Let's clear up my impact scenario so Kinsey understands it. I'm going to cross-apply this everywhere on the flow btw.
A. Uniqueness- When kids run untopical affs, we pull out our T files. Few teams let an untopical case slide without at least reading a 15 second t shell against it.
B. Link- His aff is untopical. Extend the U.S. Department of the Interior- Affs must increase a renewable FUEL SOURCE. DMT isn't competitive with any other fuel sources. And no weaseling in the 2AR, my interpretation is indicative of TANGIBLE fuel sources. That's why "alternative" is typically interchanged with "renewable".
C. Brink- I don't need to win that picking me up on T "sends a message". I've been proving two arguments-
1) That there is no reason your aff is so great that you should be picked up on it regardless of whether you are t or not. If that was true, that would be an acceptable way for anyone to answer T meaning the resolution becomes meaningless and no case has to be topical. You make these disourse comes first arguments but you just don't have the internal link evidence to prove a cohesive way you win the debate. What if you had read a Solar Power aff? Every aff has a reason it's good. They're called "advantages".
2) Let's say you are the only one that is allowed this privilege of not being T. You will still debate other teams when you are aff and it's unfair to them if you enter the debate with a special benefit that no one else is allowed to have.
a) Predictable Limits- I shouldn't have to do work here when he says in the 1AR, "He says that without predictable limits teams will quit debate which is probably true." We both agree. Group his Preston analysis, it actually helps me. Let's do some logic: Policy debaters are used to having an ample amount of time to research one topic, taking this away from them would be worse than for a parli debater who is used to not learning the topic until minutes before the round. Preston's analysis on the experiment is still true: When there is no set topic of discussion, whoever gets to choose it is alot more likely to win. Kinsey talks about the evidence difference in both forms of debate but that's arbitrary. Having evidence in a policy round doesn't necessarily mean you are guaranteed any more clash than in a parli round, especially if there's no topic. Sure you'll have generic K's that seem like they link to anything but go ahead, use your eight minutes of prep to spin some kind of coherent link story from Heidegger to my Terry v. Ohio aff from four years ago.
Predictable Ground (*No response in the 1AR*)- If you need a scenario about how your aff uniquely ruins debate, I'll give you three. 1) If your aff were topical you wouldn't get access to the Hwee-Yong Jang "DMT solves everything" evidence. 2) Your solvency mechanism would be different (There's something about handing out DMT just doesn't seem like an incentive...). 3) Topical affs all link to some form of a generic disad. Energy prices links to everything topical, it doesn't link to you. This was an example I threw out in the 2NC but to crystalize why none of my generic offensive positions don't link to you is because your "energy" is competitive with coal, oil, or any renewable. Every topical case presents an energy that is competitive with at least one of those.
E. Why my argument comes first- Topicality's impacts are not fiat-based. They come before discourse because T determines what discourse is used in the round. It determines how teams cut the affs that they'll read months before the competitive season even starts. Evaluating a round based purely on discourse is not only bad, it's not really possible. How does one decide who's discourse is more important? If judge's evaluated rounds based on who's discourse they thought was more important, clash would become irrelevant because you would only have to make arguments that prove why what your talking about is good.
Line by Line
He answers my overview- What's above covers this.
The first paragraph of his 2AC OV is vacuous. I already answered this in the 2NC. Yours is unreasonable. The 2NR overview is enough to close the door on this one.
I did do work on your 7, 10, and 11. No link.
a) Lol. Nobody is arguing about whether having a judge is good or bad, my point is judges and competitors shouldn't be allowed to choose the topic. I go to school in Missouri, each round would be about Rush Limbaugh or something else equally as unpredictable.
This is not a point anymore. It was originally an answer to "T is not a rule". Throw it out.
c) Throw this out too, this argument is on the reasonability flow.
d) This argument is also other places on the flow. You can get rid of it too.
RVI- I'm going for T
So it turns out he links to the a. of my triple bind- Plan never passes, we never actually consciously expand our minds. T outweighs- cross-apply E. from the overview .
He groups my 1 and 2. His answer here has no substance to it. Let's ungroup them, because they are pretty important.
Extend my first point- It's irrelevant if what you increase is renewable. DMT is not a fuel source that's competitive with renewable energy.
Extend my second point- You very loosely define fuel. My interpretation is descriptive of fuel that can be used interchangeably with "renewable energy". Solar power or tidal energy can't fuel conscious expansion.
And you completely concede my analysis on why your counter-interp makes anything topical. If we can loosely define fuel as anything that maintains or stimulates an activity or emotion, any aff can be altered to become topical. I gave some examples of affs like incentives for lottery tickets or food that are ridiculously unpredictable. And I'll let you do my terminal impact work for me: "He says that without predictable limits teams will quit debate which is probably true."
Let me repeat, you agreed in the 2AC that my interpretation was assumptive of fuel for machinery like planes, trains and automobiles. That means I don't have to counter-define fuel because you agree that my original interpretation already does. Makes my interpretation competitive, and I'm winning the competing interps flow.
My argument isn't "WE DON'T GET DISADS!". Energy prices somewhat links but it doesn't matter because your counter-interpretation allows you to access evidence that makes it noncompetitive. Would an increase in food or lottery ticket incentives also link to energy prices? Most negative arguments on the energy topic were predicated off of an INCREASE in alternative energy. Your aff doesn't do that.
