Scarsdale

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter
Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13
Generic Theory Shells

Table of Contents
Phil Spec.........................................................................................................................................6
Miscutting Evidence Bad..............................................................................................................7
Rakowski Bad.................................................................................................................................8
AFC.................................................................................................................................................9
Short AFC..............................................................................................................................................9
Long AFC...............................................................................................................................................9
AFC Frontlines....................................................................................................................................10
A2 Aff Can Pick Abusive Framework................................................................................................10
A2 Over-Compensates the Aff/Give them something else................................................................10
A2 Phil Education...............................................................................................................................10
A2 Time Skew Unimportant...............................................................................................................11
A2 Aff has the advantage....................................................................................................................11
AFC Bad.......................................................................................................................................13
A2 Topical Clash..................................................................................................................................14
A2 Strat Skew......................................................................................................................................14
A2 Time Skew......................................................................................................................................14
ACC...............................................................................................................................................16
ACC Frontlines....................................................................................................................................17
A2 Topical Education..........................................................................................................................17
Definitional Links Bad................................................................................................................18

Cant Spec under Descriptive Standards...................................................................................19
Descriptive Standards Bad..........................................................................................................20
Frontlines for Descriptive Standards Bad.........................................................................................22
A2 He Can Compare Evidence...........................................................................................................22
Deont Weighing Between Violations.....................................................................................23

Frontlines for Deont Weighing Between Violations.....................................................................26
A2 This is weighingI give certain arguments priority...................................................................26
A2 You can just argue permissibility/presumption goes your way..................................................26
A2 You can just answer my standard.................................................................................................26
A2 This is just a strategic cost of reading a means based framework.............................................26
A2 Theory cant dictate substance.....................................................................................................26
Extinction Precludes Bad............................................................................................................27

Extinction Precludes Good..........................................................................................................28
A2 Resolvability...................................................................................................................................28
A2 Ground...........................................................................................................................................28
A2 Strategy Skew................................................................................................................................28
A2 Clash...............................................................................................................................................28
No New Preclusion.......................................................................................................................29
Truth Testing Good......................................................................................................................31
T-No Squo.....................................................................................................................................33
GENERIC THEORY SHELLS 1

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Contingent Standards Bad..........................................................................................................34
Contingent Standards Good (Regular)......................................................................................35
On the Violation...................................................................................................................................35
A2 Reciprocity.....................................................................................................................................36
A2 Strat Skew......................................................................................................................................36
Contingent Standards Good (Strategic Thinking)....................................................................37

Frontlines for Contingent Standards Good (Strategic Thinking)....................................................39
A2 Strategic Thinking Breeds Bad Arguments.................................................................................39
A2 Ground...........................................................................................................................................40
A2 Util Encourages Strategic Thinking.............................................................................................41
A2 Deep Learning Voter.....................................................................................................................41
A2 Advocacy Skills..............................................................................................................................41
A2 Your Voter Presumes a Link To Education..................................................................................42
A2 You Justify Skepticism!.................................................................................................................42
Solvency Advocate Key................................................................................................................43

Contradictions Bad......................................................................................................................44
CX Checks Bad............................................................................................................................45
NR Overview.......................................................................................................................................46
Frontlines.............................................................................................................................................46
A2 Potential Abuse..............................................................................................................................46
A2 Better for his strat because he can get my to kick args...........................................................47
A2 CX Checks Bad......................................................................................................................48
Multiple Distinct Impacts Bad....................................................................................................50
Deont One Violation...............................................................................................................51
Taint Bad......................................................................................................................................53
Indentity Bad................................................................................................................................54
Presumption Triggers Bad..........................................................................................................56
Severance Bad..............................................................................................................................57
NC Preempt.........................................................................................................................................57
NR Theory...........................................................................................................................................57
A2 Severance Bad........................................................................................................................58
A2 Strat Skew......................................................................................................................................58
A2 Ground...........................................................................................................................................58
A2 Time Skew......................................................................................................................................58
Non-Falsifiable Arguments Bad.................................................................................................59

Straight Ref Bad..........................................................................................................................60
Only Aff RVIs Bad.......................................................................................................................61
A2 Only Aff RVIs Bad.................................................................................................................62
Frontlines for Only Aff RVIs Bad......................................................................................................63
A2 Its Potential Abuse........................................................................................................................63

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A2 Aff Time Skew................................................................................................................................63
Truisms Bad..................................................................................................................................64
Link and Impact Turns Key........................................................................................................65
Frontlines.............................................................................................................................................66
A2 You can do it too............................................................................................................................66
A2 Artificial Sufficiency......................................................................................................................66
Contractarianism Bad.................................................................................................................67
Ks must only be pre-fiat or post-fiat.........................................................................................68
Kritiks Bad...................................................................................................................................69
Fairness > Kritiks................................................................................................................................69
Artificial Sufficiency One Arg...............................................................................................71

No Substantive Presumption Args..............................................................................................72
A2 Parameters..............................................................................................................................73
As An Overview to Parameters..........................................................................................................73
A2 Predictability..................................................................................................................................73
A2 Ground...........................................................................................................................................73
A2 Real World.....................................................................................................................................73
No Theoretical Standard Jutsifications.....................................................................................75

Defender of Justice/Injustice File...............................................................................................76
Must Have a Standard.................................................................................................................77
Neg Skep Bad...............................................................................................................................78
General Skep Bad........................................................................................................................79
Indicting Assumptions Bad.........................................................................................................81
A Prioris Bad--Negative (NC).....................................................................................................82
A Prioris Bad--Affirmative (1AR)..............................................................................................84
Necessary but Insufficient Standards Bad................................................................................85
Frontlines for Necessary but Insufficient Standards Bad.................................................................86
A2 Nec/insuff standards k2 phil ground............................................................................................86
A2 You have link turn ground win that the aff case mandates [NC standard]............................86
A2 Nec/insuff burdens are permissible if negs are not allowed to make offensive arguments on
the AC...................................................................................................................................................86
A2 You can run them too....................................................................................................................86
A2 Necessary but Insufficient Standards Bad...........................................................................88

A2 NIBS Bad: Overview.....................................................................................................................88
Counter-interp.............................................................................................................................89
A2 Reciprocity.....................................................................................................................................89
A2 Clash...............................................................................................................................................90
Multiple Conditions on standards bad......................................................................................92


Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A2 Multiple Condition on standards bad..................................................................................93
Permissibility Bad--Affirmative (1AR)......................................................................................94
Must Number Spikes...................................................................................................................95
LARP Theory...............................................................................................................................96
PICs Bad.......................................................................................................................................97
PICs Good.....................................................................................................................................98
Meta-Theory.................................................................................................................................99
Arbitrary Planks Bad................................................................................................................100
Positively Worded Interpretations...........................................................................................101
Multiple Shells Bad....................................................................................................................102
Multiple Shells Reasonability/RVI......................................................................................103
Frontlines...........................................................................................................................................104
Shouldnt have been abusive multiple times...................................................................................104
Can Weigh Theory.............................................................................................................................104
AC Paragraph Theory Bad.......................................................................................................105

Frontlines...........................................................................................................................................106
A2 Its potential abuse.......................................................................................................................106
A2 You can read a voter and violations against yourself, then read an RVI.................................106
AC Paragraph Theory Good....................................................................................................107

Contradictory Interps Bad........................................................................................................108
Potential Abuse Drop the Arg..............................................................................................110
One C-Interp..............................................................................................................................112
No C-Interps and I meets.........................................................................................................114
Drop the Arg Bad.......................................................................................................................116
Multiple 1AR Shells Bad...........................................................................................................117
Frontlines for Meta-Theory......................................................................................................118
A2 Meta-Theory.........................................................................................................................119
General Responses.....................................................................................................................120
A2 Deters Future Abuse............................................................................................................121
A2 Norm Creation.....................................................................................................................122
A2 Its Necessary to Check Abusive Theory............................................................................123
Shells to be written down:
1. Fix contingent standards bad
2. Make sure extinction precludes bad it done
3. Fix no new preclusion

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Make sure skep bad is good

Write out NIBs Bad
Prep out meta-theory
Prep out parameters
if the aff reads theory in the 1ar they may only read one voter OR must prioritize voters
Must run contingencies

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13
REGULAR SHELLS
PHIL SPEC
A-Interpretation: Debaters should not be able to justify a specific rule as the standard by
appealing to multiple moral theories and independent justifications without committing to one in
particular. Rather, debaters should be required to defend a unified moral theory and only justify it
in one way.
B-Violation: S/he claims that we should [respect X rule] and justifies it [under deontology and
utilitarianism?] but fails to commit to a more general moral theory.
C-Standards:
1. Ground: The rule structure allows him/her to kick out of any indicts I make against
a moral theory because it can always be justified under another moral theory. This
accommodates whatever I run so that I have zero ground to attack the framework
without contradicting myself, which prevents me from forming a stable advocacy.
Attempting to reduce moral calculations to one rule excludes any arguments I make
that relate to other rules justified under other moral theories, which means I lose all
ground to attack the actual theories they advocate. Ground is key to fairness because
its the basis on which we make arguments.
2. Strat skew: They have multiple different ways the leverage their case against mine,
meaning I need to substantively answer every single FW justification, but they only
need to respond to the single theory that I advocate, skewing my strategy and forcing
me to overcover on the FW. Strategy is key to forming a coherent ballot story.
3. Resolvability: There is no way to prioritize rules or weigh between violations without
a meta-standard to make those determinations; only a unified theory like deontology or
utility can reconcile conflicts. Resolvability is the biggest impact on theory because
its necessary for a decision to be made.
4. Clash: They will just for the argument that I cover least, which means we cant
actually have a debate about which theory is better. Clash is key to education because
the comparison of arguments is the only unique educational impact to debate.
D-Voter: Fairness is a voter because unfair arguments arbitrarily skew your evaluation of the
round and it precedes substance because it frames its evaluation. Education is a voter because
its the reason schools fund debate as they have an a priori commitment to teaching students.
Drop the debater a) to set a precedent for the best norms of debate b) to deter future abuse and c)
to rectify time lost running theory. Use competing interps because a) what is reasonably fair is
arbitrary and b) reasonability encourages debaters to get away with increasingly unfair strategies
through defense on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI a) both debaters have the burden of being
fair, and no one deserves to win for just meeting that burden and b) to prevent the deterrence of
legitimate theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

MISCUTTING EVIDENCE BAD
A-Interpretation: Debaters must cut and read cards consistently with the authors intention.
Even if debaters can read cards summarizing a different view than the carded author, they must
make that fact clear when reading the card.
B-Violation:
C-Standards:
1. Integrity of the Activity: this disgraceful practice spreads misconceptions throughout
the LD community. If nobody bothers to check the sources of what top debaters or
coaches cut, its easy for us to unknowingly misrepresent authors. This tarnishes
debates reputation as an activity, since schools will think twice about funding an
activity that allows lazy kids to regurgitate the same evidence over and over again and
look like idiots in philosophy class.
2. Incentivizing Research: Voting them down ensures a check on debaters that dont do
their own work. Other responses kill ALL out of round educationits OBVIOUS
that he didnt cut the card because the context its in isnt something you miss. Voting
them up is an endorsement of debaters regurgitating evidence instead of cutting and
understanding it. Research is key education because its how we learn out of round
and is key to informed clash.
D-Voter: Its a voter for education because 1) schools fund debate because philosophical and
topical argumentation provides a unique learning experience, 2) absent the threat of losing,
debaters will run educationally bankrupt arguments, creating the race to the bottom and impeding
debates purpose, and 3) in this case, dropping the debater is keyyoud get kicked out of a
class or get a zero on an essay for misrepresenting an author, so you definitely deserve to get
kicked out of a debate round for doing so. And, theorys a matter of competing interps because
theres no metric that determines whats reasonablea comparative evaluation of offense is all
an impartial judge can use to make a decision.
Rakowski Violation
B-Violation: Rakowski goes on to rip the consequentialist argument he outlines to shreds.
Rakowski1 writes RIGHT UNDERNEATH THEIR CARD:
On one side, it presses towards the consequentialist view that individuals status as moral equals requires that the number of people kept alive be maximized. Only in this way, the thought runs, can we give due
weight to the fundamental equality of persons; to allow more deaths when we can ensure fewer is to treat some people as less valuable than others. Further, killing some to save others, or letting some die for that
purpose, does not entail that those who are killed or left to their fate are being used merely as means to the well-being of others, as would be true if they were slain or left to drown merely to please people who would
live anyway. They do, of course, in some cases serve as means. But they do not act merely as means. Those who die are no less ends than those who live. It is because they are also no more ends than others whose
Despite the abstract appeal of

this reasoning, many people, myself included, shrink from embracing it. The
unqualified maximizing rule it apparently implies is intuitively unacceptable. It also gives
lives are in the balance that an impartial decision-maker must choose to save the more numerous group, even if she must kill to do so.
insufficient scope to peoples freedom to decide which risks to run or which benefits to reap. Nonconsensual adult organ transplants, for example, are morally intolerable when people face different likelihoods of
needing organs based on their voluntary behavior and no one is allowed to opt out of the transfer scheme. Those who rebel at this utilitarian recasting of the distinction between using people as means and regarding
them as ends, and who accept the preceding criticisms of Costa, Locke, and others, will be pushed to its polar opposite.
1 Rakowksi, Eric. Taking and Saving Lives. Columbia Law Review, Vol. 93, No.5. June, 1993. JSTOR. Pgs. 10821083.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

AFC
Short AFC
If the affirmative substantively justifies their framework, and their framework for the round is
theoretically legitimate, the negative must concede to that standard as it is contextualized in the
AC and debate under it. AFC is key to check the neg time skew and their ability to layer the
debate by forcing the debate to one layer where I can weigh else negatives can spread out
affirmatives with off-cases and collapse to whichever one I undercover. This controls the internal
link to all education arguments because no critical thinking occurs when negatives can just
extend dropped framework layers to win automatically. AFC forces debaters to emphasize debate
on the topic, which necessitates argument generation and responses. And, statistics 2 prove that
the neg is at significant advantage, meaning generic reasons why there isnt a time skew are not
responsive. And, even if AFC structurally disadvantages the aff thats necessary to rectify side
bias. Time skew is the strongest link into fairness because its the only objective measure we
have coming into the round. Any negative theoretical response to this shell is a defensive
counter-interpretation at best since they would justify that the neg may respond to the aff
framework.
Long AFC
2 Fantasy Debate. National Statistics. Fantasydebate.com/ld-national-statistics


Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

AFC Frontlines
A2 Predictability
1. Turn: By limiting the aff to fair frameworks, my interp is more predictable since it just
limits the frameworks that negs would have had to predict anyway.
2. Turn: The negative might not have as much prep on the issue as the affirmative, but the
negative still has the advantage of a seven-minute rebuttal and then six minutes to answer
four. This means that the slight affirmative prep advantage counteracts the time
advantage.
3. Switch side debate solves this problem. The negative debater gets to affirm half the time
so will have a framework that they are entirely prepared on.
A2 Ground
1. My interp solves, since the aff framework has to be theoretically legitimate. If my
specific standard is abusive, thats okaythey just need to show that and they dont
violate my interp. Insofar as they dont, though, ground goes away.
2. Turn: The abuse of my standards outweighs because the negative can always pick a
standard like that (functionally turnable but difficult to turn) and then has the time
advantage on the framework debate. At least under my interpretation aff standards are
checked and theres no time skew.
A2 Over-Compensates Aff:
1. No abuse: It doesnt overcompensate the aff since we still have equally sufficient turn
ground on the contention level.
2. It is the only way to sufficiently compensate the aff. It makes the AC 100% valuable and
prevents the neg from making preclusion for 7 minutes or spreading out the aff case with
off case positions.
3. They dont propose an alternative to AFC or explain how an alt would solve the abuse but
concede the time skew is a problem. That means they are under-compensating the aff
more than Im over-compensating.
4. Giving the aff presumption/permissibility ground doesnt compensate the time skew since
the problem is not a deficit of quantity of ground. Rather, it is a coverage problem,
uniquely caused by neg preclusion.
5. Extend from the AC that time skew outweighs since we have a finite amount of time that
constrains our ability to make arguments. That means even if I disadvantage the neg, it
doesnt matter because compensating for the time skew is the most important fairness
impact.
A2 Phil Education

