because I cant turn their offense without
sounding offensive. Ground is key to fairness because stewardesses
2. Predictability there are an infinite number of stories or narratives under every topic,
since stories cover every aspect or experience of an issue and can be expressed by any
actor associated with a situation. Assuming that narratives are legitimate argumentation, I
cant have any kind of pre-round predictability about which narrative my opponent will
choose since its impossible for me to research all narrative possibilities. Predictability is
key to fairness because the person running the unpredictable argument is prepared,
whereas I cant generate a counternarrative or another strategy because I dont have any
idea what their narrative might be about.
3. Effective clash by saying that they should win based on an arbitrary factor [such as
representation], they reduce effective clash. There is no way I can make arguments
against the actual position without first engaging in an un-educational debate about
whose arbitrary reason to win the round is better, which is ineffective because there is no
way to prioritize who deserves more [representation]. Constraining us to debating
empirical or analytical warrants eliminates this kind of debate because both types of
warrants are easily comparable. Effective clash is key to fairness because arbitrary
argumentation favors the side who anticipated the arbitrary clash, since they can prepare
marginally better arguments in advance for why their arbitrarily chosen position is better.
Effective clash is also key to education since it promotes argumentation and strategy that
cannot occur in a world absence clash, both of which are valuable skills that debate can
teach.
4. Judge Intervention Narratives are meant to sway the judge in the debaters favor by
having an emotional impact rather than having an educational impact. If the judge
himself identifies with the subject of the narrative, they run the risk of acting on bias
instead of choosing who the better debater is.

Fairness - competitive activity needs to be fair to ensure that people actually do the competitive
activity and to ensure that it actually has meaning, as it is only competitive if participants have an
equal chance of winning; a duel with a rocket launcher and a sword is ridiculous. And, the judge
cant make a neutral decision if the round is skewed toward one debater or another.
Education - the only real impact of the round that we take away, hurting education means that
you devalue debate itself.

SEE DEPENDING ON THE POSITION: switch-sides debate good, aff must be topical, nonimplementable kritik alternatives bad, mindset fiat bad and paradigm issues.