I didn’t go for the perm because I conceded his reasons why it was abusive, but he never proved I was bound to it. He says reciprocity means I have to go for Perm for him to have to go for the CP but he is flat out wrong. First, this is a new argument in his last speech and isn’t mentioned at all till the 2NR!!! Punish him for doing this!!! Given his earlier conceded arguments that the Perm is abusive, it also represents a double bind for him to say “perm is so bad that it shouldn’t be run” while simultaneously insisting “it must be advocated”. Extend my reasoning of perm as a theoretical test to competition only, which proves that it’s not “Aff conditionality” especially given that he proves it is abusive and demands I must drop it to save his ground. Perm extra T voters are new and dumb, if it is extra T it increases his ground and perm isnt new plan text its just a test to competition.
He DROPPED cold the turns on the CP which straight turn it per the Layne ’02 card which indicates that US Heg causes all case impacts and their NB’s to the CP (and extend that this case turn was conceded by Neg means he MUST go for the CP). His only response at all is that I have to go for the perm, but cross apply his own reasoning about Extra Topicality for why I can’t go for the perm because its way to abusive. All of his NB’s were turned also, see Taheri 03 stating soft power increased soft power causes their prolif impacts than extend NYE ’06 stating all the offense from the heg flow applies to the soft power NB as well. Extend Hilditch 04 and Wellowner 05 on the solvency flows which both indicate (and were dropped) the US is the only way to solve. He also dropped econ. All of this dropped action on his part cannot go unpunished.
Here’s the main reason you vote in this round:
He chose to run a CP dispo and even though I straight turned it, he still didn’t go for it. This is INCREDIBLY ABUSIVE, I means seriously, this is the one time you actually can vote on pure abuse. You need look no further than my 1AR in which I clearly spent 90% of my time on the CP because of the straight turns, ready to fight that flow out, banking my ENTIRE strategy around him advocating the CP he was bound to. In him dropping it, he skewed the fairness and predictability key to all education and limits. This is a straight reason to pick me up because it is ridiculous and needs to be punished. However, worst case scenario is you see the abuse flow become somewhat of a wash between this and the T and see how his dropping the CP moots all of his T flow because it turns all of his impacts and accesses the internal links to his standards much better. Strategy is based almost entirely on what one thinks his opponent is bound too and thus dropping a turned dispo CP is the worst violation of rules possible. At worst you weigh my abuse impacts against his and see I control all standards and impacts better. (you will see that impact calc below)
He confuses right to interpret with right to define. He thinks my burden of proof means I get the “right” to have to give a definition and we meet for all words in the resolution. This is flawed as seen by my right to INTERPRET the stock issues as Significance, Harms, Inherency and Solvency. This is already a large burden to fill and thus adding T justification on twenty word definitions, each with a we meet and definition and standards is abusive. This doubles up with the massive abuse on the CP flow to prove Aff outweighs on the abuse theory. Since my interpretation from the 2AC (which he conceded has to be taken) concludes T is not a stock issue and thus need not be justified explicitly and additionally is not a prima facie burden, the only issue that matters in the round is theoretical abuse. You will see that the theory arguments (which are all that matter left in the round) flow massively aff because on each flow, the neg chose tactics that are abusive and destroy debate.
He says T comes first but only to the extent that it controls fairness and education and it’s a stock issue.
1. Since he conceded my interp from the 2AC as T NOT being a stock issue, that vanishes.
2. Fairness is skewed by him so much in this round- first from the dispo CP flow (see above) and then from an abusive interp of Aff needing to explicitly define, meet and standard each word in the resolution in addition to fulfilling all other burdens fully and upholding case and fighting a CP.
3. Education- theory distraction exists, what do we learn about from this round in the end besides doing grunt work of going through same mechanical steps of justification of definitions every round? He cant provide warrants as to why he preserves education and this is why we control this standard.
He says he loses ground but first extend that cross ex checks cause he can always ask if he needs a link and I did an analyt we meet which provided all the links he needed cause I defended the entire resolution word by word. Extend that we meet here
Extend how his specific word violations are new in the 1NR and are ludicrous, adds to abuse flowing AFF
His limits argument is also void because I do provide analyt we meets for every word in the res and that solves back his offense
Because he himself dictates that fairness is the key, vote him down on the dropped dispo CP that was straight turned, no unique reason that T fairness comes before CP fairness, all are key.
CP abuse flow controls all his standards:
1. Limits- it is critical to predictable limits because I need to be able to count on him to stick to something, this is even more set in stone than T because its such a clearer brightline, rather than arguing over definitions, you can see clearly that he either dropped the CP or didn't
2. Ground/Predictability- to the extent that we both spent the majority of the round on this, it is key to the entirety of the round for me to be able to bank on him going for the CP, this is seen when I spend almost all of my time in round on it
3. Education- we learn NOTHING in this theory debate, much better off to learn to the CP vs. Plan because then we are learning about something, some education better than theory education cause theory applies to nothing but policy debate
4. Fairness- THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN PULL THE TRIGGER...he advocated this is the most important issue and therefore you will see that because of all the inequity he will get away with if you vote neg, you will really destroy all fairness in round, opening the floodgates for massive abuse in the future as well