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

1. No loss of education. My interp says that the neg must only concede to the aff framework
if it is substantively justified. As such, debaters are still required to research in depth
philosophy.
2. Non-unique. Debaters still learn about philosophy but just in a different way. We get to
learn about how different offensive arguments link back to the WAY the framework is
justified.
3. T/ Debaters have to do the most reading under my interp because they never know what
framework they might hitunder another interp they can read the same neg case or
generic framework dump every round, but this requires them to be prepared for every
possible framework, and do preround reading on it.
4. Non-unique: They can still raise philosophical objections to my framework in terms of
theoretical objections, for example, by running a debatability standard.
5. T/ I control the internal link because debaters have to engage in theories that arent
necessarily justifiable in the course of a debate roundsome theories, like intuitionism,
are prevalent in the philosophical literature but are difficult to justify in the course of a
debate round. By running AFC, we assume theories to be true and are able to engage in
the widest amount of theories.
6. T/ Even if they win AFC is bad for phil ed, that would mean we have more time to spend
actually engaging the topic since less time would be spent on framework. Prefer impacts
to topical education since a) it has the most relevance to the real world post-debate.
Philosophy has no meaning in a vacuum. b) the framers choose particular topics because
they think they are extremely educational. c) topics change every two months so we have
less time to learn about them, yet framework debates happen every topic. d) Framework
debates are becoming less and less creative as debaters continue to recycle the same
Katstafanas and Velleman cards. Whereas the topic encourages new and innovative
research.
7. Extend the turn out of the aff that AFC controls the internal link to phil education because
otherwise negs can just extend dropped framework layers to win automatically.
8. There is just a different type of phil-ed in the aff world. In the neg world we talk about
two different frameworks. But, under my interp we focus more in depth on one. Depth
outweighs breadth because it gives our education more meaning and fosters critical
thinking.
A2 Time Skew Unimportant:
1. They concede that the neg is at a statistical advantage, but dont propose a way to explain
the neg bias. Time skew and structural advantages based in the negs ability to preclude
aff offense is the only feasible explanation.
2. Time is a finite resource in round so it outweighs all other standards. It doesnt matter
whether we have equal access to ground if dont have time to make those arguments in
round.
3. Even if most arguments cause some time skew, my argument is that neg preclusion
caused by the framework debate causes a MASSIVE time skew. I spent a large portion of
the AC on generating offense that becomes irrelevant under the NC.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A2 Neg is at an Advantage:
1. Extend that the neg has a 7% win bias based on a sample size of 30 thousand rounds.
Their arguments are anecdotal since my stats take into account the most number of
rounds and account for the most error.
2. This is patently false. There is a reason everyone flips neg in outrounds. He is just on the
worng side of the issue.
3. All of his analytics for the aff has structural advantages are just empirical claims without
empirical warrants. My statistic proves those advantages are miniscule in comparison to
the advantages that the neg has.
4. The extension of the argument would be that Neg gets framework choice because they
are disadvantaged. But that links to a different cinterp than the one he read. Reject this
argument and his whole counter-interp since contradictions skew my strat since I dont
know which side of the contradiction to go for.
A2 Aff Speaks 1st and Last:
1. T/ Speaking 1st disadvantages the aff since it means the aff goes into the round blind
while the nc can be adaptive. Speaking last isnt an advantage since judges wont
evaluate new 2ar arguments.
2. Even though I quantitatively have more speeches, Im still qualitatively behind because
Im more time pressed in each speech. It doesnt matter if I have a 2ar if Im screwed
after the 1ar.
A2 Aff Gets Infinite Pre-Round Prep:
1. This argument makes no sense. The neg has an infinite amount of pre-round prep too, so
it is non-unique.
2. It doesnt matter how much pre-round prep I have because I still go into the round blind. I
cant prep against a neg strategy I dont know.
A2 Aff Won More Rounds at TOC:
1. This is anecdotal. This is one tournament but my fantasy debate statistic is based upon a
sample of over 30 thousand rounds so it outweighs.
2. On the TOC topic last year, affs had permissibility ground even though they normally do
not, so you can't apply it to this topic.
3. T/ affs did better at TOC because of AFC. Debaters like Regan and Pritt brought AFC
back and did well with it.
A2 Aff Gets 2 Layers in 1AR:
1. Kicking in the 1AR is never a good option for the aff because the neg has 6 minutes to
spread out the aff in the 2NR.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

2. This argument merely justifies that AFC actually disadvantages the aff. But, that assumes
I actually want a second layer. Reject altruistic theory because debaters would only ever
read an interpretation that they find to be advantageous to them.
3. This arg isnt a turn. At best it just proves that the aff can debate just on the nc rather than
just on the ac. Its only mitigatory defense, so vote on a risk of offense back to time skew.
4. They could just read an NC that structural advantages them so that I couldnt kick. My
interpretation says AFC is good only if my framework is fair. Their cinterp doesnt say
afc is bad so long as the neg framework is fair.
AFC BAD
A-Interpretation: Debaters must be allowed to substantively contest opposing frameworks.
B-Violation: He runs AFC in the AC, which theoretically prevents me from contesting his
framework.
C-Standards:
1. Ground: The aff would always win since they can just pick a framework under which the
topic lit flows aff. [This is even true for util, since there are always better arguments on
one side of the resolution.] Also, even if they prove that their standard is fair, they will
always be more prepared on it, since they chose it in the first, putting me a significant
disadvantage. Ground is key to fairness because it dictates what arguments can be made
in round.
2. Philosophical education: There is zero philosophical education because there is no
incentive to develop any framework. If AFC was the norm, people would just assert the
standard since it would be uncontestable. Standards debate is key to education because it
forces debaters to discuss complex ethical ideas, encouraging higher level critical
thinking. Also, philosophical education only exists in LD debate since other formats
presume utility so his interp uniquely destroys an avenue to learn about moral theories.
Finally, phil education precludes a) fairness because we need to have philosophical
education to understand what it means to be fair and b) education because philosophy
teaches us what is valuable, so even if we can make good decisions with other education,
we wont make ethically valuable ones. And, philosophy is important because it allows
us to question our prejudices and avoid nihilism. Russell3:
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy
goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense , from the
habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To
such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and
unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we
find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy,
though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities
which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while
diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those
who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect. Apart from its utility
philosophy has a value -- perhaps its chief value -- through the greatness of the objects which it
the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this
in showing unsuspected possibilities,

contemplates, and
3 Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy, CHAPTER XV : THE VALUE OF

PHILOSOPHY. http://www.skepdic.com/russell.html

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

contemplation. The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests: family and friends may be included, but the outer world
is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison
with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner
or later, lay our private world in ruins. Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleagured fortress,
knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and
the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.
3. Strat Skew: AFC allows the aff to dictate what the neg strategy will be for the round.
This overcompensates the aff for timeskew, turning their time/strat skew standards.
Further, this allows the aff to frontline and prep everything on the contention debate,
skewing the negs ability to win the round because the aff will always be significantly
more prepped on the contention level. Strat is key to fairness because both debaters need
to form a sufficient strategy to win the round.
D-Voter: Education is a voter because its the reason schools fund debate, as the have a
commitment to teaching students, and it precedes substance because theory frames the evaluation
of all substantive arguments.
And, this is an offensive reason to vote because
And, even if it isnt an offensive reason to, offensive counter interps are reasons to vote
because
Read RVI.
A2 Topical Clash
1. Standards debate is a side constraint to topical clash because development in the
standards debate allows us to have a nuanced contention debates
2. Even if topical clash outweighs phil education in a vacuum, the impact of AFC is the
destruction of standards debate, while topical clash is still possible in a world where we
dont have afc, so my link into phil education outweighs
3. The ground standard contains the internal link to topical clash because if the quality of
arguments is skewed towards one debater its significantly harder to engage them on the
contention level debate, so there is lower level clash.
A2 Strat Skew
1. They can also run a preclusive standard or load up the ac with spikes so they can still
exclude neg positions.
2. This overcompensates; you can compensate by giving them theoretical presumption and
an RVI.
1.
2.
3.
4.
A2 Time Skew
Time skews arent important since they can be overcome by more strategic use of time or
efficiency drills.
TURN: The aff has the structural advantage of speaking last, thus being able to decide
which arguments are most important.
TURN: The aff gets infinite pre-round prep time. This outweighs the time skew since it
allows the aff to employ well-practiced strategies to preclude and nullify neg speech time.
TURN: The aff speaks first, allowing the aff to lay the original terms of the debate.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

5. The time skew is small and not commensurate to the aff getting AFC, this just
overcompensates the aff.
6. Theres no time skew: we both get 13 minutes
7. TURN: topic checks back they can generate tricks in the AC that stand for two
subsequent speeches particularly due to how vague this topic is while I only have 1
speech to respond to the extensions of these arguments in the 1ar.
8. TURN: this topic in particular favors the aff because the best most recent high quality
meta-analytic which reviews other evidence has been written in favor of rehab so you
assume that Im winning if the round has to go down to presumption

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

ACC
Moreover, I advocate for ACC, Aff Contention Choice. At the 2013 Tournament of Champions,
if the affirmative justifies their contention and cedes the ability to turn the neg standard, then the
neg must cede the ability to tun the aff standard. Prefer this interpretation because: ACC solves
the unfairness caused by the time skew. In the world of ACC the debate is limited to one issue,
framework debate. This solves the time skew completely by making the framework 100%
valuable, giving each side 13 minutes of argumentation on the issue. In a world without ACC,
the negative can run preclusion and turns for seven minutes and mitigate the value of the AC on
multiple layers. And, statistics4 prove that the neg is at significant advantage, meaning generic
reasons why there isnt a time skew are not responsive. Time is key to constraining arguments
and having a chance to win the round. This also means that the neg needs to compensate for the
aff time skew in some way, so absent an alternative to ACC, you must use it. And, ACC doesnt
harm topical education since a) my interp says debaters can run ACC ONLY at the TOC. Weve
already debated this topic for 3 months. b) debaters still have to substantively justify their
contention. As such, they are still forced to do in-depth topical research. c) debaters just cant
turn each others cases. They can put terminal defense on cases if the offense really does not link
into the standard. Thus, we still have arg comparison. Moreover, ACC increases philosophical
education by making the round functionally come down to the framework debate. Prefer phil ed
over topical education since a)contention debates always inherently advantage one side, and are
harder to clash on. For example, if a debater runs a Korsgaard framework, Korsgaard probably
believes the resolution clearly affirms or negates, but not both. Clash is key to education since it
is the basis for in-round arguments. b) Framework debates allow for more creativity. There are a
finite amount of contention level args that make sense to link into the framework. But,
philosophers have been debating about morality for centuries. c) Contention debates arbitrarily
advantage the team that cuts more cards on a topic. Framework debates instead are more about
critical thinking and in-depth argument interaction. Further, fairness is a relative concept.
Anything that the aff can do that the neg can do is also fair since it is inherently equal. Since I
cede the ability to turn the NC, there is no abuse on ACC.
4 Fantasy Debate. National Statistics. Fantasydebate.com/ld-national-statistics

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

ACC Frontlines
A2 Topical Education

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

DEFINITIONAL LINKS BAD
A-Interpretation: All contention level arguments must be link and impact turnable, and cannot
be based on definitional links to the standard. A definitional link is one where I am forced to
defend a particular interpretation of the resolution and their case says why that specific
interpretation is bad.
B-Violation:
C-Standards:
1. Ground: There is no way for me to link turn their case because I am forced to defend a
particular advocacy that the case indicts. [This is specifically true with their case
because] Also, only impact turn ground is horrible since a) they also have access to it,
creating a quantitative skew, and b) impact turns really only makes sense against util or
semantic-based arguments, which means my ground against their particular case is
terrible. Ground is key to fairness because it dictates our ability to formulate arguments
and win the round.
round and it precedes substance because it frames its evaluation. Drop the debater a) to set a
precedent for the best norms of debate b) to deter future abuse and c) to rectify time lost running
theory. Use competing interps because a) what is reasonably fair is arbitrary and b)
reasonability encourages debaters to get away with increasingly unfair strategies through defense
on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI a) both debaters have the burden of being fair, and no one
deserves to win for just meeting that burden and b) to prevent the deterrence of legitimate theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CANT SPEC UNDER DESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS
A. Interpretation: If the aff is running a descriptive standard (I.E. contracts), they must
defend the resolution in general and not specify a particular context.
B. Violation: The AC is contracts based and they spec U.S.
C. Standards: Ground. Specing a scenario nukes neg ground because the aff can just spec a
particular context in which the law permits a deadly force in response to domestic
violence, and can exclude all other legal contracts by specing this particular area. This
makes it functionally impossible to win because this permits them picking the specific
area and legal contract, giving the aff the right to exclude all neg ground. This is the
strongest link into fairness because it allows the aff to make it literally impossible for the
neg to win. Ground is key to fairness because both debaters need an equal playing field to
make arguments.
D. Fairness is a voter because unfair arguments arbitrarily skew your evaluation of the
round towards the unfair debater, and it precedes substance because it frames the
evaluation of ALL substantive arguments. Education is a voter because its the reason
fund debate as they have a commitment to teaching students. Drop the debater a) to set a
precedent for the best norms of debate, which is the purpose of establishing theoretical
interpretations, b) to deter future abuse, and c) to rectify the time lost running theory
which skewed my ability to win substantively. Evaluate theory through competing
interpretations because a) reasonability is completely arbitrary as whats reasonable to
you may not be reasonable to me and b) reasonability creates a race to the bottom since it
encourages debaters to use increasingly unfair strategies and get away with them by
playing defense on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI in order to prevent the deterrence
of legitimate theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

DESCRIPTIVE STANDARDS BAD
A-Interpretation: All offense to standards or burdens cannot come purely from historical fact or
empirical fact about how the world is presently.
B-Violation: They violate because there is a matter of fact about their offense, since it is based in
facts...
C-Standards:
1. Turn ground: Their interpretation eliminates my ability to generate valid offense on case
because their case relies upon factual observations, which are either by default correct or
false. Claiming that I can re-contextualize their standard concedes their abuse, since Im
always going to be behind on the weighing debate. Ground is key since it dictates our
ability to argue and win.
2. Resolvability: Since their framework only relies upon observations for its conclusions,
contradictory descriptive claims would prevent their framework from objectively
assessing the ethical value of the action, making the debate irresolvable. Resolvability is
key since every debate needs a winner.
3. Reciprocity: Their interpretation creates a HUGE strategy skew because each descriptive
claim is sufficient to meet their standard. Even if I disprove all but of one of them, its
still sufficient for them to win because the observation verifies the factual nature of their
framework. Reciprocity is key since it ensures equal pathways to the ballot.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A2 He Can Compare Evidence
1. Just because a person is an expert does not mean that their descriptive account of
something is 100% true. For example, the fact that Rawls is a famous philosopher does
not mean that his account of what the ideal government is automatically the correct view.
2. Evidence comparison doesnt tell you which descriptive account is more correct; it just
tells you which card is better worded. Saying that my evidence is better warranted
requires an appeal to an evaluative framework that decides what a warrant is, but their
standard denies such a framework. Thus, saying that my card is better warranted is a
meaningless statement.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

DEONT WEIGHING BETWEEN VIOLATIONS
A-Interpretation: Means-based deontological standards must allow debaters to weigh between
competing violations.
B-Violation: He asserts that if there are violations on both sides then you vote for him because
permissibility/presumption goes aff/neg.
C-Standards:
1. Ground: This unfairly skews the round towards them since all they need is a RISK of a
violation, while I need to prove that I meet the constraint 100% or I lose. This also allows
them to extend through ink and ignore all of my arguments and still win, nullifying all of
my speech time. Dont let them say I can go for permissibility affirmsmy argument is
that their interpretation is bad for debate, since it always screws one person over, making
the round unfair. Also, even if they say I can make arguments that say permissibility
affirms/negates, those arguments are bound to be terrible. Ground is key to fairness
because its the basis on which we make arguments.
2. Topic literature: He is just lying when he says deontology defaults to
inaction/permissibility when faced by conflicts. Deontology has no conflicts of duty,
because it prescribes ends that we must take up, not specific actions. Kant5:
A conflict of duties (collision officiorum s. obligationum) would be that relationship between duties by virtue [in] which one would (wholly or partially) cancel the
Because, however, duty and obligation are in general concepts that express the objective practical
necessity of certain actions and because two mutually opposing rules cannot be
necessary at the same time, then, if it is a duty to act according to one of them, it
is not only not a duty but contrary to duty to act according to the other. It follows, therefore, that a
conflict of duties and obligations is inconceivable (obligationes non colliduntur). It may, however, very well happen that
other.
two grounds of obligation (rationes obligandi), one or the other of which is inadequate to bind as a duty [Verpflichtung] (rationes obligandi non obligantes), are conjoined in a subject and in the rule
When two such grounds [of obligation] are in

conflict, practical philosophy does not say that the stronger obligation prevails (fortiori obligation vincit), but that the stronger ground
binding to a duty [Verpflichtungsgrund] prevails (fortiori obligandi ratio vincit).
that he prescribes to himself, and then one of the grounds is not a duty.
Forcing me to defend a nonsensical interpretation of deontology is (a) unfair, because I

can only predict what my authors actually say, and (b) uneducational, because we debate
in a stupid debate-land version of deontology that any serious ethicist would laugh at.
legitimate theory.
5 Kant, Immanuel (trans. John Ladd). The Metaphysical Elements of Justice. Liberal Arts Press. 1797. Pg. 25.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

How to Work Out Conflicts
ALL POSSIBLE CONFLICTS CAN BE WORKED OUT (WAVE THIS AROUND)
Frances Kamm has a TON of ways rights can conflict here and NONE of them end up saying
that both actions are permissible.
Kamm, Frances. Intricate Ethics. Oxford University Press. 2009.
We can put these distinctions together in the following way to represent possible conflicts of
rights:
(1) Negative versus negative (a) same interests (b) different interests
(2) Negative versus positive (a) same interests
(i) positive derived (ii) positive pure
(iii) positive mixed (b) different interests
(i) positive derived (ii) positive pure
(iii) positive mixed (3) Positive versus positive
(a) same interests (i) positive derived versus positive derived
(ii) positive derived versus positive pure (iii) positive derived versus positive mixed (iv) positive
pure versus positive pure
(v) positive pure versus positive mixed (vi) positive mixed versus positive mixed
(b) different interests (i) positive derived versus positive derived
(ii) positive derived versus positive pure (iii) positive derived versus positive mixed (iv) positive
pure versus positive pure
(v) positive pure versus positive mixed (vi) positive mixed versus positive mixed6

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A2 This is weighingI give certain arguments priority
1. WRONG. No argument gets priority under your interpretation because theres no
standard by which you weigh between violations. He also concedes in CX that if there
are 2 violations then you default to permissibility.
A2 You can just argue permissibility/presumption goes your way
1. Thats my argumentthis is unfair. And its not weighing.
2. We cant have a norm about permissibility on some topics IT IS MORALLY
permissible.
A2 You can just answer my standard
1. My argument is that I shouldnt HAVE to because a) you dont have a standard and b) the
standards unfair.
A2 This is just a strategic cost of reading a means based framework
1. C/A Kantthis is NOT what a means-based framework is. You cant BS some
explanation and make it stick.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A2 Theory cant dictate substance

