the block order and then the states cp.
1. At the top group all of the T flows and extend reasonability- a) Education: it allows us to discuss substantive issues and real political implications, as opposed to discussing T every round. We'll never learn about the topic if every debate is about limits
most real world: policy makers don't argue about semantics, they look for the best policy option
c) lit checks solves all the reasons why reasonability is bad because it checks absurd, unpredictable affs
d) fairness: allows the neg to pick unfair, limiting definitions contrived to exclude topical affs
e) don't vote on potential abuse: it doesn't set a precedent, key to fairness
a. it's inevitable, we could always beat them up or read a new aff in the 2ar. Don't punish us unless we actually do it.
b. no brightline: there are an infinite number of possible abusive actions-one instance of in-round abuse and you vote us down.
2. theres no offensive reason to prefer their interpretations which means you vote aff because of the offensive reason competing interps is bad.
3. we meet, subtant modifies incentives not energy use, we substantially increase an incentive for wind power development.
4. extend the C/I- its 15% prefer it because of reasonability
t- new barrier
1. we dont destroy or remove any part of the law we just extend the ptc to people who don't have it there is no barrier.
2. extend the counter interpretation- increase means to make bigger- checks back all offense
3. no ground loss he just ran bad args
4. no warrant to topic education
5. he gives no warrants to why small limits are good for debate so even if we increase limits there is no impact, they just need to research a little more, the activity involves a lot of research.
6. extend the counter interp- increase means to make larger numerically- no reason our counter interp makes dumb affs topical so he has no offense
we meet we increase alt energy incentives, we meet the res
this is a totally new topicality in the 2nc which should be thrown out
it sand bags the 1ar-they could just read a bunch of new T's in the block, kills ability for aff to win
potential abuse is stupid-
conditionality is still bad
a) Contradictions-By running contradicting neg strats you don’t learn how to argue an issue only to win a debate round, killing real world education
Kills Education- Least Real World- In the real world you suddenly can’t advocate the status quo, then a cp, then the status quo again and have any ability to run argument effectively.
c) Decreases strategic thinking- They are just able to run a crapload of offcase and choose whichever one we can’t cover.
d) Dispo Checks all abuse- They could still kick the cp but we would at least know the circumstances.
e) Err Aff on theory. Neg has 13 minute block and ground to various PICs.
he stone cold dropped this, evaluate theory before topicality because he chose to run an abusive strategy.
in round abuse comes first because its the most objective way to evaluate abuse.
and since we are reasonably topical it doesn't justify a sketchy neg strat.
we had to undercover T because of the abusive neg strat