Order is overview, presumption, conditional advocacies, Schlag, and impact analysis/how you are voting.
Mistakes Tommy’s parents made - wait, never mind, that was redundant.
What I meant was, mistakes Tommy makes in his last speech:
First - He DROPS the justice arg I make in the 1ar. Extend that Justice=Fairness and if Justice is bankrupt as per his own Schlag evidence there's NO REASON TO VOTE on fairness.
Second - he doesn’t go for presumption. This means that if he loses on theory there is no reason to negate. This is another reason to affirm.
Finally - He doesn't extend an education impact on theory. He doesn't even say education a single time in his 2nr. The only risk of an impact he has is fairness being key to education, however, there’s no analysis that fairness is key to education in the entire round so don’t do work for him.
Schlag tells you that justice/fairness is bankrupt - it serves NO purpose, not as a precursor to education, not as a reason to vote I and of itself.
There’s no analysis in the 2NR to respond to the fact that I take topical action. The fact that I’m affirming the resolution and using the perm to show that affirming and negating are not competitive is a reason to affirm.
Only going for a few arguments on conditional advocacies.
1. CROSS-X CHECKS. There’s no answer to this at all in the 2nr. He waives ALL of cross-x after the 1AC. Asking questions solves all his offense. If he had asked what my advocacy was I would’ve told him what it was and stuck to it. Remember that I only need a risk of defense to win theory. This answers any of his in-round abuse arguments. He was too cocky to ask, now he’s paying the price.
2. Neg Ground - He claims I drop this, but I don’t. He drops my answer that the impasse/aporia argument is contingent upon the neg getting all their ground and it directly clashing with the affirmative. This means it’s not a voter at all. The beauty of my 1AC was that it gave him so much freedom. He could’ve run anything he wanted. Unfortunately, he tried to out-do me at my own game - epic fail.
3. The world I justify - He gives you no warrant as to why you should prefer his interpretation of debate after this round over mine. He only gives you reasons why his interpretation of debate after this round is bad. His interpretation is bad because it allows for vague infinite regress. The only brightlline you have to what an affirmative justifies is EXACTLY what they do.
However, the simplest way out of this round is easily the Schlag evidence:
I’m the only one providing analysis on this evidence and applying it to the round. This means it undoubtedly goes aff. Tommy is going for exactly what Schlag says does not matter - he tries
“to enlist epistemology, semiotics, social theory or any other enterprise in [his] own ethical-moral argument structures about the right, the good, the useful, the efficient”.
However, justice is bankrupt - so is fairness. His quest to right his wrongs won’t do anything because no one cares. Schlag argues that there’s no reason to vote for fairness because endorsing fairness won’t do anything. This means that all of his theory arguments have NO VOTERS.
Neg ground, fairness, in-round abuse, all these are internal links to an impact of fairness. The schlag evidence is a functional impact takeout that means that Tommy has no risk of offense. I have too much defense on the flow (see the arguments I go for on conditional advocacies) for you to vote on theory.
The only internal to increasing education in this round is double-wins good. That’s the Kohn evidence from the 1AR. You extend that across. This is weighed on a theoretical level because it functions a reason to affirm for future rounds.
You’re not voting for me, you’re voting for my advocacy.
If I’m advocating a revolution, you’re not forced to take part in a revolution, you’re just endorsing that a revolution is good. Pull the argument in the 1ar that the role of the ballot is to expose the possibility of double-wins. This can be done either by giving a double-win OR signing your ballot saying that double-wins are good. This means you have the option of voting aff. The point is that, yes, I want to win the round, but I’m saying that me winning doesn’t necessitate him losing.
Thus, there are three independent scenarios where you affirm:
A. You give the double-win.
B. You vote aff, endorsing my arguments that double-wins are good thereby taking the first step to exposing that debate is not necessarily dualisitic.
C. There is no reason to negate (you don’t vote on theory) - so you vote aff because I’m winning the presumption debate (I provide topical action)