Kant turns back all of their education arguments because they allow debate under a
nonsense interpretation of deontology. The only person whos operating under a
reasonable deontological theory is me.
Turn: the educational implications of their shell. Their interp has allowed for debaters to
adopt an insane, contorted version of deontology. Thanks to you most debaters believe
that permissibility nonsense is actually what the lit is about. Dont let him say I can do
this substantively because a) nobody would believe me because theyve ingrained this BS
into the minds of most judges on the circuit, b) you losing on theory will prevent the
proliferation of this misinterpretation just like it stopped the a priori storm, and c) taking
two minutes out of every speech to explain why your argument is dumb irreparably
skews the round against me since I wouldnt have time to win on substance.
The implications of their interpretation are silly. Under their interp, we couldnt run
theory on anything that wasnt substantively fallacious. This means 30 a prioris, 9
conditional counterplans, taint of injustice standards, and the like are fair game so long as
they have warrants.
Certain applications of substantively sound arguments ruin the debatewe need to have
debate before we can engage in substance that is educational and fair before we can
engage in substance.
This frames because Im showing that this limitation on substance is required to have a
debate that doesnt suck.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

EXTINCTION PRECLUDES BAD
A-Interpretation: Debaters must have only one potential standard in a case that, at any point in
the round, could possibly function as a mechanism for providing offense that links to the truth or
falsity of the resolution. They may not claim that a specific impact transcends their standard and
is the biggest impact back to any standard.
B-Violation: He reads a value criterion, and then asserts that extinction impacts outweigh all
ethical theories.
C-Standards:
1. Resolvability: Its impossible to weigh between two conflicting impacts that are asserted
to be the most important impact to any ethical theory. If I get up and claim that a super
deontological violation transcends any ethical theory, the judge has no way to evaluate
the round, since theres no way we can weigh extinction vs. the super violation because
theres no overarching standard under which that comparison is done. Resolvability is
the BIGGEST impact on theory because if the judge cant make an impartial decision,
there IS no debate.
2. Ground: At any point in the round any debater can instantly collapse all arguments to the
extinction debate. This treats all other arguments as 100% conditional, since any link
turns will be outweighed by extinction. Shifting ground is a deficit to fairness, even if
both sides can shift ground, because it gives a structural advantage to the debater who
speaks last and forces me to overcover the framework arguments for why extinction
impacts come first, since they are functionally as powerful as a pre-standards issue. This
skews my strategy against the arguments on the normal standard.
3. Clash: Extinction impacts encourage a race to the bottom, because any time spent on
case could be more effectively spent getting even a 0.01% greater risk of an impact into
extinction. This discourages clash, since any defensive argument does nothing to reduce
the risk of offense, and destroys incentives for philosophical debates on the standard,
since substantive arguments on extinction are always more strategic. Clash and standards
debate are key to the unique educational benefits of LD debate.
EXTINCTION PRECLUDES GOOD

A-Counter Interpretation: Both debaters should be allowed to run arguments that claim to
transcend any standard and be the biggest impact to any ethical theory.
[The Reasons to Prefer will be turns to the shell]

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A2 Resolvability
1. TURN: Its easier to resolve because it forces the debate down to one key issue, which
means whoever wins the extinction debate, wins the round.
2. No abuse: we can just make responses like we do in the framework debate, so it is
resolvable. Only one thing can be the most important impact to any ethical theory.
3. Fairness is a relative issue where each debater ought to have the same amount of paths to
victory. Thus, resolvability doesnt link to fairness because it doesnt advantage one
debater, as the debate is irresolvable for both of us.
4. TURN: Even if it is impossible to resolve to conflicting impacts that transcend all
standards, that just means we look to presumption, which makes the debate easier to
resolve because it boils the debate down to one key issue of presumption.
A2 Ground
1. TURN: This is the best ground because they can just go all on in the extinction debate,
which means if they allocate all their time to the most important issue, theyll definitely
win.
2. No Abuse: They can just use their framework to take out the extinction precludes
arguments
A2 Strategy Skew
1. No abuse: they can just go all in on the extinction debate, meaning it doesnt skew their
strategy at all, but rather gives them more ways to win the debate and one very clear way
to collapse and beat me.
A2 Clash
1. TURN: Theres more clash because the debate gets focused to one issue, which means we
have to engage each others arguments or well lose.
2. TURN: The LARP requires the most educational and nuanced clash because it forces
debaters to cut good evidence.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

TRUTH TESTING GOOD
A-Interpretation: An affirmative vote entails endorsing the proposition, "It is true that the
resolution is true", and a negative vote entails endorsing the proposition, "It is true that the
resolution is false." The truth of a statement is a function of whether the words in the sentence in
fact refer to true facts about the world.
B-Violation:
C-Standards:
1. Text: Truth is a necessary part of any statement, so only a truth-testing paradigm is
coherent. Frege6:
It may nevertheless be thought that we cannot recognize a property of a thing without at the same
time realizing the thought that this thing has this property to be true. So with
every property of a thing is joined a property of thought, namely, that of
truth. It is also worthy of notice that the sentence I smell the scent of violets has just the same
content as the sentence it is true that I smell the scent of violets. So it seems, then, that
nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing it the property of truth. And yet, is it
not a great result when the scientist after much hesitation and careful inquiry, can finally say what I supposed is true? The meaning of the word true seems to be altogether unique. May we not
be dealing here with something which cannot, in the ordinary sense, be called a quality at all? In spite of this doubt I want first to express myself in accordance with ordinary usage, as if truth were
a quality until something more to the point is found.
Text is key to fairness because it's the internal link to all ground in the round, since the
text of the topic determines the possible fair divisions of ground.
2. Ground: Comparing worlds underdefines what the negative is: the negation could be it
is not the case that we should act as though the resolution is true, it could be we could not
act as though the resolution is true, or we should act as thought the resolution is not true.
This allows him to shift ground because he can oscillate between any of those three
interpretations. This gives me no stable ground to engage. [Could also be phrased as a
debatability argument.]
6Frege, Gottlob. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry in Logicism and the Philosophy of Language: Selections from
Frege and Russell. Broadview Press. March 2003. Pg. 204.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

T-NO SQUO
A-Interpretation: The resolution is a timeless statement, not of a present tense evaluation of the
status quo.
B-Violation:
C-Standards:
1. Text: If theres no temporal specification, then a present tense statement is assumed to be
true atemporally, since a temporal specification is necessary for a present thought to be
complete. Frege7:
Thus the contents of a sentence often go beyond the thoughts expressed by it. But the opposite often happens too, that the mere wording, which can be grasped by writing or the gramophone does
The present tense is used in two ways: first, in order to give

a date, second, in order to eliminate any temporal restriction where
timelessness or eternity is part of the thought. Think, for instance, of the laws of mathematics. Which of the two cases occurs
is not expressed but must be guessed. If a time indication is needed by the present tense one must
know when the sentence was uttered to apprehend the thought correctly. Therefore
not suffice for the expression of the thought.
the time of utterance is part of the expression of the thought. If someone wants to say the same today as he expressed yesterday using the word "today", he must replace this word with "yesterday".
Although the thought is the same its verbal expression must be different so that the sense, which would otherwise be affected by the differing times of utterance, is re-adjusted. The case is the same
In all such cases the mere wording, as it is given in writing, is

not the complete expression of the thought, but the knowledge of certain
accompanying conditions of utterance, which are used as means of expressing
the thought, are needed for its correct apprehension. The pointing of fingers, hand movements, glances may belong
with words like "here" and " there ".
here too. The same utterance containing the word "I" will express different thoughts in the mouths of different men, of which some may be true, others false.
Moral judgments are of the timeless nature. If someone asks, is it moral to murder my
mother, the correct answer is not the question, What time is it? Text is key to fairness
because its the internal link to all ground in the round because the topic determines all
possible fair divisions of ground.
2. Ground: If the debate is grounded in empirical facts, then one side will always be at a
structural advantage at that debate. Thats problematic because theres definitionally one
side that is correct on that debate and one side that is wrong on that debate. It is the fact
of the matter that their offense is true, which gives me no ground to engage it. Ground is
key to fairness because its the basis on which we make arguments.
7 Frege, Gottlob. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry. Mind, New Series, Vol. 65, No. 259. (Jul., 1956), pp. 289-311.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CONTINGENT STANDARDS BAD
A-Interpretation: Debaters must have only one potential standard in a case that, at any point in
the round, could possibly function as a mechanism for providing offense that links to the truth or
falsity of the resolution.
B-Violation: They argue that X response will result in Y change in how you interpret their
standard, meaning they give themselves potential offense to alternate standards.
C-Standards:
1. Ground: I am forced to over-allocate on defense against both the triggers and the
contingencies, since I do not know which one my opponent will choose to collapse to in
the next speech. Also, since the standard and the contingency contradict each other, I
cant draw comparisons and effectively combat the framework without contradicting
myself, destroying my ground. Ground is key since it dictates our ability to argue and
win.
2. Strat Skew: I cant develop a coherent strategy if their arguments functionality is
changing, since I cant predict which arguments will trigger what contingencies. Even if
its my arguments that trigger the change, I'm in a double bind, either I don't answer the
argument and lose or I do and still lose on the abuse, destroying my strat. Strategy is key
to forming a coherent ballot story and thus winning the round. Further, the ability to
collapse to the highest layer doesnt solve the abuse since it limits my options to ONE
strategy, straight-ref, which they can easily pre-empt and might not be suitable for
framework debaters.
3. Clash: They destroy clash because any substantive response I make will trigger a
contingency, and thus wont have to be dealt with, so they dont have to deal with any
substantive and topical responses I make. This controls the internal link to education
because topic specific education is the only thing that extends out of the context of
debate. Also, they will be incentivized to trigger the contingency that I undercover the
most. This destroys philosophical and topical education since we never go in depth on an
issue, instead we superficially make claims about the one thats mishandled.
on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI in order to prevent the deterrence of legit theory.
CONTINGENT STANDARDS GOOD (REGULAR)

I meets
1. I meet. All I said in the last speech was that if X is true, then Y is true. So if he asserts
that the conditions for the contingency are true then he is the one asserting the
contingency is true, not me, so he violates, not me.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

2. I meet, my sole standard was [INSERT TEXT OF STANDARD], the contingencies are
just reinterpretations of the standards to incorporate the responses made to it.
3. I meet. Much like self-defense is a built-in condition on the right to life that doesnt
nullify the right itself, the contingencies are conditions on the normativity of the standard
that dont nullify the legitimacy of the standard.
4. I meet. I unconditionally advocated all the contingencies from the first speech, so my
framework didnt change
5. I meet. My real standard is the truth of the resolution. The value criterion framework is
just a sub-standard of the real standard, which is all encompassing.
6. I meet. I dont run contingencies. Those arguments are just clarifications of how offense
links back to the framework in different scenarios.
7. I meet. I consistently advocated my [INSERT HIGHEST META-STANDARD], which
was the true source of normativity throughout the round, so I unconditionally advocated
one standard.
8. He violates. He ran a counter-framework with a counter-standard, which is an implicit
contingency, i.e even if he doesnt win offense under my framework, he still wins under
the NC framework.
9. He violates. He ran both theory and substance, which is an implicit contingent standard
since he can always trigger the contingency by extending my defense to theory and going
for substance.
Cinerp
Counter-interp: Both debaters may run contingent arguments so long as the contingencies
logically follow from their opponents responses.
B-Reasons to Prefer:
1. Philosophical Ground: Most philosophers justify their theory in relation to skepticism
Korsgaard starts from the premise of whether a theory can answer the normative
question which is the skeptic. Testing whether or not a moral system can answer the
skeptic is paramount to ensuring it is fully justified. Philosophical ground is key since a)
it dictates our ability to prep since it dictates our ability to cut philosophical cards and b)
framework comes first since it frames the evaluation of other arguments.
Overview: This relies upon him winning why potential abuse is a voter, since if I don't trigger
the contingency, that means that he did not waste time responding to the argument. But don't vote
on potential abuse since: a) the fairness voter he reads says to vote me down because your
evaluation of arguments has been skewed; however, since I never read the abusive position he
claims I justify, theres no reason to vote, and b) this is the epitome of unfairness in debate since
voting on potential abuse holds me accountable for things I could have done wrong rather than
something I actually did.
AT Reciprocity:
1) It is reciprocal since he can run contingencies against me, which would equalize the
burdens for the round.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

2) Its not a NIB since it isnt necessary she can just straight-ref
3) He can just prove the NC standard overcomes the problems outlined by each contingency
and win off the NC
4) Its not a NIB since I need to win 2 args, both that the contingency is triggered and that
the contingency affirms
5) He has turn ground since he can accept the framework and link turns to it, so it is
reciprocal
6) He can trigger the contingency with defense and then argue that the contingency negates
7) He can control the directionality of the contingency by saying that his responses dont
trigger it, but that if I make X argument in the 1AR that would trigger the contingency,
meaning he has equal access to my strategy.
8) Its reciprocal since he has the ability to generate offense under each possible
contingency. The fact that the layer of the debate is dynamic doesnt change the fact that
each layer is reciprocal.
1.
2.
3.
4.
AT Strat/Time Skew
TURN: Either a) the neg doesnt want to trigger the contingency in which case I wasted
my time in the AC or b) the neg does want to engage in the contingency debate, in which
case the neg can trigger it and be ahead on the issue.
TURN: Contingencies give my opponent the strategic option of collapsing to the highest
layer of the debate. This gives them a positive time-tradeoff because I had to waste all the
time not only justifying the highest layer, but also justifying all the contingent scenarios
as well, which no longer have to be responded to.
TURN: Allowing people to ignore the logical implications of their arguments destroys
my strat because I have ZERO way of predicting how arguments will be utilized in
round. This outweighs since all strategy is ultimately premised on pursuing a logical
route to the ballot.
TURN: I need to be able to pre-empt the skep/presumption debate in the 1AC, otherwise
negs would always win it, since I would have to restart the debate in the 1AR
AT Clash
1) TURN: I increase clash on the implication of arguments. This outweighs their clash
argument since arguments dont matter without implications in a round or in the real
world.
2) TURN: I incentivize the neg to collapse to the highest layer to avoid the contingencies,
which would maximize clash by forcing us both on the same layer.
3) TURN: The contingencies are structured by appealing to the way my framework is
justified, so I increase clash by forcing him to respond to the nuances of my justification
and preventing him from running a generic framework dump.
4) TURN: I increase critical thinking skills through argument interaction on different layers
of the flow since arguments function differently depending on the implication of
responses. Critical thinking skills outweigh clash since analysis of logical argumentation
is the only unique educational benefit of debate.
5) TURN: Even-if scenarios are incredibly educational since in the real world one must
always be prepared for all possible outcomes.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

6) TURN: Allowing debaters to ignore the logical implications of their arguments is
incredibly un-educational since it undermines the logical relation of premises that is the
foundation of all argumentation. This outweighs clash since we only care about clash as
a means to learn about arguments.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CONTINGENT STANDARDS GOOD (STRATEGIC THINKING)
A. My interpretation is that both debaters must phrase their standard as the sole solution to
skepticism. That is, they must concede that if their standard is false, skepticism follows.
B. He violates because he admits in CX that his standard is NOT contingentskepticism
will not follow if he loses his standard. [READ IF READING THIS AS A CINERP:
there is no RVI neededmy argument is that he PROACTIVELY violates my
interpretation by not reading a contingent standard in the NC.]
C. Standards
a. Critical Engagement: My interp encourages critical engagement by forcing the neg to
realize that debate is a strategic game in which the individual with the best grasp on
how the system works ought to win. Under my interp, each argument on the
framework is like a chess piece, and each argument has a different function based
upon its interactions with other arguments. Indeed, this is why chess is uniquely
educational, especially in todays world. McDonald8:
The internet, email, and computers are rapidly changing the skills essential to succeed at school and work. As globalisation accelerates, information is pouring in faster and faster.
Information that took months to track down a few years ago can now spin off
the internet in just minutes. With such easy access and tremendous volumes, the ability to
choose effectively among a wide variety of options is ever more vital. In this world
students must increasingly be able to respond quickly, flexibly and critically. They must be able to wade
through and synthesise vast amounts of information, not just memorise chunks of it. They must learn to recognize what is relevant and what is irrelevant. They also need to
acquire the skills to be able to learn new technologies quickly as well as solve a continual stream of
problems with these new technologies. This is where chess as a tool to develop our childrens minds appears to be especially powerful. By its very nature
chess presents an ever-changing set of problems. Except for the very beginning
of the game where its possible to memorise the strongest lines each move
creates a new position. For each of these a player tries to find the best move by
calculating ahead, evaluating these future possibilities using a set of theoretical
principles. Importantly, more than one best move may exist, just as in the real world more than one best option may exist. Players must learn to
decide, even when the answer is ambiguous or difficult. These thinking skills are
becoming ever more valuable for primary and secondary school students constantly
confronted with new everyday problems. If these students go to university it will be especially imperative to understand how to apply broad
principles to assess new situations critically, rather than rely on absorbing a large number of answers. Far too commonly my own university students do not have these skills. As a result they become
swamped by information, vainly searching for the right answer to memorise rather than the various best options.
My interp has preferable to mere substantive clash because the possible combinations
of substantive arguments under a given framework are predictable and finite.
However, theres an unlimited number of ways a framework debate could play out
because theres no limit on the number of arguments that can exist a priori, since a)
you dont need evidence to make them and b) innovation means that new context
independent arguments are made all the timethats why philosophy is still a field of
study.
Critical engagement is key to education because it increases the quality of clash on
the substantive level and is key to strategic thinking because it forces debaters to
understand debate as a system and truly think about interactions between arguments.
[This also controls the internal link to advocacy skills because if you dont know how
8
McDonald,
Patrick.
The
Benefits
of
Chess
http://www.gardinerchess.com/publications/BenefitsOfChessInEdScreen2[1].pdf. 2005. Pg. 43
in
Education.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

to engage your opponents arguments in a favorable manner, youre a terrible
advocate for your cause.]
D. Its a voter for strategic thinking. Strategic thinking trumps other voters because although
it is traditionally frowned upon, it is the MOST IMPORTANT real life skill one can
possess. This means that even if fairness, education, or advocacy skills are good in a
vacuum, strategic thinking ought to be preferred because ONLY in the context of LD
Debate can this type of thinking be fostered in a meaningful way. Levin9:
Many educationalists turn their noses up at the suggestion that school pupils should
engage in thinking strategically. To them, this means playing the system , setting out to get the
highest possible grades with the least effort a reprehensible endeavour because it implies that the pupil is not
motivated to seek learning for its own sake. Or, to put it another way, because it demonstrates that the
pupil is playing his or her own game, not the one the educationalist or teacher wants
them to play. In other contexts , of course, getting most benefit for least effort is regarded
as entirely praiseworthy. And if you have the ability to understand a system well
enough to play it successfully, arguably you possess one of those valuable skills for
life that are much prized nowadays. In my view, its time that strategic thinking was
reclaimed for education. Indeed, we ought to be teaching pupils to think strategically, in all sorts of ways and in all sorts of situations, and congratulating them when they succeed
in it. And its something that more able pupils are very adept at picking up.
Debate IS one of these other contexts because you can think in a strategic manner
while still debating for the sake of debating. Simply put, debate is NOT merely an
activity where we research, put stuff up on the wiki, and engage each others arguments
in a way more meaningful than I outweigh on magnitude, LOLZ and Turn the link,
heres more evidence! So, my arguments are most unique to the functional purpose of
debate.
9 Levin, Peter (Dr. Peter Levin is an educational developer at the London School of Economics, specialising in providing one-toone study skills support for students. He is the author of Write Great Essays! and other books in the Student-Friendly Guides
series, published by the Open University Press). Strategic Thinking for More Able Pupils. Gifted and Talented Update, 2006.
http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/strategic-thinking-for-more-able-pupils-1534