Lol this also means nothing. Your aff isn't a possibility that stems from the rez. My interpretation evidence closes the door on that one.
4) Rereading the resolution in the 1AR doesn't make you topical. I replaced "alternative energy" with your counter-interpretation to prove how limitless you make the resolution. I'm going for T because that was the argument made in the 1NC. It doesn't matter if Jack posted anything or not. It's kind of evident by now that I don't read T as a throw-away argument.
5) His response is literally meaningless here. I've been doing work this entire round.
6) You can't win the predictability boat, you don't understand my expression and also I'm already at home, it's crazy what the internets let you do. But seriously, the literature is only unpredictable because your aff is untopical (which I am winning everywhere on this flow btw). You want me to read plan-plan? Plan-plan is so dumb, affs can always perm. And cross-apply my example of linking K's to the food or lottery ticket affs that I gave as an example of what's topical under your interpretation of the resolution.
Grouped "Limits Bad" evidence
Regroup this. "You’re going to extend the butler 2004 evidence that does the work here for me and he only keeps abusing the power." This is the perfect example of how you aren't making link arguments. You say you will, but then you say all of your evidence does that for you. You don't engage your evidence. Where in the evidence is shapiro, butler, or bleiker ever assumptive of a GAME that has a TOPIC. Hint: Nowhere.
8) Wow. I never force you to play the role of a political actor. In the 1AC you proposed a plan that would have the federal government distribute DMT. This is a political proposal that you made before I even had the chance to speak.
9) Your view of how debate works is incredibly inconsistent with the arguments you are making. Your original argument here was that I could read whatever I wanted on the aff. Cross-apply the brink 1 and 2 from the overview. The Preston evidence proves why this would be a bad thing.
a) "HIS LITTLE A: I’M GLAD HE CONCEDES THAT POTENTIAL ABUSE ISN’T A VOTER BECAUSE THAT MEANS YOU WILL ALWAYS PICK UP THE AFF RIGHT HERE AND NOW THE WAY THIS ROUND HAS GONE DONE. HE SAYS MY MODEL OF DEBATE IS BAD BECAUSE HE HAS TO READ CRAP DA’S AND SUCH TO PROVE IT HOWEVER HE DIDN’T READ THEM BECAUSE ALL OF HIS STUFF WAS DELETED BY HIMSELF AND I’M CHEATING? NO WAY, NICE TRY, HAVE A NICE DAY. IN NO WORLD AM I CHEATING I’M JUST MAKING MORE STRATEGIC MOVES THAN YOU."
How do I answer this? Since he never actually responds to my 2NC analysis, I'll just extend it. Looking to abuse to win T is redundant. I can just pick an obscure disad and say you don't link. The way I'm doing T is better, I'm proving that the model you set up for debate is damaging to the activity.
This isn't where I have the reasonability debate flowed but whatever.
1) I'm not really sure if this is an argument for or against reasonability. I'm going to assume it's against competing interps. My interpretation doesn't exclude one or two more cases than what would usually be considered topical. Let's see, I limit out your aff, the food aff, the lottery ticket aff, and the infinite amount of other affs that are topical if "reasonability" was how we evaluated T.
2) I can see where you are going with this one. The problem is that I'm doing the necessary work to prove that my interpretation is competitive with your aff, that you don't meet. I did that work above.
3) If this is true then you should lose because you made the first unturnable argument- Inherency. Of course you can't leverage offense against T, it's a procedural. But T doesn't operate exactly like a disad or any other turnable argument because it's not predicated off of plan passage. You are assuming that my impacts are fiat-based, they're not and I did that analysis above. Also, my interpretation doesn't horrendously skew bias to the neg. Plenty of affs meet my interpretation, just because you can't pick and choose from any literature base you want doesn't mean it's unfair. Cross-apply the Defense analysis I did in the 2NC, you can still have creative affs like St. Marks Wood Biomass aff.
4) Wow this point is 0% assumptive of my topicality argument or your aff. I don't care what other negs do, a more limiting interp than mine is most likely contrived. All I want for you is to increase a renewable FUEL source.
Offense- His analysis here makes no sense. Cross-applying predictability is a GOOD argument against reasonability, I'm not just renaming arguments.
1) No brightline- He mentions some kind of combination of mine and his interp but you cannot perm your interpretation with mine because I did work above on why they are competitive. They assume different meanings of "fuel". If your counter-interp was legit, the three crazy case examples I gave would be topical. There's no reason your aff is "more topical" than they are.
2) Predictable Limits- He completely concedes this one. If reasonability was always a legit way to meet T, every aff would be reasonably topical because no team would be dumb enough to not say that it wasn't. This is why subjectivity is bad for T.
1) Cross-apply my E from the overview.
2) You aren't winning that my discourse is damaging, or more importantly, is the discourse your evidence is talking about. That's the no link arg I made way above on the flow.
3) Cross-apply my E from the overview.
Group the Impact Calc
Cross-apply my E from the overview. Case impacts don't matter because fiat isn't real (like you said) and even if your discourse is fantastic, I'm winning that T comes first.
Lastly, if you aren't going to vote on T, you can at least vote on the disad he linked himself to. Cross-apply his policymaking bad analysis, he offers a policy right out of the 1AC, before I had even typed a word.
*Protect me from new 2AR answers. I'll be shocked if he doesn't make any. You can even cross-apply his analysis from the 1AR here, new 2AR answers makes it impossible for me to win because I don't have a 3NR to respond.