My sort-of-official-unofficial partner decided to compile all of the most bullshit specs he could find into one file. This is part of the result.
A. Interpretation: The aff must specify how people die from their harms
B. Violation: The aff fails to specify what kills people in their harms
C. That’s bad
I. It allows for cheap affs. Harms can state that deaths will occur for no specific reason, and the aff will warp it so that only their aff can solve, no matter how unrealistic it is.
II. The aff can claim to solve for deaths that are inevitable or unable to be prevented, and these deaths are simply naturally related, not caused by their impacts.
III. It kills neg strategy as the neg can never successfully answer arguments like how racism somehow causes deaths.
IV. Education is lost, as we debaters never learn what is the true cause of these deaths, and therefore can never offer a true solution to the problem.
D. This is a voter for fairness education and competitive equity