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Frontlines for Contingent Standards Good (Strategic Thinking)
A2 Strategic Thinking Breeds Bad Arguments
Thats blatantly false strategic thinking encourages true arguments in many situations because
its focusing the debate on issues on which you are likely to be substantively ahead rather than
avoiding evaluation of the round.
Torson, Adam (Coach at Marlborough, VB Contributor). The Strategic Value of True Arguments. Victory Briefs. July 26, 2012.
http://victorybriefs.com/2012/07/the-strategic-value-of-true-arguments-by-adam-torson/
Progressive debate is a very technical game, and a set of very insular skills is an important part of determining who is best at it (e.g. the abilities to speak quickly, deploy jargon effectively, line-down evidence, etc.) Still, it seems
Could good strategic thinking about

debate really incent us to make patently false arguments rather than true ones?
I doubt that very much, and thinking about strategy in this way seems a classic case of the tail
wagging the dog. Yet debaters, judges and coaches persist. Your advocacy may save 18 million
lives a year, but thats morally irrelevant because you failed to link your standard to practical
rationality. Your NC is necessary but insufficient, which makes it nearly impossible for me to win the round. If you take away someones property, you violate the right to self-ownership, and genocide cant be far
terribly peculiar that debaters could start to think about an arguments strategic value as entirely separate from whether or not it is true.
behind.
Under the mantle of argument generation, debaters learn that if they can make an argument, they should, even if their objections are inconsistent, underdeveloped, or just plain untrue. Better still if they can falsely claim that the
argument has lexical priority over all others. After all, its your opponents job to answer the argument, right?
Whats worse, debaters have become afraid of these arguments. It is thought unstrategic to run a turnable NC even if the only turn ground is manifestly false or easily outweighed. Debaters hide arguments with the intention of
extending them as trumps to a blip spread rather than leveraging their case positions against a series of weak objections. Perhaps worst of all, debaters obfuscate their own positions (i.e. make their own arguments worse) so as to avoid
giving links into entirely unconvincing sets of arguments on a given topic.
That plausibly true arguments are preferable to patently false ones seems an obvious axiom of debate strategy, but apparently it is in need of some defense. So, a few of the reasons why it is strategically advantageous to run arguments
that are probably (or even unequivocally) true:
1. Answers to them will be false.
Debate ultimately comes down to an evaluation of the plausibility of arguments. When debaters elect to deploy simply untrue arguments, they are hoping to win by virtue of an opponents mistake or a judges mistaken evaluation.
This slight-of-hand tactic is unreliable at best.
Starting from a manifestly true position makes most refutation strategies unintimidating for the simple reason that they have to be fatally flawed at the end of the day. Your opponent can throw up roadblocks, but your chances of
winning the round depend only on your ability to execute the appropriate response strategy. You dont need to rely on someone elses mistake because you are on the right side of the issue.
2. Bad arguments invite bad responses.
Strategies that hope to overcome the manifest implausibility of arguments often create a race to the bottom in terms of argument quality. The fact that youve obscured the meaning of your position wont stop your opponent from
making dozens of responses; it will only make those responses equally unclear and make the judges evaluation of those arguments all the more unreliable. If your position is plausible and well-supported in the first place, dozens of
silly objections look like just that rather than a serious attempt at answering the argument. Whats more, you dont risk the judge dismissing your position out of hand because it was unclear or just plain ridiculous.
3. It is easier to do pre-tournament prep to deploy true positions.
The quality of your rebuttal strategies can be better when you deploy true arguments. Because yours is a position taken seriously by scholars, answers to objections and interactions between significant arguments will be discussed in
the topic literature. You can both prepare more thoroughly before the round and go deeper on these debates than your opponent is able to during the round.
The research process for plausible positions is much more straightforward. It is significantly easier to find good evidentiary support for serious advocacies than for crackpot theories or pro forma objections. And, you dont have to be
academically dishonest in suggesting that the authors you card would ultimately support some absurd position.
4. Perceptual Dominance
Its hard to look like a good debater when your underlying position is silly or non-existent (as when debaters make every argument they can think of without rhyme or reason). Untrue arguments are unlikely to cohere with your judges
sensibilities on the topic, which makes the whole project an uphill climb. At the end of the day the judge is going to be looking for reasons not to vote on the argument.
In contrast to the throw it against the wall and see what sticks opponent, a debater advocating a reasonable position on the topic looks much more credible and in control. Their mission is to make the round clear, because a clearheaded evaluation will almost always come out in their favor.
Obviously it is not always self-evident which arguments are true and which are false, and this is largely what gets fleshed out in good debate rounds. My argument should not be read to imply that good-faith disagreements about the
plausibility of arguments are illegitimate or that it is somehow unstrategic to buck the conventional wisdom. Making the truth of your arguments a primary consideration should not discourage you from intellectual experimentation or
creativity; all true ideas are the product of innovation at one point or another.
strategy should be primarily about focusing the debate on issues on which you are
likely to be substantively ahead rather than trying to avoid realistic evaluation of arguments
altogether. Thinking the debate game is so insular that argument quality can be a secondary consideration is, I think, a serious mistake. In the long run, no amount of
strategic thinking can overcome the fact that your arguments are untrue. Dont let sophisticated technique trump the fundamentals.
My point is simply that
Not running good arguments is akin to having a board full of pawns in chessits stupid to set
yourself up that way and thus inconsistent with strategic thinking. My argument is that a
sensible equilibrium between argument quality and critical engagement between debaters ought
to be reached in order to maximize ones chance of winning.
A2 AN OVERVIEW TO THE EDUCATION/FAIRNESS DEBATE (or even an

expansion into advocacy skills)
Philosophical Ground: Contingencies simply specify the part of the impact in the framework that
would already implicitly be there. For instance, if a debater claims their metaethic is key to
avoiding skep, then it follows that a contingent phrasing of their standard is also true: If their
metaethic is false then skepticism is true. Not specifying the end state of moral theorizing, or not
allowing impacts to winning or losing a framework discounts the possibility of warranting a

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

framework argument. Only through contingencies can we meaningfully solve for skepticism
instead of skirting around the issue, which controls the internal link to all advocacy skills
arguments since skepticism is literally the antithesis of an advocacydebaters have a
responsibility to back normative claims to appease critics of their advocacy instead of assuming
the validity of moral statements and asserting that theyre true in a pigheaded fashion.
Philosophical ground is key to education because LD is marketed as a values debate and
provides a unique forum in which philosophy can be discussed in an adversarial scenario [and is
key to fairness because its unreasonable to expect debaters to win rounds without being able to
justify a framework. Also, if his interp doesnt allow us to have frameworks, then the debate is
irresolvable. This is the biggest impact back to fairness because if the judge has no metric of
evaluation, its impossible for an impartial decision to be made.]
A2 Ground
LOOK, HES LITERALLY GUTTING ALL FRAMEWORK GROUND THATS NOT
SKEPTICISMcross apply the argument in philosophical groundTHATS OBVIOUSLY
UNFAIR SINCE SKEPTICISM TRIVIALLY FLOWS NEG ON LITERALLY EVERY TOPIC
SINCE EVERY TOPIC IS BY DEFINITION A NORMATIVE STATEMENT. HES LYING IF
HE SAYS SKEP AFFIRMS IS GOOD GROUND.
A2 STRATEGY SKEW (Eckholms blipsrun in order to make Henrys offense messy)

1. We both can do it so its not unfair - my interp in fact mandates us both to read contingent
standards, meaning its equitable in every round - both of us have the same competitive
advantage. Thus there is no fairness- based concern. Thats TERMINAL defense.
2. Our strategic thinking voter proves it's not strategy skew, its just forcing you to make a
strategic decision about what to go for. It's not abusive, its just forcing you to make
more choices in round, which enhances your strategy in the log run.
3. Turn I give the 1AR/NR more outs because they ca concede framework answers and go
for skepticism affirmsthats a brand new layer they wouldnt have had under their
interp.
4. [READ IF AFF] Turn - Contingencies are key to allowing the aff to win more rounds.
Without contingencies, the neg can you line by line everything and dump blocks, but the
aff can use them to spread out the neg, and force them to cover multiple different 1AR
and 2AR outs.
5. [READ IF AFF] Strategy skew is a non-unique impact. Right now negs are at a strategic
advantage because of the structure of the debate, meaning the round wont be equitable in
terms of strategy for both sides if we adopt their interp. In contrast, there are unique
benefits to my interp.
6. Contingencies are key ground on this topic, since it has a very low breadth of arguments,
and also a very low amount of directly applicable topic lit. Contingencies make up for
that by expanding argumentative potential. Ground comes prior to strategy because
impeccable strategy can't win rounds without arguments.
A2 Util Encourages Strategic Thinking
Weighing on the util debate DOES NOT fosters engagement because a) you can get around
weighing by regurgitating link evidence that your coach cut, b) there are painfully predictable

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

interactions between bad util weighing standards like magnitude and predictability, and c) util
devolves into competing, equally absurd extinction scenarios that are barely ever compared
even if this does foster some critical engagement, this engagement isnt valuable because the
discussion is educationally bankrupt.
A2 Deep Learning Voter
1. [Quotes are to be read FROM THE CARDor at least act like youre reading from the
card because there are direct quotes] I control the internal link to deep learningin order
to grasp a synthesized and complex understanding of a domain of study instead of
memorizing a set of disconnected facts, you need to first be able to explore the
conceptual scheme of an activity via strategic thinking. Thats EXACTLY what the
McDonald evidence sayslearning how to be prepared for any scenario at any time is
how one understands any sort of conceptual scheme
2. Strategic thinking firstdeep learning occurs in schools, anyway. His card was
LITERALLY meant for teachers. However, my Levin evidence indicates that strategic
thinking, while valuable in todays world, is ignored in schools. So, only in debate can
you find a nexus point between policy, philosophy, and strategy. Here, strategic thinking
is fostered instead of frowned upon. Deep thinking may be better in a vacuum, but
strategic thinking is better for debate.
3. This begs the question of why substantive debate is good in the first place, but hes
provided no warrant for that. If I win the argument under McDonald about why
substance debate is bad under some standard, this argument is irrelevant.
A2 Advocacy Skills
1. Strategic thinking controls the internal link to advocacy skills. Only if we think critically
and actually understand the conceptual scheme of debate can we actually become better
advocates. Otherwise, even if we endorsed true positions, wed get slaughtered since
wed have no strategy to back the arguments.
2. Turn: The fact that he read an advocacy skills voter is a reason to drop him on advocacy
skills because a) actually engaging positions instead of whining makes you a better
advocate since you dont ignore things that hit at the weak points in your argumentation
youre able to face them and defeat them and b) claiming a certain practice is bad for
advocacy skills wastes valuable time that could be spent discussing competing
advocacies so she detracts from advocacy skills. Every second we waste on this debate is
a second we could be spending developing advocacy skills instead of TALKING about
developing advocacy skills. And its all his fault.
3. Strategic thinking firstyou can learn to be a great advocate in a myriad of events but
only in debate can you find a nexus point between policy, philosophy, and strategy.
Advocacy skills might be good in a vacuum, but strategic thinking is ONLY accessible
through debate so is better for this forum.
A2 Your Voter Presumes a Link To Education
1. Falsemy arguments are independent of education because the argument underneath the
Levin evidence talks about how my voter is SPEFICIC to role debate ought to play. It
doesnt rely on education, even though it obviously applies on the education debate.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

2. No Double Standardsif the community buys advocacy skills, they should buy my voter.
Advocacy skills asserts its importance through discussing real world implications of
having advocacy skills and discusses how debate is a unique forum where advocacy skills
can be developed. This is EXACTLY what I do with my voter. Adopting one voter but
not the other because Nebel/Theis wrote one is incoherent.
A2 You Justify Skepticism!
1. Game. Over. Reread my interpretation. I state that both debaters must claim that their
standards SOLVE skepticism. This is not the same thing as stating that both debaters
must advocate the nonexistence of morality. Rather, both debaters must phrase their
FRAMEWORKS as the sole alternative to a state of no morality. THERE IS NO
VIOLATION. Further, my interpretation is preferable because[Read the phil ground
argument].
2. Even if he does prove I violateTurn: Switch sides debate is good. By defending
arguments or triggering positions you dont believe in, you get a better insight into how
your opponent thinks and decides to respond to your argumentation. This makes you a
better advocate for your cause because youre a) more familiar with your opponents
though process and b) you can predict your opponents future moves since youve been in
a similar situation. In this case, advocating skepticism makes you a better advocate
against skepticism in the long run.
3. If you still think I violateIf skepticism is true, then theres no reason we should even
care about becoming better advocates because nothing is valuable. Skep takes out a
crucial link in her argumentation since she assumes random background moral
obligations.
4. If you still think I violatewhile skep may be detrimental to my advocacy skills, theyre
FANTASTIC for his, since he has the ability to learn how to defeat what he asserts is the
most morally repugnant argument ever. Since he places so much importance on beating
this one argument, more exposure to it is really good under advocacy skills since that
increases the likelihood that hell beat it in the future. This is better than both of us
debating substance because being an advocate against skepticism is the most important
thing, according to him.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

SOLVENCY ADVOCATE KEY
A-Interpretation: Solvency arguments must have a solvency author that advocates the precise
text of their advocacy.
B-Violation: Their solvency is analytic. They read no cards.
C-Standards:
1. Predictability: If there is no one that actually advocates their advocacy I have no way of
predicting their advocacy, which gives me an infinite research burden. Theres no lit on
this argument so I can never predict it while they have infinite access to it since they
came up with it themselves. Predictability is key to fairness since it allows us to prepare
for arguments fairly.
2. Ground: No solvency advocate means they can claim unrealistic advantages that would
never happen in the real world. This puts me at a structural disadvantage since any shred
of a warrant is sufficient to get them any impact scenario they want, even when it would
never be endorsed by topic lit. Ground is key since it dictates our ability to argue and
win.
3. Real World: We never discuss arguments in the real world that have no chance of
happening. Even if its possible that we take the alt, it has no use outside of the round, so
its uneducational. Real world is key because its the only applicable thing outside of the
debate round.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CONTRADICTIONS BAD
A-Interpretation: All arguments debaters make must be logically consistent with one another.
Debaters therefore may not contradict themselves.
B-Violation: X arguments contradict because
C-Standards:
1. Strategy skew: I can never form a coherent strategy because I have no idea which side
of the contradiction they will go for in the next speech; this also allows him to kick turns
because he can choose whichever side of the contradiction I undercovered, making it
impossible to win. Also, I can't answer the contradictions without contradicting myself,
which means the abuse has already occurred. Strat skew is key since I need to be able to
formulate a pathway to the ballot.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CX CHECKS BAD
A-Interpretation: The aff must unconditionally defend all potential theory violations in the AC.
This means they may not claim that I have to clarify my interpretations in CX before running T
or theory.
B-Violation: They violate
C-Standards:
1. Ground: Every argument is conditional because they can just kick it or change it as soon
as I ask in CX. They can just load their cases with a million abusive arguments. If I ask
about them, they can kick them with no opportunity cost, but if I miss one, I lose. Ground
is key to fairness because its the basis on which we make arguments.
2. Strat Skew: This skews CX strat. I have to waste my time clarifying every interp in the
aff and so I cant use CX to access the substance of the debate or check back unclear
arguments I cant run T on. Also, I am not allowed to come up with theory during my
speech, which is key since its hard to realize how different arguments function and
interact until you are responding to them in real time. Strat skew is key to fairness
because it is key to forming a coherent ballot story and thus winning the round.
A2 Potential Abuse
1. My argument is that the aff cx checks argument creates a moving target, I dont know
whether they will sever or not, so even if they dont kick anything it still functions as
actual abuse because it kills by ability to formulate a coherent strategy as I dont know
what arugments they will or will not kick.
2. The fact that they have the cx checks argument means they dont unconditionally defend
their interpthe abuse still applies because I dont know whether they will kick an interp
in cx or not.
3. Potential abuse is still a voter
a. Potential abuse is actual abuse. Otherwise, the aff can spew abusive args then kick
them to gain the positive time tradeoff on theory, meaning my only check on
abuse is skewed against me since its being manipulated by their abusive
strategies. This means if they extend some argument to meet the interpretation and
kick the rest of the case, they are just feeding the abuse.
b. Extend that theory is an issue of competing interpretations: its about promoting
the best norms for the activity, not just particular in-round abuse. Thus, if he
justifies a worse rule for debate, its still a reason to vote. Actual abuse is only one

