Resolution is in advance
- assigned and should debate
- resolution word creates policy change
- "enact" and legislative
- Why its good
- we got it in advance and same expectations
- egalitarian way to structure it
- winrate ~50/50
- I/L to many diff types of offence
- predictable stasis point
- engage in focused clash
- Aff has tyo
- Fw important bc why focus on resolution is key
ground. restricted to cjr policy policy allows for arguments
- neg should get ground saying implementing bad, and hard for neg because interp is always different
- 2ac gives caselist, but their ground is unpredictable
- can change agent and caselist changes
- DON'T KNOW HOW IT'LL EVOLVE
- need plan to be clear
- disensentives specific research against aff
- incentive to fall back on absolutive strat which indites every affirmative
- if the aff can get every kritical literature, the neg can't specifically refute them
- aff bybasses all topicality so neg needs to make broad arguments
can't debate everything, so we restrict it for clash
that clash is good for us
good in abstract, but ideal wont happen bc no clash
truth testing
- why neg should test aff advocacy
- assume they are false because the neg couldn't test the aff was true
- if not topical
good education, but not portable until clash with neg, so predictability outweighs
neg no need many cards
switchside debate
- unique about debate
- good to know both sides of an issue
- avoid echo chambers
- good for aff
- better to be read on neg
- because its policy relavent, better links
- if argument about identity more important than debate
- disembodied
- aff responses
- if switchside is true, you should be prepared to answer our aff
- answer is that the neg refuses the aff, the aff doesn't say the neg is wrong
- aff is usually defensive, you don't read frontlines
- reading on neg is better for policy
- reactionary bad
- good because it forces k to be tailored to policy
- debate is reactionary
- procederal fairness
- unifying goal is that we are trying to win
- debate is a game
- both sides need a fair chance then
- fairness is an intrinsic good
- ex. dropped arguments
- i/l
- game preservation
- they cheated, they should lose
- fairness is the only impact, and cheated, and since its a game they should lose
- set precedent
- moral hazard
- make an explicit issue in the 2nc
- fairness is not as compelling
- ballott 100% solves procederal fairness, it doesn't solve racism
- fairness
- the debate is built on fairness (ex, dropped arguments etc)
- it is debate
- cx
- give example where they got screwed by voting other team
- not isolated from fairness
- DEBATE IS A GAME
- prep, pairings brackets, trophies etc
- factually competitive academic
- the game should be balanced
- not a safe space.... why do we have a winner and loser
- debate is a game, but more than that
- learn about things
- changes people
- response
- educational value maximized in one topic
- still fairness is first
- ex. speech times
- racism like breaking ttournament rules will get you kicked out
- norm
- rules are codified norms
- same thing, we need it to stay fair
give a topical version
act as a cp that solves offense and having fairness as nb
- no mutual exclusivity
- doesn't need to solve, but allows them to read literature base
- if they say its bad
- neg ground
- if education so good, then you can lose every debate and educate everyone
- TBA is middle ground
- just give one, and give itt in the 2nc/1nc
- ex
- framing contention
- negative to take action
- look at thir links for ideas
- don't ham cards
- responses
- only would go for election and politics
- answer
- good to talk about elections and politics
- most people know it should be reformed, question is how
- not EVERYONE
- give ex of neg strat