I'm in the midst of making a critical aff, and we establish a framework of ethics in which we are the true actors of the resolution rather than the USFG and we can only claim advantages off what the aff does to the judge's identity. While I'm convinced of this framework in relation to grammar, (the left side of the resolution needs a subject, and since there is none, it is implied that the true actors of the resolution are us rather than the USFG), I'm somewhat thrown off by the fact that the negative has absolutely no ground to run any neg arguments that provide clash under the aff framework. Because we need to look at ethics, for example, rather than the consequences of the plan, or how many people die, the negative can't really run CPs or DAs which mean that the only viable arguments under our framework are Ks, Topicality, or a direct on case against the particular ethic of the aff. So, if someone has some good defense against this neg argument, it would be greatly appreciated. I would feel a lot more comfortable if I knew I wouldn't lose on a "no ground" argument everytime I had this framework. Thanks.