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

instantiation of the general pattern that I point out is wrong with his interpretation
of debate, so potential abuse must be a voter.
c. No distinction between potential abuse and actual abuse if theres potential for it
to be abusive, Ill have to account for it in my strategy and how I think of the
case, so theres still in round skew.
d. Voting down an interp that could create abuse now prevents unnecessary theory in
the future. Rather than letting lots of future rounds come down to theory,
preventing these kind of arguments from becoming a norm now means well
never have to deal with those issues. Theory should be avoided when possible
because theres always a risk of a bad decision.
A2 Better for his strat because he can get my to kick args
1. My arg indicates that this is worse for my strat bc idk what he is gonna sever from. Kills
my cx

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CX CHECKS GOOD
A- Counter-Interpretation: If the aff doesnt run anything abusive, then the aff can have the
spike that CX checks abuse
B- I meet this because they didnt run any other shells. This solves back 100% of their abuse
claims because there is no potential abuse so they didnt have to waste any of their time asking
me about abusive interps or anything
C- Reasons to Prefer
1. Voting on potential abuse punishes me for something that I might have done or something that
someone might do at some time. This forces the judge to vote on something has did not
happened in this round. The judge only has jurisdiction over what actually happens in the round,
meaning unless abuse is demonstrated there is no reason to vote. My opponents arguments
justify the judge voting for a debater for arguments that would have turned my case if they had
been made.
Group The Shell
(___) At worst, their shell is an offensive counter-interpretation because the initial interpretation
was presented in the AC that CX checks, and then their counter-interpretation is that CX doesnt
check meaning they need to win an RVI to actually win off of this shell.
(___) [if they ran theory on this spike without getting the violation in CX] They ran theory
anyway, so if I dont extend the spike to beat back their shells then that solves 100% of their
abuse because [extemp]
(___) There is always the possibility for an argument to become abusive later in the round. There
is no way for the judge or opponent to verify in the round if abuse will occur that determination
can only happen after the fact. This also means that potential abuse is not a voter because it
would make any decision by the judge outright intervention.
(___) No abuse, they dont have to question all the arguments, they can ask broad questions, like
Are there necessary but insufficient burdens in the ac

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

MULTIPLE DISTINCT IMPACTS BAD
A-Interpretation: Contentional arguments must interact comparatively, with each offensive
argument capable of being turned and prioritized relative to the others and becoming a voting
issue for either side. Positions that allow for conceptually distinct impacts to sufficiently meet the
standard without having to account for other turns and offensive arguments are illegitimate.
B-Violation: They violate
C-Standards:
1. Ground: Their position makes it massively easier for them to win since any one of their
contentions is sufficient while I have to beat all of them back to stand a chance; the abuse
is compounded because its impossible for me to generate terminal defense, meaning that
theyre virtually guaranteed a sufficient link to their standard. Ground is key to fairness
because its the basis on which we make arguments.
2. Debatability: If I turn the case based on one concept and they extend offense based on
another, there is no way to weigh or reconcile the two; debatability overwhelms all other
theoretical arguments because its necessary for a non-arbitrary decision to be made.
3. Strat skew: I cant form a coherent strat since I dont know whether any offense I put on
their case will matter in later speeches. Because each impact is sufficient, if I want to
gain offense off of their case I have to put a turn on every single concept or risk having
that turn become irrelevant. Stable strategies are key to fairness because I cant hope to
win the round if I dont have a coherent plan of attack in my speech.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

DEONT ONE VIOLATION
A-Interpretation: If the aff runs a deontological standard, then the contention must include only
one violation of the standard.
B-Violation: There are multiple offensive arguments impacting to his deontological standard,
<>.
C-Standards:
1. Reciprocity: Each contention functions as an independent no-risk issue. Even if I prove
_____, he can still win by proving that _____. This allows him to kick turns, giving him a
__:1 structural advantage, and creates a moving target because I can never know which
piece of offense he will extend. Reciprocity is key to ensure equal pathways to the ballot.
2. Clash- having multiple violations to a deontological standard it increases the probability
neither side will meet all the violations which incentives presumption as an easy out.
There is no clash or topical debate in the world of her interpretationmost debates will
collapse to presumption as a strategic tool for avoiding messy deontological violation
spreads. Forcing debaters to run only one violation avoids the incentive to extend defense
and trigger presumption and focuses on clash on the best arguments for rehabilitation and
retribution. This does not limit offense, because debaters can switch in different
violations in different debates. Clash is key to education because it fosters critical
thinking.
legitimate theory.
Jeffs Theory Rant
You can make an education argument that says if both debaters can run multiple
violations to a deontological standard it increases the probability that neither will meet
al lthe violations on both sides and creates incentive to trigger presumption as easy out
=> no topical debate. Your interp captures all education benefits while avoiding the
harms bc it forces each debater to run at most one violation under a deont standard
increases clash and avoids incentive to just extend D to trigger presumption. Your interp
literally excludes no philosophical education, because debaters can switch in and out
different violations of the standard in different rounds, so any kind of education that is
possible under their intepr is also possible under yours, just not in any particular round.
But over the course of multiple rounds the net cumulative effect of education is greater bc
you can debate all the same issues, just in greater depth in every round. Thats a very

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

persuasive way to spin it. But thats how good theory debate should look like compare
the world of your interp vs the world of heir intepr. You need to give the judge a vision
that eveyr deont debate looks like a presumption shitstorm under their interp and every
deont debate looks like an elegant philosophical forum in yours.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

TAINT BAD
A-Interpretation: The aff must prove the resolution true as an on-balance statement, while the
neg must prove the resolution false on balance.
B-Violation: He says that he only must prove a 1% chance that the resolution is true/false.
C-Standards:
1. Reciprocity: Giving the aff/neg the burden of proving a taint of injustice makes
affirming/negating impossible and is not reciprocal because he only needs to win a risk of
a link whereas I need to win 100% impact. Every system will have some flaw, so I can
never win under this framework as it presents an impossible burden. This allows him to
extend through ink and ignore all my arguments and still win with some marginal impact,
which skews time and nullifies all my speeches. Reciprocity is key to fairness as it allows
each side a structurally equal chance to win by ensuring equal advocacies.
This outweighs any abuse story against me because:
1. The taint shapes the impact calculus for the entire round, rather than just the NC. Even if
they win that the AC is abusive, they can still win on the NC, while I have no way to win
under either framework.
2. Its qualitatively worse if even a risk of a violation is sufficient to negate, I have no
ground at all, while they at least have a slight chance of winning under my framework.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

IDENTITY BAD
A-Interpretation: Debaters should not run positions that require either debater to demonstrate
that identity changes or doesnt change in concrete ways.
B-Violation: This is literally his position (elaborate)
C-Standards:
1. Ground: The idea that you can physically analyze someones identity is ludicrous. Its
physically impossible to observe it, since its internal to the mind (we cant see it).
Peoples accounts of their own identity are flawed because our ways of thinking are
always more limited than our identity is. This means 1) Im never going to be able to
disprove their arguments since they rely on non-falsifiable assertions, even if I have some
counter-empiric, which gives me virtually no chance of winning and 2) his evidence
will never actually justify the normative claim hes trying to make, in which case you can
reject it on-case as well. Ground is key since it dictates our ability to argue and win.
2. Resolvability: Since accounts of identity flux are subjective, if I run a counter-empiric,
theres no logical mechanism of comparison since the accounts are subjective and based
on peoples flawed perceptions of themselves, so the debate becomes irresolvable since
theres no non-arbitrary way to choose which conclusion to use, which is the most
important impact on theory since its required for a decision to be made.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

SEVERANCE BAD
NC Preempt
As a preempt, if he severs his standard, vote him down since it allows him to start over in the
1AR, while I dont get my prep, CX, or NC back, which would have completely affected my
strategy in all three of those time segments and allows him to invalidate all the offense I have put
on the AC. Fairness is a voter because competitive debate mandates equal burdens and is a
prerequisite because your evaluation of the round will have already been skewed towards the
unfair debater.
NR Theory
A-Interpretation: Debaters must advocate their standard and initial constructive throughout the
entire round.
B-Violation: They severed the AC in the 1AR by kicking their standard.
C-Standards:
1. Time skew: Severance lets them start the debate over in the 1AR, while I dont get my
prep, CX, or NC back. This gives them a total of 7 minutes between the 1AR and 2AR,
while I only have 6 minutes of the NR. Because times are the only explicit rules of
debate, strategies that invalidate portions of time are unfair.
2. Strategy skew: I could not have anticipated that they were going to kick the AC when I
was giving my NR. Since my strategy is premised on knowing theirs, if I knew they were
going to sever, the NC would have been entirely different. I would have just run a 7
minute NC that would be more resistant to their turn spread. Strat skew is unfair because
I cant win the debate without a reasonable understanding of the framework for the round.
3. Ground: Severing the standard lets him kick all the turns on the AC. I could be killing
them on the AC debate right now, meaning I was denied ground that would have
otherwise won me the round. Ground is key to fairness because an unequal distribution of
ground makes it easier for one side to win.
Err neg on NR theory - the lack of a 3NR also means you should give them NO LEEWAY in the
2AR. If they are in any way not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT RESPONSIVE to theory, drop
them, since thats the only fair way to make up for my lack of an ability to respond to the 2AR.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

SEVERANCE GOOD
A-Counter-Interpretation: The affirmative can kick the AC standard in the 1AR if the neg
makes answers to the framework.
1. Reciprocity: If the neg severed the NC in the NR, I would have no theory recourse since
no judge would ever vote for brand new 2AR theory against the NR. Its only reciprocal
to allow the aff to kick in the 1AR.
2. Ground: The aff has to be able to sever out of parts of the AC, since if it had to go for
every single argument, the aff would never win. It also corners the aff into a particular
strategy, while the neg gets to choose what to go for in the 2NR. At worst, Im still
extending some offense from the AC to link to their standard, so theres no abuse. Ground
is key since it dictates our ability to argue and win.
A2 Strat Skew
1. Its his fault by putting defense on the aff standard, he authorizes me conceding the
standards debate since he says his is better. Just as I am allowed to extend defensive
arguments to take out turns, I can extend defense on the standard to take out turns. Its not
strategy skew; rather, he just made a bad strategic decision in answering the standard.
A2 Ground
1. No Abuse: he can link the turns on the AC into the negative standard.
2. No abuse they are never extending any arguments on the AC they claim that I am
kicking out of, meaning they are only showing potential abuse. For actual abuse to occur
they would have to extend their turns and be like, look, this is the ground that I lost.
There was never a warrant for potential abuse.
A2 Time Skew
1. Not all of the 1AR was spent answering the NC I spent time kicking the standard, and I
am extending arguments from the AC so the time spent on the NC debate is equivalent.
2. Turn: the NR has the time advantage because they get 6 minutes to generate all new
answers, while the 2AR only gets to extend offensive arguments made in the 1AR.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

STRAIGHT REF BAD
A-Interpretation: The negative must substantively contest the affirmative framework by reading
their own separate evaluative mechanism and responding to the aff framework.
B-Violation: The neg never offers a counter-constructive or a counter evaluative mechanism, nor
do they contest the AC framework. Rather, they conceded to my standard and just debated
underneath it.
C-Standards:
1. Ground: Straight-ref kills aff ground because I can't make new turns against the NC in
the round to get offense, rather I need to depend on my case for voting issues. That limits
my ability to kick arguments and gain offense, which kills ground. Also, I can't make
comparative arguments and weigh the importance of my case against the importance of
an opposing advocacy, which is key ground since it allows for the prioritization of
arguments. Ground is key to fairness because it dictates the ability to argue and win.
2. Reciprocity: Defending an advocacy is a comparatively harder burden than attacking
one, as you have to take out the responses as well as extend the original argument, which
is twice as much work as just making responses. Also, since the aff speaks first, the aff
has to read an AC, making straight-ref an un-reciprocal strat since only the neg gets
access to it. Reciprocity ensures both debaters have to do an equal amount of work to
win.
3. Strat skew: Straight-ref destroys the affs ability to sever in the 1AR, which is a key strat
a) to deal with massive prep-outs and b) to deal with non-responsive horizontal spreads
such as DAs on util or a million violations on deont c) The neg already has a huge 7 to 4
time advantage, and allowing straight-ref augments neg side bias and should be
eliminated. Also, the AC just wasted 2 minutes justifying a framework that isnt
contested, meaning the aff has less time to execute an effective strategy against a negative
spread. Strat is key to forming a coherent ballot story and winning.
4. Philosophical Education: Because there is no second standard in the round, there is no
framework debate, destroying philosophical education since we only learn the intricacies
of a framework when it is contested. This outweighs other education args since
philosophy has the largest impact since it applies to everything in life.
legitimate theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

ONLY AFF RVIS BAD
A. Interpreation: If the aff claims RVI ground in the AC, the neg must also have access to the
RVI.
B-Violation: They have a spike in the AC that says that only the aff gets RVI ground. Dont let
them claim that theyre open to giving the neg RVIs. Its disingenuous because otherwise the AC
would just say theory is an RVI rather than affs get RVI. Also, the justifications for their
RVI are unique to why the aff should get them.
C-Standards:
1. Reciprocity: Their interpretation is the definition of unreciprocal because if I run theory
they can turn it, but if they run theory I cant turn it meaning they will always have
quantitatively more outs than I do. Quantitative Reciprocity is key to fairness because it
ensures each debater has to do the same amount of work to win.
2. Time Skew: Having this argument in the AC forces negs to answer back to argument or
else the aff can just run ridiculous theory in the 1ar without any risk of losing on it, but if
the neg successfully answers it back the aff doesnt have to run theory in the 1AR and the
argument doesnt matter because I cant turn it. Time skew is key to fairness because time
constrains on our ability to make arguments and thus win the round.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

ONLY AFF RVIS GOOD
A. Counter-interpretation: The aff can deny the negative RVI ground as long as the aff
doesnt read reasons to drop the debater.
B. I meet.
C. Standards:
a. Time skew: My reasons for only aff RVIs say that the 1AR time skew doesnt
allow me to go for both theory and substance in the 1AR. On the other hand,
giving the neg RVIs allows them to collapse to theory in the 2NR and exploit the
6-3 minute time skewI cant deal with 6 minutes of arguments in the 2NR.
Time is key since it allows us to make arguments.
On their shell:
1. No abusethe neg can just justify drop the argument, meaning that an RVI wouldnt matter in
the first place.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

LINK AND IMPACT TURNS KEY
A. Interpretation: All offensive arguments must be link and impact turnable.
B. Violation:
C. Standards:
1. Reciprocity: This gives them a 2-1 structural advantage because they can garner
offense off of an argument, but I cant do the same, since proving the opposite of their
claim is not sufficient for me to win. Reciprocity is key to fairness because it ensures
equal advocacies.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Frontlines
A2 You can do it too
A2 Artificial Sufficiency

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CONTRACTARIANISM BAD
A-Interpretation: If all offensive arguments in the [AC/NC] are link and impact turnable and
there are no necessary conditions on what it means to meet my standard, then all offensive
arguments in the [AC/NC] must be link and impact turnable and there may only be one necessary
conditions contextualizing what it means to meet their standard.
B-Violation: [consistency with contractarianism] can only be satisfied by meeting all three
conditions. Gauthier10:
Morality then suffices if it can pass three tests: (i) is it rational for each individual to
dispose herself to act in accordance with it (the compliance test); (ii) is it rational for each individual
voluntarily to agree to it provided others do so as well (the contractarian test); (iii) if everyone
acts in accordance with it, is the outcome optimal (the efficiency test). The tests are not, of course,
altogether independent. But they bring out the three facets of morality that I want to emphasize. Failing the compliance test would
reveal morality as an imposture, having no hold on the reflectively rational agent. Failing the
contractarian test would reveal morality as a system of domination , coercively rather than voluntarily
imposed on some agents. Failing the efficiency test would reveal morality as inadequate to
overcome the structural problem of suboptimality in natural interaction. If a system passes all
three, then, as the advertisement says, who could ask for anything more?
Even if the neg defends only one condition, contractarianism still violates since its still
necessary but insufficientI would still have to prove that the victim would consent to the
principle and that the principle would justify a prohibition, while all they need to show is that the
victim would never consent to the principle. Moreover, the neg cant meet the interp without
being inconsistent with the authors conclusion, which promotes academic dishonesty and
illogical argumentation. In academia, no ones allowed to intentionally misrepresent an author.
Evidence ethics ensures real world education that guides us our entire lives. [Further, its
unpredictable because he gets to choose which tenet of the moral theory to defend, whereas I go
into the round blind, at best prepped for the authors conclusion.]
C-Standards:
1. Reciprocity: The NC is at a 4:1 structural advantage because he wins if I violate a single
condition OR if he wins turns on the AC, while even if I win that I meet every single
condition, I still dont win. Since permissibility goes neg, I have to go for all defense.
2. Clash: The NC merely says that any option is permissible since victims cannot form
contracts with aggressors, so he doesnt advocate a world, allowing him to shift out of
neg disads. Multiple conditions allow him to go for the condition that I cover the least,
killing clash, which precludes other education links because we have to actually engage
on an issue in order to learn about it. and links to fairness because I need a fair chance to
engage in a debate in order to win.
10 Gauthier, David. Moral Artifice. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jun.,
1988), pp. 385-418.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

KRITIKS BAD
A-Interpretation: Debaters may not critique any part of my advocacy. Even if they may critique
my positions, all Kritiks must 1) be disclosed prior to the round, 2) must have a proactive
alternative, not just reject my opponents mindset 3) must have an explicit written text for their
alternative as well as a solvency advocate that explains how they will descriptively solve for my
impacts, and 4) must impact back to either a pre-fiat or post-fiat decision calculus, but not both.
(PICK WHICHEVER VIOLATIONS APPLY)
B-Violation:
C-Standards:
1. Judge Intervention: Ks increase intervention since theres no universal conception of
.what is offensive. Judges opinions are often determined before the round, so the K
advantages whoever is on the side of their opinions. Minimizing intervention is key to
fairness since intervention holds debaters accountable for factors outside of their control.
2. Strat Skew: Ks invalidate all of my speech time, forcing me to restart in the next speech.
Also, having a text and advocate for their alt is also key for strategy since it binds them to
the particulars of their argument and prevents them from shifting out of my offense.
Strategy is key to fairness since it is necessary to create a coherent ballot story.
3. Ground: Ks destroy impact turn ground since its unintuitive to make arguments like
genocide is good. Impact turns are key ground since impact turns can apply without me
having to have specific prep. And, if the alt is reject the aff it is unclear what the neg prefiat world includes, so defending a proactive policy is the only way for me to be
comparative. And, if their impacts are both pre and post-fiat, they have a 2-1 structural
advantage because they has access to offense on both levels, whereas I only have offense
on one. Ground is key to fairness since it dictates our ability to argue and win.
4. Real World: Having a proactive alternative with a text and advocate is best for real
world since policymakers dont just reject a policy, but they offer an alternative, wellsupported counter-policy that solves for the harms the other plan could not. Real world is
key to education since it's the only impact that actually affects us post-debate.
5. Topical Clash: Disclosing Ks is best for clash since going into the round I dont known
what your conception of my arguments are, if I had known what you were offended by I
would not have run the position, we could have avoided discourse and just engaged in
substance. Topical clash is key to education since it's the reason we choose a topic in the
first place.
6. Predictability: Having a solvency advocate is the only way to make sure their alt is
advocated in the topic lit, otherwise I would have an impossible research burden.
Moreover, disclosing Ks is also the most predictable since there is an infinite number of
ways a person could be offended by my argument. Forcing me to be prepared on all
interpretations of my arguments gives me an infinite research burden. Predictability is
key to fairness since it lets us prepare for arguments and win.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

legitimate theory.
And, evaluate theory before pre-fiat arguments because:
A) Theory determines whether he should actually have access to the K in the first place. It makes
no sense to vote on the K first if I prove he wasnt entitled to that ground.
B) The ballot asks the judge to vote for who did the better debating. However, we can't determine
who did the better debating on the pre-fiat level unless we theoretically have equal access to
arguments on that layer.
C) My voter proves that fairness and education are integral parts of debate itself, meaning prefiat arguments dont matter in the scheme of debate.
D) (If Negating) The K could be misapplying culpability. I was only forced to be offensive
because of the abuse that was occurring in the round. This both means a) theory comes first
because their abuse chronologically came first and was the reason for the discourse debate and b)
they bite into their own K by forcing me to run the offensive argument in round.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

ARTIFICIAL SUFFICIENCY BAD
A-Interpretation: TheNEGmustruncasesthatareactuallysufficient.Acaseisnotactually
sufficientifitisnotsubstantivelysufficientbutinsteadmadesufficientbydebaterconcessions.
BViolation: They conceded in crossX that their case is artificially sufficient.
C-Standards:
1. Predictability:Hisargumentmisconstruesthewaythattheauthorintendedforthe
argumenttofunction.Icanonlypreparefortheargumentthewaythatitwas
intentionallymeanttofunction,functionallykillingpredictabilityandallinternallinksto
groundbecauseitisimpossibletomaketurnsagainstastandardthatisntdesignedtobe
turnable.Predictabilityiskeytofairnessbecauseitisthebasisonhowwepreparefor
andconstructadvocacies.
2. Ground:HisargumentfunctionallydestroysAFFturnground,heclaimsthatitis
sufficientbutinorderformetoturnitlegitimatelyImustprovide100%terminal
defense,whichisjustaconceptanddoesnotexistashewillalwayshaveriskofoffense.
ThusitisliterallyimpossibletowintheundertheNC,puttingmeatanegregious
violation.Groundiskeytofairnessbecauseitisthebasisonwhichwemakearguments.
DVoter: Fairness is a voter because unfair arguments arbitrarily skew your evaluation of the

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

ARTIFICIAL SUFFICIENCY ONE ARG
A-Interpretation: If the (aff/neg) concedes artificial sufficiency on arguments that would
normally be insufficient, then they must only run one argument that I need to put defense on. To
clarify, artificial sufficiency is only fair if it creates quantitatively equal outs for both debaters.
B-Violation: They concede artificial sufficiency, but I still need to substantively answer (insert
arguments), which means that have more ways to win than I do.
C-Standards:
1. Reciprocity: Every additional argument that I need to win defense on gives them another
independent out, meaning they have more ways to win. Reciprocity is key since it ensures
we have equal pathways to the ballot.
2. Clash: They can just go for whichever one I cover the least and ignore any ink I put on
their other arguments, which destroys clash cause theres no incentive for them to
actually engage my arguments. Clash is key since comparing arguments in round is one
of our main forms of education.
legitimate theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A2 PARAMETERS
As An Overview to Parameters
1. Their definition of ought does not say that ought definitionally entails util. Rather, his author
is merely making a philosophical argument for why we ought to conceive of it as util.
Philosophers debate about whether util is a good, and none say that ought analytically entails
util. And definitions constrain T debates since if they arent actually defining a term in the
topic, then they arent even interpreting what the resolution really says.
2. All of their offense is non-unique. If we define ought as a moral obligation, they still get
access to all of their util ground, they just need to JUSTIFY util as a proper moral theory.
3. Winning only parameters is insufficient to justify the standard because we also need to know
the way it is philosophically derived to understand how to impact offense back to it. Just
defining it as util without philosophically deriving whether it is rule util, hedonistic util, etc.
makes the contention debate irresolvable. Thus, he needs to win substantive justifications in
addition to parameters to justify the FW.
A2 Predictability
1. TURN: Util is less predictable in LD debate nowadays. With the current trend in framework
debates about complex issues like metaethics and epistemology, debates about what morality
entails are more predictable than util.
2. TURN: LD was created as distinct from policy with the intent of being based in values
debate rather than policy evidence. Framers intent of LD controls the internal link into
predictability since it contextualizes the way debate was supposed to actually be practiced.
3. T/ In debate rounds most people define ought as a moral obligation. Loyola is literally the
only school that runs paramters, so my interp is more predictable based upon past rounds.
A2 Ground
1. T/ Util has horrible ground because it is a descriptive standard. Because util is based in status
quo impacts, there are inherently more utils in a particular action, thus arbitrarily advantaging
one side.
2. Non-unique: He can make reasons why his util offense means that some side-constraint is
violated.
3. Non-unique: He can say why extinction or other huge ends-based impacts are the biggest
impact into any standard
4. TURN: Util destroys my ground by essentially nullifying the idea of permissibility, which is
a key part of the neg ground since very few authors argue that we should prohibit
rehabilitation as a principle.
5. Non-unique: Theres no reason why ends-based arguments are better than means-based
arguments or a different form of conceptualizing ought.
6. T/ He is destroying all framework ground by making the FW debate entirely irrelevant.
Philosophical ground outweighs since it functions as the umbrella for all impacts in the
round, so abuse on that layer causes abuse elsewhere.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

AT Topic Education
1. Just because some people like recycling frameworks doesnt mean we should shut out the
framework debate altogether and exclude good framework debaters.
2. TURN: While the possible combinations of substantive arguments under a util are
predictable and finite, theres an unlimited number of ways a framework debate could play
out because you dont need evidence to make them.
3. TURN: Util contention debates usually just come down to whoever has the best extinction
scenario, while there are an unlimited number of frameworks debaters can run, meaning we
never know how it will play out.
4. TURN: Util is uneducational because there are a infinite number of consequences to every
action. Each act produces another effect which produces another and so on to infinity. Since
there is no brightline as to when all impacts have been counted and a finite comparison can
occur, util has no application to real world calculations. This also implies that even if util is
true you negate on permissibility since expected utility as a concept is incoherent, so every
action is equally desirable under util.
AT Policymakers = Util
1. TURN: Policy-makers operate under the side-constraint of the Constitution and other legal
boundaries.
2. TURN: Policy-makers are often politically motivated and dont justify all their actions from a
utilitarian standpoint.
3. TURN: Policy-makers dont spend all of our money on foreign aid to maximize utility, but
rather prioritize other issues.
4. TURN: Policy-makers operate under the side-constraint of economic feasibility.
AT People = Naturally Util
1. TURN: People prioritize familial obligations over the general welfare.
2. TURN: Obviously people in a study will say that they care about others, but as a whole,
people are egoist, as proven by the fact that most people dont give away their life savings to
charity.
3. TURN: People operate under side constraints, such as economic feasibility.
4. TURN: When people were asked about the trolley problem again but where they had to
personally involve themselves, a majority chose not to save the 5, showing that people
naturally believe a side constraint exists of some sort.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

NO NEW PRECLUSION
A-Interpretation: If the affirmative doesnt introduce a/an [meta-ethic, epistemology, ontology,
or whatever] that limits which arguments can warrant the standard, the negative may not
introduce a new [meta-ethic, epistemology, ontology, or whatever].
B-Violation: The AC didnt introduce a ___________, while he did in the NC.
C-Standards:
1. Reciprocity: The interesting responses to the meta-ethic, ontology, etc. that I can make
are all 100% defense, and that debate can't be won since they have some risk of a
warrant. My interpretation is precisely that ______ SHOULDNT function to exclude
arguments, whereas they believe that it should. This means that if I win the debate I only
get access to my arguments, but if they win, my arguments are excluded. This abuse is
compounded by the fact that all they need to do is extend the _______ and a warrant that
links back to it, and win a link to their ________, regardless of the defense I generate.
[Saying I can link into their ______ misses the point, since the argument is that their
interp allows them to pick the narrowest _______ possible that definitionally clashes with
my framework. And, claiming that I can read my own ______ in the 1AR is ridiculous
no reasonable judge would allow a debater to introduce a new preclusive framework in a
rebuttal.] Ground is key to fairness because its the basis on which we make arguments.
2. Breadth and Depth: There is substantial literature in the intuitionist circle that rejects the
exclusionary function of meta-ethics, epistemology, and ontology. James Dreier, David
Enoch, Nishi Shah, Nadeem Hussein, and Jake Nebel's VBI lecture notes all say this.
They introduce a strategic skew that shuts out this kind of philosophical debate, which a)
leads to a race to the bottom, since NCs will have an incentive to out-preclude AC
frameworks, substantially decreasing clash and b) doesnt let us debate about ethics on a
normative level, which are most applicable to real life and what most philosophical texts
are composed of. [The interp theyre advancing leads to terrible debatedebaters now
read complicated, preclusionary arguments that they often misinterpret. This has been
EMPIRICALLY proven.] Breadth and depth are key to fairness because they allow
debaters to expose themselves to a wide variety of new ideas and foster that knowledge
through clash.
It is a CONTESTED issue in philosophy whether or not meta-theoretic concernsmeta-ethics,
epistemology, ontology, etc.--serve to exclude arguments on the level of theory of itself. David
Enoch11 gives the example of error theory about numbers:
If Field's error theory is right, then what practicing mathematicians are interested
in is the number-theoretic fiction (which they may think of as non-fictional). And while the relevant error
theory does say that the number story is a fiction, it has no implications within that
fiction. And so those studying what's true in that fiction need not worry about
Field's error theory. In this sense, then, Field's error theory is (or at least, for anything thus far said may very well be) number-theoretically neutral, even though it entails numbertheoretic propositions (and sometimes rather surprising ones). It is, in a perfectly understandable, though not perfectly precise, sense not something the practicing mathematician needs to worry about. The
11 Enoch, David. How Objectivity Matters. New York University. pp. 42-3.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__academics__colloquia__l
egal_political_and_social_philosophy/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063211.pdf

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

same may be true of some metaethical positions, like some versions of metaethical
error theory. Noticing this can help solve a puzzle in reading Mackie (1977). Mackie is commonly taken to have argued for a metaethical error theory (at least about objective values). But he also
claimed first-order neutrality for his "second-order skepticism", claiming that first- and second-order claims are "not merely distinct but completely independent" (1977, 16). Given the obvious implication relations
between his error theory and numerous first-order claims (it's not the case that love is of value; it's not the case that murder is wrong, etc.), how could Mackie seriously claim neutrality for his metaethical theory? A
Mackie thought that his metaethical error theory is

not something people thinking about first-order morality should worry about,
because though it has first-order implications it does not have discriminating
implications, in the sense outlined above.
plausible answer is suggested, I think, by the previous paragraphs: Perhaps

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

DEFENDER OF JUSTICE
MUST HAVE A STANDARD
A-Interpretation: Both debaters may only derive offense that proves the truth or falsity of the
resolution from a sufficient standard that they advocate or their opponents standard when the
affirmative only impacts to one sufficient standard in the AC. A standard is defined as a true
ethical theory that can speak to the truth or falsity of all normative statements without the use of
an external decision calculus.
B-Violation: He runs pre-standards arguments that are asserted to negate a priori
C-Standards:
1. Resolvability: Their interp makes the debate irresolvable. If one debater can make
arguments that function pre-standards, the judge has no metric by which to evaluate
those arguments, since they dont link to a decision calculus thats been mentioned inround. The truth of the resolution isnt a decision calculus, since statements cant be a
priori true or false unless theyve already being discussed in the context of a normative
theory. Further, the words true and false mean nothing in the abstractonly an
ethical theory give us a threshold after which a statement can be true or false.
Resolvability is the biggest impact back to fairness because without resolvable debate,
there IS no way for the judge to make a decision.
2. Reciprocity: His arguments arent quantitatively reciprocal because I have to win each
one decisively before the case debate even matters and they arent qualitatively reciprocal
since I cant turn them, since the converse of the statement that the resolution is
nonsensical is that the resolution is logical, which isnt sufficient for me to win.
3. [Against skepticism] Ground: In order for me to beat back his pre-standards argument, I
need 100% defense. This is because theres no offensive way to turn morality doesnt
exist in a way that would a priori affirm the resolution. Because hell ALWAYS have a
risk of offense since all I can do is play defense, so hell ALWAYS win. Ground is key to
fairness because its the basis on which we make arguments.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

NEG SKEP BAD
A-Interpretation: Both debaters must 1) link all arguments to prove the resolution true or false
to a standard, which is a comprehensive normative theory that entails the truth or falsity of all
correct normative propositions and 2) grant that some actions are morally prohibited.
B-Violation:
1. Skepticism definitionally cant link to a comprehensive normative theory since it denies
the possibility of any comprehensive normative theories
2. Skepticism denies that any actions are morally prohibited
C-Standards:
1. Clash: Indicting assumptions destroys clash, since such arguments function on an
independent layer of the flow than do topical arguments. Debaters are incentivized to use
skep as a way of ignoring analysis to just move the debate to a higher layer. Clash is key
to education since it is the basis of arguments in round.
2. Ground: A) skep destroys quantity of my ground by precluding access to all the most
stock negs on the topic such as util and deont ncs. Stock args are key ground since I can
only debate what I can be reasonably expected to prep for. B) skep destroys link turn
ground since the logical converse of the argument, morality exists, is not sufficient to
negate. I need to also prove the specific resolutional action permissible. Link turns are
key since they allow me to turn opposing arguments while at the same time substantively
refuting them. This is preferable to impact turns which merely introduce a new layer of
debate about what the arguments do for whom without refuting the original args. Ground
is key to fairness since it dictates my ability to argue and win.
3. Topical education: we lose all topical discussion of the resolution under their interp
since the debate devolves into a semantic discussion about whether skep affirms or
negates, rather than self-defense or domestic violence. Topical education outweighs since
it teaches us lessons about real-life issues that we will carry with us for the rest of our
lives. Moreover, semantics are horrible for education since they are just a debate of
intuition, resulting in shallow analysis and competing assertions from which we learn
nothing. Further, since semantics debate is just a battle of intuitions that collapses to an
appeal to one side, the neg will always be ahead on the directionality of the skep debate
since that is the true side of the issue, so my job is qualitatively harder, destroying
reciprocity, which is key since it ensures equitable opportunity to win. Additionally,
weighing claims of skep ground is impossible since there is nothing to compare to, since
the debate is just a blip-storm of intuitive assertions, making the debate irresolvable since
prioritization of one argument over another is impossible. Resolvability comes first as a
jurisdictional issue since every debate needs a winner.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

GENERAL SKEP BAD
A. Interpretation Debaters must impact to the resolution within a specific ethical theory. pecific
ethical theory must include substantive moral judgments which says at least some actions are good or
bad.
B. Violation
C. Standards: 1. Reciprocity Its easier to deny the ability to make ethical judgments than to
prove an ethical theory, since the truth of an ethical theory requires it to meet multiple metaethical, epistemological, and meta-physical conditions. For example, contractualism requires
winning cognivitism, inter-personal relations, reasons, and rawlsian equilibrium any of
them can be challenged by a skeptic while the framework must meet all. Reciprocity is key
to fairness because of equal access. Structural abuse outweighs substantive abuse because it
creates multiple independent layers to beat back, he still has a chance to engage in the debate.
2. Clash: This kills clash because he has an incentive to go for the layer I cover least - if one
debater has access to multiple layers, they literally have the ability to choose the smallest
number/quality of arguments to answer. Clash precludes education because it allows me to
engage in the debate, and fairness since it allows me to have a coherent strategy and win the
ballot. Clash precludes other education links because we have to actually engage on an issue
in order to learn about it, and is key to fairness because I need to be able to engage in an
argument to have a chance of winning 3. The neg can set up non-falsifable arguments. Its
impossible for me to prove that there isnt a demon whispering in my ear skewing my moral
judgments.. Non-falsifiable claims justify infinite ground shifts. Any response I make they
can just answer by claiming that it suffers from the same logic as the system that their
advocacy indicts. They can generate infinite links to preclude all of my answers to their case
by just shifting it to encompass by responses. This gives me no stable ground to form an
advocacy on. This precludes education because without falsifiable debate, we cant have any
debate to begin with.
D -Fairness is a voter because unfair arguments arbitrarily skew your evaluation of the
round towards the unfair debater, and it precedes substance because it frames the
evaluation of ALL substantive arguments. Education is a voter because its the reason
fund debate as they have a commitment to teaching students. Drop the debater a) to set a
precedent for the best norms of debate, which is the purpose of establishing theoretical
interpretations, b) to deter future abuse, and c) to rectify the time lost running theory
which skewed my ability to win substantively. Evaluate theory through competing
interpretations because a) reasonability is completely arbitrary as whats reasonable to
you may not be reasonable to me and b) reasonability creates a race to the bottom since it
encourages debaters to use increasingly unfair strategies and get away with them by
playing defense on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI in order to prevent the deterrence
of legitimate theory.
Of skep = key edu
1. They can use skepticism as a trigger for other moral frameworks, like phillipa foots
nietzchean ethics.
2. He gets accessed to every ethical theory with permissibility just not skepticism, meaning he
still has access to any morally important issue.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

3. Skepticism has no ethical value because the point of morality as education is to guide action,
which skepticism denies. Learning about skepticism can never help us.
4. Turn under his interpretation we never debate contentions so we never learn how to apply
ethical judgments. Morals are useless unless applied to the world.
5. Infinite potential ground
6. Egoism, Kantian NCs, Contractarianism, act-omission distinction, overdemandingness,
emotivism
7. If everything permissinle why would we care about learning how to be moral
8. Philosophy education as an abstract thing is bullsiht
9. Crossapply that what you think fair doesnt matter
Skep = key ground.
1. There is an infinite amount of potential ground
2. Just not true [ list ground]
3. Use skep to justify other ethical frameworks [Macintyre does this via virtue ethics, Green says it
collapses to util, Harman uses it to justify hypothetical bargaining, many people do this for
emotivism]

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A PRIORIS BAD--NEGATIVE (NC)
A. Interpretation: All offense proving the resolution true or false must impact to a
necessary and sufficient standard. Standards must have only one evaluative mechanism,
which is a comprehensive normative theory that entails all true normative propositions.
B. Violation: He runs [multiple] prestandards arguments, specifically <>.
C. Standards:
1. Theyre not reciprocal A) quantitatively since he gets <insert number> ways to win
whereas all I have is the case debate and B) qualitatively since a prioris come before
the NC, and only he can get offense on them. I can never turn these arguments since
turning the resolution is true on face just means the resolution is not on face true,
which gives me nothing to work with. Hes going to say I could have run them too,
but that would make the debate irresolvable--its impossible to weigh and decide a
winner between two noncompetitive arguments which simultaneously prove the
resolution true and false on face. Resolvability comes first since every debate must
have a winner.
2. Clash: Hell just go for the argument I cover the least, destroying clash, which is the
foundation of substantive debate, and decreases depth by spreading the debate to
<insert number> unrelated layers. Clash precludes other education links because we
have to actually engage on an issue in order to learn about it. and links to fairness
because I need a fair chance to engage in a debate in order to win.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

A PRIORIS BAD--AFFIRMATIVE (1AR)
A. Interpretation: The neg must impact all offense to a necessary and sufficient standard
with link and impact turn ground to prove the truth or falsity of the resolution when the
affirmative only impacts to one necessary and sufficient standard. Standards must have
only one evaluative mechanism, which is a comprehensive normative theory that entails
all true normative propositions.
B. Violation: He runs [multiple] pre-standards arguments, specifically <>.
C. Standards:
1. Reciprocity: Theyre un-reciprocal A) quantitatively since he gets <insert number>
ways to win whereas all I have is the case debate and B) qualitatively since all NC a
prioris come before the AC, and only he can get offense on a prioris. I can never turn
these arguments since turning the resolution is false on face just means the
resolution is not false on face, which gives me nothing to work with. [Even if I can
turn them, the turn ground is awful--permissibility is insufficient aff ground--neg
grammatical arguments are far superior to aff substantive arguments. If the neg even
makes answers to permissibility, he will likely win that debate.]
2. Clash: Hell just go for the argument I cover the least, destroying clash, which is the
foundation of substantive debate, and decreases depth by spreading the debate to
<insert number> unrelated layers. Winning his framework renders the other
framework irrelevant. Clash precludes other education links because we have to
actually engage on an issue in order to learn about it. and links to fairness because I
need a fair chance to engage in a debate in order to win.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

NIBS BAD
A. Interpretation: All offense proving the resolution true or false must impact to a necessary
and sufficient standard with link and impact turn ground to prove the truth or falsity of
the resolution when the affirmative only impacts to one necessary and sufficient standard.
B. Violation: He runs a necessary but insufficient standard.
C. Standards:
1. Reciprocity--only he can get offense to his standard since meeting his standard
doesnt mean I win. This allows him to kick turns, giving him a __:1 structural
advantage, and creates a moving target since he can kick burdens I put offense on
since theyre no risk. Reciprocity is key because it ensures equal advocacies
2. Predictability--there are infinite necessary conditions for a standard to be met
because every statement makes numerous metaphysical assumptions. I cannot
account for all of justice in six minutes, so I can never be prepared to defend
against these burdens. Hell just go for the argument I cover the least, destroying
clash, which is key to education because its the foundation of substantive debate,
and decreases depth by spreading the debate to <insert number> unrelated layers.
Clash precludes other education links because we have to actually engage on an
issue in order to learn about it, and links to fairness because I need a fair chance to
engage in a debate in order to win. Predictability is key to fairness since I must be
able to predict his arguments in order to adequately engage them.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Frontlines for Necessary but Insufficient Standards Bad
A2 Nec/insuff standards k2 phil ground
(__) We could have had the same philosophical debate without the NC being necessary but
insufficient.
(__) Philosophical debate is worse for education than topical argumentation because
philosophical debate rehashes the same issues over and over again. An overemphasis on
philosophical debate discourages topical res\earch since the winning of one particular framework
excludes all other arguments made that dont specifically link to that framework. Moreover, only
a small minority of u will enter the esoteric field of moral philosophy, but the education gained
through topical arguments make us more informed citizens.
(_) Its still possible to have phil debate without nibs, we can argue about other philosophical
frameworks; there is nothing uniquely valuable about running their particular moral framework
that mandates that we always talk about it.
A2 You have link turn ground win that the aff case mandates [NC standard]
(__) This still puts me at a 2:1 disadvantage since I have to first beat back the neg case and then
prove that the aff case would be a reason to vote, while all he has to do is win the neg case.
(__) These arguments are illogical because the NC would still deny them; even if I win the
prescriptive claim that [adults and juveniles would form a self-interested contract], thats not
sufficient to affirm because it doesnt interact with your descriptive claim that [juveniles cant
ever form contracts with adults].
A2 Nec/insuff burdens are permissible if negs are not allowed to make offensive arguments
on the AC
(__) CX If I either win a) the framework debate or b) that affirming is permissible under your
standard, would I automatically win?
(__) Its still unfair because even if I prove that affirming would be permissible under his
contention 1 and 2, he can still win through contention 3. He says I could just beat back the
framework and its still 1-1 reciprocal, but thats false because he runs his NC knowing that my
AC framework is [1 minute], but he gets to frontload the NC framework and make it [4 minutes],
so hes always at a strategic advantage. This means that affs would always lose under his
interpretation. Affs are also at a double-bind here because if I had frontloaded my framework, he
would have just read a turn-spread as opposed to a framework-heavy NC. Thus, affs need the
strategic option of being able to sever and turn the negative case.
A2 You can run them too
1. If I ran prestandards too, that would make the debate nonsensical since you would have to
evaluate between two noncompetitive arguments which simultaneously prove the
resolution true and false on face, and neither of these would be responsive to each other
so it would be impossible to weigh them and decide a winner. Resolvability comes first
since we would never debate in a competitive format in the first place if no one could
win.
2. Thats retroactive it doesnt help me now that its my NR.
3. I couldnt have predicted that I would need to prepare a prioris for a topic because a
prioris have no grounding in the topic literature. Predictability is key to fairness because I
have to be able to predict their arguments to adequately engage them.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

4. A prioris on the neg are disadvantaged to a prioris on the aff because he has two speeches
to extend a prioris, while I only have one, and the aff has seven minutes to my six. Even
if this time skew is not unique to a prioris, it is uniquely bad because if I drop other of
arguments I can just outweigh them but that is impossible with a prioris.
5. Its self-defeating I gave reasons why a prioris are bad in the NC, so running them now
would be illogical.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

NIBS GOOD
A2 NIBS Bad: Overview
1. The fairness argument is a reason to vote against me, not just reject my argument, meaning
he is running multiple advocacies because he claims you affirm because of case impacts and
theory. This means he is running a necessary but insufficient argument too, so he violates his
own interpretation.
2. I meet the standard is necessary and sufficient for me. Hold them to the exact text of their
interp allowing debaters to clarify in the 2AR would destroy 2nr strategy.
3. I meet- My burden is to disprove the truth of the resolution. If I dont do that, I lose the
neg burden is thus both necessary and sufficient for the aff. Even if I make smart weighing
arguments within that burden, the burden itself meets their interp.
Counter-interp
A. Counter-interpretation: Each side gets access to one necessary but insufficient standard.
B. Reasons to prefer:
1. Solves reciprocitythe aff had the chance to run a necessary but insufficient standard,
giving both debaters two equal outs.
2. Text is a litmus test for other theory standards. Theory is a way of resolving textual
interpretations, but if his interpretation is not textual, he doesnt meet the litmus test for
evaluating theory debates. His is not based in the text of the resolution because the
definition of negate.
3. Education: Forbidding permissibility either A. cancels out topical arguments, decreasing
breadth of discussion or B. Promotes stupid argumentation because it forces debaters to
run standards that logically merely prove permissibility as obligatory, cancelling out a
substantial amount of philosophical ground. This forces debaters to engage the standards
debate as opposed to just conceding to a standard; standards debate is key to education
because it forces debaters to discuss complex ethical ideas. Education is a voter because
it helps debaters grow as people.
A2 Reciprocity
1. If permissibility [He can impact turn the NC by winning that permissibility affirms, either
through a grammatical or substantive argument. This is better turn ground because if he
wins that permissibility affirms, he automatically wins.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

2. He functionally pushes to the debate to permissibility by saying presume aff. There still
has to be some way to resolve; pushing to util from deont makes no sense. You would
have to presume, which is functionally just permissibility.]
1 The fairness argument is a reason to vote against me, not just reject my argument, meaning
he is running multiple advocacies because he claims you affirm because of case impacts and
theory. This puts him in a double bind, either:
a. Reject theory because we both violate or
b. Given that necessary and insufficient standards are bad,
make theory a two-way street: if I win my
counterinterpretation then you should vote for me
because otherwise its a no-risk issue for the aff.
2 Its reciprocal we both have access to such arguments. Reciprocity has no definition
outside of equal access
3 Reciprocity doesnt mean illogically generating offense - not every argument has to be
turnable. For example, If I said your case was unwarranted or was missing internal links
4
and thus should be rejected, proving that it has those things wouldnt mean you win.
Theres no such thing as reciprocity debaters choose criterions and make arguments
with the intent of giving them the advantage in a debate round, its ridiculous to pretend
that just because some people are more blatant they are less reciprocal than others.
No brightline for how reciprocal someone has to be in order to meet their standard
without that key bright line theory is irresolvable since no one could ever prove
themselves to be not abusive.
A2 Clash
Turn I spread clash out vertically across flows, rather than horizontally on one. They
dont say why clash on one layer is better then across layers. In fact, mine is better since
theres more differnet kinds of arguments across flows.

Turn theres more clash since were not limited by one moral framework, but debating
the truth of the resolution holistically. In one framework we severely limit the kinds of
arguments we can have.

Turn triggers always create more clash since you literally have to engage in them. With
other arguments, debaters just drop them and try and outweigh them or framework out of
them, but here debaters actually have to argue about them..

No brightline to how much clash we need or what it even is. Brightlines are key to
fairness since I need to know it to engage in the theory debate,

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

5
I shouldnt be responsible because of their inability to clash with me the arguments are
there, they can respond to them they choose to not respond since theyre not good
enough to cover.
Turn theyre destroying clash by running this shell. They could of responded to my
strategy, but they just took the debate a level higher because they didnt want to make
arguments. Thus you reject their theory shell as internally contradictory.

[If Permissibility] Turn I expand whole new realms of clash by opening up more layers
of the debate. Permissibility is 1/3 of moral theory besides obligation and prohibition
meaning theres 1.5 times as much clash in my world.

Turn Permissibility like arguments are key to deontological clash. Otherwise theres no
way to resolved competing violations of frameworks, but this way we can actually debate
about and weigh the arguments.

Turn I just have different kinds of clash, things like whether permissibility affirms or
negates. My form of clash is the best, since in the real world people use semantic tricks to
get around things all the time. Also lawyers have to deal with interpretations like that. I
also bring up interesting theory questions like this, creating clash over the best norms for
debate and guiding future debate rounds.

10 Turn you can just turn permissibility, and create clash there. No reason every part of
the flow needs to have lots of responses.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

MUST NUMBER SPIKES
A. InterpretationAll arguments not justifying or linking to a single moral framework in
the AC must be explicitly numbered.
B. Violation:
C. Standards:
a. Strat Skew: they kill my ability to formulate a coherent strategy because they
label their spikes in such a way that detracts from my ability to catch them. I cant
form a coherent strategy around arguments that are hidden as such that I cant
respond adequately to them. Strategy is key to fairness because its key to winning
the round. This also destroys clash because they directly avoid substantive debate
by trying to win off of shadily hiding spikes. Clash precludes other education
links because we have to actually engage on an issue in order to learn about it.
and links to fairness because I need a fair chance to engage in a debate in order to
win.
D. D-Voter: Fairness is a voter because unfair arguments arbitrarily skew your evaluation of
the round and it precedes substance because it frames its evaluation. Drop the debater a)
to set a precedent for the best norms of debate b) to deter future abuse and c) to rectify
time lost running theory. Use competing interps because a) what is reasonably fair is
arbitrary and b) reasonability encourages debaters to get away with increasingly unfair
strategies through defense on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI a) both debaters have
the burden of being fair, and no one deserves to win for just meeting that burden and b) to
prevent the deterrence of legitimate theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

LARP THEORY
PICS BAD
A-Interpretation: The negative can defend one unconditional counterplan that does not include
any part of the affirmative advocacy, so they cannot garner offense off rehabilitation.
B-Violation: His CP includes part of the aff advocacy.
C-Standards:
1. Ground: PICs allow the neg to advocate doing the AC except for any minor stipulation,
which coopts all aff ground. This allows the neg to defend only the most desirable slice of
the resolution and avoid any disad to negation. This also forces me to start the whole
debate over in the 1AR, nullifying six minutes of speech time. Ground is key to fairness
because access to arguments determines access to the ballot. All education reasons to
prefer the PIC are not competitive with my interpretation because he can still run the CP,
so long as it doesnt include any part of the aff advocacy.
2. Predictability: There are a nearly infinite variety of permutations for parts of the plan
that the neg accepts or rejects, and the neg can defend any one exception to research and
frontline. Theres no way for the aff to prepare specifically for all of them, giving the neg
a massive prep advantage. Predictability is key to fairness because the ability to prepare
for debates determines the ability to engage in them. Its also key to education because I
cannot engage in debate, so we can never have any education.
round towards the unfair debater, and it precedes substance because it frames the evaluation of
ALL substantive arguments. Drop the argument, not the debater because dropping the argument
is less interventionist; the voter section is the part of the theory shell thats the most arbitrary on
paradigms, if we take it out debates become easier to adjudicate in general and thus fairer.
Intervention outweighs all other abuse because it means the debate doesnt determine the winner,
creating 100% arbitrariness. Evaluate theory through competing interpretations because a)
reasonability is completely arbitrary as whats reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me
and b) reasonability creates a race to the bottom since it encourages debaters to use increasingly
unfair strategies and get away with them by playing defense on theory. And, dont vote on the
RVI because theory cant be a voting issue if it was never a reason to vote (drop the debater) in
the first place.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

PICS GOOD
A-Counter-Interpretation: Negatives should be allowed to run one unconditional PIC with a
solvency advocate.
1. Real World: The best real-world policies are a result of constant compromise and
modification, not complete rejections of current policies. PICs let us cover the nuances of
competing policies and learn about current events. The PIC tests the aff--the aff must be
prepared to defend the entirety of their plan--otherwise it promotes a bad form of policy
making where the aff doesn't need to consider the full implications of their plan. Real
world education is the most important form of education because it is the only long-term
benefit we gain from the activity.
2. Its key to counterbalance the aff ability to have specific advantages and/or a specific
plan. Otherwise the aff could be nuanced, but the neg would have to stick with
predictable generics.
3. Topic lit solves your offenseI have evidence relating specifically to the resolution on
the counterplan which makes it reasonably predictable. At worst, theres no distinction
between unpredictability and strategy; people always try to be less predictable which is
why people have multiple positions.
4. Ground: The logical extent of the affs interp is that the negative advocacy cannot
include any planks of the affirmative advocacy because they havent drawn a line on how
much of the AC I can include. [Give an example about why any part of the juvenile
punishment system necessitates treating juveniles the same at some stage as the adult
criminal justice system.] This eliminates any negative arguments that involve a
component of the world that the AC exists in, destroying all neg ground. Ground is key to
fairness because it dictates what arguments we can make in the round and provides for
equal chances to win.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

META-THEORY
ARBITRARY PLANKS BAD
A-Interpretation: Debaters must link offense back to all planks of their interpretation.
B-Violation: They add words to their interpretations that have no offense linking back to in order
to arbitrarily exclude certain positions [Give Examples].
C-Standards:
1. Ground: A) He is quantitatively skewing my ground since he is reducing my ability to
generate counter-interps and I meets back to his theory shell because he can just preclude
it with some arbitrary word in his interpretation. The abuse is supercharged by the fact
that if he can add random words to his interpretation he controls the directionality of all
of the theory debates since the person starting the theory debate sets the foundation for all
other theory offense in the round. B) He is qualitatively skewing my ground especially by
precluding my ability to generate I meets against the interpretation (Give specific I meets
in this round you lose). This is extremely key ground on theory since I meets are the most
efficient way to respond to theory (especially in the time-crunched 1AR). Additionally,
the ground abuse outweighs because I dont have the ability to prepare for theory against
my positions because there are an infinite amount of words he/she can add to preclude
my ability to garner offense. Ground is key to fairness since dictates our ability to
formulate arguments and thus win the round.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

POSITIVELY WORDED INTERPRETATIONS
A-Interpretation: Theory shell interpretations must only be positively worded.
B-Violation: His interpretation is negatively worded, [specifically using the word not.]
C-Standards:
1. Ground: A) By my opponent simply forbidding a particular action, then there is no
clearly defined ground upon which I can criticize their interpretation, because their
interpretation fails to explain what debate looks like under their interpretation. This puts
my opponent in a double bind, either a) they allow for any argument external to what they
forbid allowing for near infinite abuse or b) they dont allow for anything else in which
case I have no idea what their interpretation allows and thus cant generate offense. B)
This kills I-meet ground because s/he is simply forbidding the action I do, while not
creating a general rule for debate that I can link into. I meet ground is key ground on
theory because it is the only way you can test whether you trigger the abuse in the
standards of the shell. Ground is key to fairness because it dictates our ability to argue
and win.
2. This is terrible under competing interpretations because the purpose of competing
interpretations is to create a general rule or norm for debate; however, since they are not
promoting some general rule that can be applied to various scenarios in a debate round,
there is no precedent to set.
ALL substantive arguments. Drop the debater a) to set a precedent for the best norms of debate,
which is the purpose of establishing theoretical interpretations, b) to deter future abuse, and c) to
rectify the time lost running theory which skewed my ability to win substantively. Evaluate
theory through competing interpretations because a) reasonability is completely arbitrary as
whats reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me and b) reasonability creates a race to the
bottom since it encourages debaters to use increasingly unfair strategies and get away with them
by playing defense on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI in order to prevent the deterrence of
legitimate theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

MULTIPLE SHELLS BAD

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

MULTIPLE SHELLS REASONABILITY/RVI
A-Interpretation: The neg may only run one theory shell if they deny the aff reasonability and
the RVI in the NC.
B-Violation:
C-Standards:
1. Time skew: Forcing me to read a counter-interp on each shell in order to get offense
skews my 1ar time since I have to engage a substantial amount of time reading a
counterinterpretation and beating back each shell. This is compounded by the fact that I
cant win on any shells, so I am forced to devote 2+ minutes of my 1ar beating back
theory that I cant win on. Time skew is key because my ability to respond to arguments
dictates my ability to win. Further, this structurally precludes any of their theoretical
arguments because running multiple shells without reasonability skews my ability to
engage their shells, so you cant know who is winning the abuse story because your
evaluation of theory as a judge has been skewed.
2. Reciprocity: running multiple theory shells but denying me the rvi or reasonability makes
them no risk issues that I have to devote a significant portion of my 1ar responding to,
this gives him a 2-1 structural advantage since he can win off of the shells but I cant, and
it skews reciprocity on the substantive level too because he is ahead as I had to respond to
no risk issues. Reciprocity is key to fairness because it ensures equal advocacies.
D. Cross apply voter. Metatheory determines the function of theory in the round, so its
nonsensical to say you can weigh regular theory against meta-theory since the function of theory
is uncertain prior to the resolution of the meta-theory debate. So, the meta-theory debate
operates at a higher layer because its a prerequisite to determining how you evaluate theory.
E. Preempts: They will say I could have met the shell, but a. my argument is that they are
unfair in cases that I am forced to run a counterinterp and there is no way of meeting the
shell. B. Its still almost mandated to run a counterinterp because otherwise they could
just spend six minutes dumping on my I meets and easily win, so either I run a CI and I
meets but lose on substance, or just run I meets and lose on theory.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Frontlines
Shouldnt have been abusive multiple times
1.my arg isnt that you cant run multiple shells, its that you cant deny me the RVI and
reasonability and run multiple.
Can Weigh Theory

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

PARAGRAPH THEORY BAD
A-Interpretation: If the aff reads internal links to fairness/education or paragraph theory
arguments (or any theory argument) with potential ballot implications in the AC then they must
read a full voter, identifying whether theory is a reason to reject the argument or reject the
debater and potential violations for each paragraph theory argument in the AC.
B-Violation: He reads theory arguments in the AC (specifically) but doesnt read whether they
are reasons to drop the argument or the debater, nor does he read potential violations.
C-Standards:
1. Reciprocity: This is the definition of unreciprocal because if I violate it, they can attach a
voter and win, but if I beat it back then I still cant win on it because they never drew the
implication to vote me down, so an RVI would be incoherent. This requires a) reading
drop the argument vs. drop the debater to identify if theory could be an RVI, and b)
reading potential violations is necessary because theory cannot be an RVI if was never a
reason to vote. Obviously theory is not a reason to vote until I violate the shell.
Reciprocity is key to fairness since it ensures equitable opportunity to win. This also
controls the internal link to strat skew because I dont know which arguments hell go for,
which forces me to overcover on all of them, giving him an easy win on substance or I
undercover giving him an easy W on theory. Strat is key to forming a coherent ballot
story.
2. Clash: There is literally no clash or education when the aff can just extend a dropped
theory argument and win. He can literally avoid all substantive debate, simply by winning
one of his theory shell. This is empirically verified: I started the paragraph theory trend in
LD, I would know that there is literally no education, topical debate, or phil debateit
boils down to theory. Clash is key to education because comparing arguments is the only
unique education benefit in LD.
ALL substantive arguments. Education is a voter because its the reason fund debate as they have
a commitment to teaching students. Drop the debater a) to set a precedent for the best norms of
debate, which is the purpose of establishing theoretical interpretations, b) to deter future abuse,
and c) to rectify the time lost running theory which skewed my ability to win substantively.
Evaluate theory through competing interpretations because a) reasonability is completely
arbitrary as whats reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me and b) reasonability creates a
race to the bottom since it encourages debaters to use increasingly unfair strategies and get away
with them by playing defense on theory. And, dont vote on the RVI in order to prevent the
deterrence of legitimate theory. Also, this is a meta-theory argument that criticizes the theory
arguments in the AC, which means it comes at a higher level since it frames the evaluation of
those arguments.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

Frontlines
A2 Its potential abuse
1. The shell says that my strategy has already been skewed, proving that its not potential
abuse. Its also unreciprocal regardless of whether or not its extended because he has
more ways to win that me, proving the abuse.
2. Potential abuse is actual abuse. Otherwise, the aff can spew abusive args then kick them
to gain the positive time tradeoff on theory, meaning my only check on abuse is skewed
against me since its being manipulated by their abusive strategies in order to
disadvantage me even more. This means if they extend some argument to meet the
interpretation and kick the rest of the case, they are just feeding the abuse.
3. Extend that theory is an issue of competing interpretations: its about promoting the best
norms for the activity, not just particular in-round abuse. Thus, if he justifies a worse rule
for debate, its still a reason to vote. Actual abuse is only one instantiation of the general
pattern that I point out is wrong with his interpretation of debate, so potential abuse must
be a voter.
A2 You can read a voter and violations against yourself, then read an RVI

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

PARAGRAPH THEORY GOOD
Counter-Interpretation: Theory interps may be advanced before the violation occurs.
1. I meet. By extending my shell in the next speech I am advancing it after the violation occurs,
because once they violate I am re-articulating the abuse. They dont say they must only be
advances after. At worst, they are vague about what it means to advance the interp, so if the
violation level is close, you presume I meet.
2. I meet. They are making a vast assumption about my strat. This was never a reason to vote
nor did it have any potential ballot implications because there was no voter. Theory
arguments without a voter are presumed to be merely defensive.
3. TURN: Their interp kills reciprocity because the aff cant run theory in the first speech.
Whereas, since the aff has selected an advocacy already, the neg can run theory in the NC,
making it so they can introduce theory earlier. Reciprocity is key to fairness since it ensures
equal opportunity to win the round.
4. TURN: This skews aff strategy because this literally means I cant have any theory interps in
the AC. This is horrible for my strat because a) it means I have no theory to hedge against
their theory in the NC forcing me to restart the debate in the 1AR, b) 1AR theory is
extremely unpersuasive to judges because the neg only has one speech to respond, and c) the
neg can always capitalize on the 4:6 time skew from the 1AR to the 2AR.
5. TURN: The standards logic justifies not reading preempts and excluding all preemptive
arguments because we would use cx time debating about what the preempts excluded
giving the neg a massive advantage.
6. No Abuse: None of the shells contradict. It is possible to meet all of them, dont blame me
because they werent creative enough to tailor a responsive advocacy.
7. No Abuse: They can make I meets in the next speech because Im running the violation in the
1AR. This solves back all abuse because if they truly arent being abusive they can still run
terminal defense via I meets.
8. No abuseI lost time reading the original shell in the ac. They fact that they can read a CI
nullifies the time skew and at worst they get positive time tradeoff.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

CONTRADICTORY INTERPS BAD

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

POTENTIAL ABUSE DROP THE ARG

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

ONE C-INTERP
A-Interpretation: Debaters must only read one counter-interpretation when responding to the
interpretation of a theory shell read by his or her opponent.
B-Violation: He reads TWO counter-interpretations
C-Standards:
1. Stable Advocacy: To generate offense on a theory debate against a counter-interp I have
to prove UNIQUENESS. For him to meet the theory with his counter-interps, he just has
to prove that ONE counter-interp meets. This means that hes allowed to kick out of all
the offense I generate off one counter-interp by just shifting to the other. When he loses
one counter-interp he doesnt lose the round, you just go to the other counter-interp and
see if its better than the original interp, which forces me to beat two rules while he can
manipulate two to beat my one rule. [Additionally, the counter-interps are either a) the
same and he's lying when he says otherwise or b) mutually inconsistent, meaning that
ANY argument he goes for represents an advocacy shift.] Not only is this unreciprocal, it
also creates a HUGE deficit in strategy, since I dont know which one hell go for in the
next speech [if 2AR: OR which one the judges will evaluate more favorably]. Stable
advocacies are necessary for fairness since I cant engage his arguments unless I know
what hes defending.
This shell precedes the impacts of his, since his practices on the theory debate hamper my ability
to EVEN ENGAGE in the theory debate. Cross-apply the fairness voterhis unfair practices
have permanently skewed the rest of the theory debate against me, so this shell is the only fair
place to vote. Also, vote on meta-theory to set a precedent for good practice in theory debates.
Theory can't remain an unchecked advocacy; you need to look to meta-theory first to enact the
same reform in theory debates themselves that theory debates have triggered on substance.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

NO C-INTERPS AND I MEETS
A-Interpretation: If my opponent reads an RVI, he can either make I meets on my theory
argument, or read a counter-interpretation mutually exclusive with my interpretation and meet
that. He cannot simultaneously meet my interp and his counter-interp if the two are mutually
exclusive.
B-Violation:
C-Standards:
1. Shifting ground: By definition, the I meets on the interp and the counter-interp are
mutually exclusive. This is the only way for them to meet my interp but also claim their
educational/fairness advantages from (multiple a prioris or whatever). THIS MEANS
THAT THE I MEETS INEVITABLY REPRESENT A GROUND SHIFT. Their advocacy
cannot simultaneously defend both, so they can only go for one. It's not like they're
changing the status of a counterplan. The two I meets determine whether they are making
ONE ARGUMENT or MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS. This means I have no stable
advocacy to engage, and zero ground to generate any uniqueness against their counterinterps.
My argument is not that you can't use I meets to test the competition of a theory shell, just like
people in policy use perms as defense to test the competition of a counter-plan while reading
disads to the counterplan. The point is that in policy, if a perm reveals a counter-plan to be noncompetitive, THEN THE NEG ADVOCACY DEFAULTS TO THE STATUS QUO. In LD, with
an RVI, if an I meet or counter-interp reveals the T to not violate, MY ADVOCACY DEFAULTS
TO A LOSS.
They can't mitigate this abuse with an even-if. First, my argument about perms shows that the
abuse is in making EITHER prong reasons to vote rather than defensive reasons to debate the
round under another another interpretation. Second, if I hadn't run the theory, they never could
have claimed an even-if. But theory can't legitimize an argument that would represent a massive
ground shift if theory had never been run. Third, if it's an even-if, that still means they have two
conceptually distinct outs on the RVI debate. I still have to beat back both to access my offense,
which is non-reciprocal.
D. This shell precedes the impacts of his, since his practices on the theory debate hamper my
ability to EVEN ENGAGE in the theory debate. Cross-apply the fairness voterhis unfair
practices have permanently skewed the rest of the theory debate against me, so this shell is the
only fair place to vote. Also, vote on meta-theory to set a precedent for good practice in theory
debates. Theory can't remain an unchecked advocacy; you need to look to meta-theory first to
enact the same reform in theory debates themselves that theory debates have triggered on
substance.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

DROP THE ARG BAD
A-Interpretation: If a debater claims that fairness is a reason to drop the argument, not the
debater, they must make only 5 or fewer arguments in favor of that claim.
B-Violation: They read more than 5 reasons to drop the argument.
C-Standards:
1. Clash: A) They'll always have the incentive to go for the argument I undercover the
most. This is especially true on the voter level of the debate because weighing is
impossible here since each argument in their block is phrased as an independent take-out
of the voter AND judges don't evaluate the voter debate like the standards debate--for
instance, it's nonsensical to say that you can "weigh" claims that fairness isn't a voter
versus fairness is a voter. B) They encourage a bad style of debate that centers around
blipwars and short, underdeveloped arguments. You've ALL seen drop the arg vs. drop
the debater debates--they ALL devolve into giant blipwars, and that debater that's ahead
usually ends up winning because their opponent has conceded the 10th one-liner in a
block for 15 one-line arguments. Most JUDGES don't even get every argument down.
My interpretation solves this by forcing debaters to ACTUALLY DEVELOP their
arguments on the voter debate, ensuring clash and facilitating judge comprehension in a
world where debaters are allowed to contest the function of the voter. Clash is key to
fairness because the ability to meaningfully contest arguments is the ACTUAL use of
other theory standards such as ground and predictability in practice, meaning that without
clash, there IS no fair debate. Clash is also key to education because debate is
definitionally a forum where ideas interact with each other. "Drop the arg" is the new
"fairness isn't a voter" and allows shifty debaters to leave the round with a W while
conceding the abuse--stop this bullshit before it proliferates any more.
This argument functions on a metatheoretical level, since it criticizes practices they employ on
the theory debate. This means that my arguments function on a logically higher level and regular
abuse isn't comparable to abuse on the theoretical level, since I argue that they have prevented
me from meaningfully engaging in the theory debate. Cross-apply competing interpretations--no
gut check. My interp is comparatively better than theirs, since their interp would claim that the
ability to make a billion arguments on the voter debate is somehow better than promoting
ACTUAL clash.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

MULTIPLE 1AR SHELLS BAD
A Interpretation the aff may only run one theory shell in the AR
B Violation
C standards:
1. Skews 2n time and strat The 2nr is already at a time disadvantage since they have 7
minutes vs 6 on theory. Also, I cant respond to 2AR. the 2AR always has the ability to
collapse to any of the shells, meaning I cant allocate time effectively in the 2nr and no
matter what I do theyll have a huge time advantage on me. This proves the strategy is
unreciprocal. Time is key because it dictates our ability to make arguments. Reciprocity is
key because it ensures equal advocacies.
D crossaply the voter E - prempts. 1. 2nr theory dumps dont check since they are a)
unconvincing to judges they can group them and throw them out in the 2AR and b) there can
always be specific reasons their shell doesnt bite in. 2. They should just run theory on the most
unfair thing, and develop the argument more, and prempt 2nr answers. Theres no reason thats
less strategic for them theyll be able to effectively use their time in the 2AR then. 3. Its ok to
run multiple shells in the 2nr, because they get the last word and can deal with shells efficiently.
4. Even if I run multiple shells that will require a new 2AR shell, dont vote off what I couldnt
respond too.

Jan/Feb 2k13
The Comeback Kids

TOC 13

FRONTLINES FOR META-THEORY
Evaluate the metatheoretical debate first:
1. Metatheory determines the function of theory in the round, so its nonsensical to say you can
weigh regular theory against meta-theory since the function of theory is uncertain prior to the
resolution of the meta-theory debate. So, the meta-theory debate operates at a higher layer
because its a prerequisite to determining how you evaluate theory.
2. Metatheory frames the evaluation of theory, similarly to how normal theory frames substance,
if there is a skew on the normal theoretical debate, its impossible to determine who actually won
because your evaluation as a judge has been skewed, so we have to resolve the metatheory
debate prior to determining who is on the right side of the normal theory debate.
A2 META-THEORY
GENERAL RESPONSES
1. inf regressive
Just argument for particular evaluation
Fairness frames substance not theory not subject to own
A2 DETERS FUTURE ABUSE

A2 NORM CREATION
A2 ITS NECESSARY TO CHECK ABUSIVE THEORY

Scarsdale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scarsdale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Definitional Links Bad................................................................................................................18

Deont Weighing Between Violations.....................................................................................23

Extinction Precludes Bad............................................................................................................27

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Contingent Standards Good (Strategic Thinking)....................................................................37

Solvency Advocate Key................................................................................................................43

Non-Falsifiable Arguments Bad.................................................................................................59

GENERIC THEORY SHELLS 2

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Artificial Sufficiency One Arg...............................................................................................71

No Theoretical Standard Jutsifications.....................................................................................75

A2 Necessary but Insufficient Standards Bad...........................................................................88

Multiple Conditions on standards bad......................................................................................92

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

AC Paragraph Theory Bad.......................................................................................................105

AC Paragraph Theory Good....................................................................................................107

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Make sure skep bad is good

GENERIC THEORY SHELLS 5

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

GENERIC THEORY SHELLS 6

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Despite the abstract appeal of

GENERIC THEORY SHELLS 7

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

2 Fantasy Debate. National Statistics. Fantasydebate.com/ld-national-statistics

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

in showing unsuspected possibilities,

3 Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy, CHAPTER XV : THE VALUE OF

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells

Ben Ulene, Grant Reiter

The Comeback Kids

Generic Theory Shells