One The United States Supreme Court has no interpretation. All interpretations are interprets of inters. If there was one, there was never just one. Definitions are lies forgetting the truth of illusion The Choice of one is one such meaningless substitution. Two

Violation Our opponents attempt to assert non-figural meaning on this dead metaphor.

Implications Even from a purely utilitarian epistemology
It¶s impossible to determine whether their particular heliotropes are flowers turning the sun or do they merely turn to the reflection of light on water? Another implication that they¶re avoiding specifying is emphasizing symptoms of separate signs and signified as if there existed any proof implied as to what things called words are doing in their free time and if those activities are worth abiding by Four Standards Limits This interpretation limits the debate to their subjective understanding of the resolution Ground There isn¶t any. Angels float, PICs float, blunt smoke floats. If something does not float it¶s either dense or one of Andrea Yates five kids. Predictability How the hell were we supposed to know what their individual interpretation would be? Don¶t tie me down to what you throw around as common understanding I call it the closest misconception to you received at perception Sealing signs with sounds so that other sources are digression. The USSC can be understand conventionally as either that address in DC Or the influence of Clarence Thomas¶ pornography collection or is it really the corporations buying judges, or is it really the salesman selling the judges Porsches. It¶s the butterfly of your favorite effect caught in a net benefit Pinned under glass to fix meaning so we can stare and say isn¶t that pretty. Or isn¶t that pretty? Framers Intent Fuck the framers and fuck their intent. This is an independent voter for fucking. Better source We don¶t have one. Never try to find one. All sources are Sleeping with the illustrator. By not having one, we dodge their flawed diseased nature Grammar is dumb. A tool utilize by Literati Dictionazis to get Their mouth¶s moving when they¶re not actually creative. Five Voters

Fairness doesn¶t exist. Get up Get out and Get used to it. Education is a myth. Substitute incarceration. The buildings where They harness dispropriaty of the prevailing behavior. It¶s just another word for nothing left to lose Tradition is a way to reference opinions so that we forget it¶s all Opinion so that we can worship habit like it was the next best religion that¶s like worshipping cancer cuz it spreads. The decision is often confounded by dreams and the mustard they had before bed. What are we really sending via these propagation methods whereby they gain truth-value like frequent flyer miles traveling through prisons like your mind. Tradition is only the long line of ritual turned habitual turned dismal day after divorced from laughter. See also, another word for how they can now do whatever the fuck they want to. See also, the gospel of the blind leading the blind, see also, there is space for another time for where you find the beginning there too shall the end be. Freed from all axiomatic syntaxrobatics, Freed from logical positivism. This is not about God, This is about Telos, This is about the snake eating its own tail and that entwined with another chained all together in an infinite caduceus stretching across the universal fabric like reformatted lucid magic. Voters on recognizing the ancient blueprints and destroying the aff¶s tropical habits

A Counterplan text: Allow snakes on the plan (put snake stickers on plantext) B Competition 1 Snakes on a plan is not topical. Snakes are not in the resolution. 2 If it is topical than cross-apply every neg¶s-gotta-be-topical arguments you¶ve heard for the last 2 years. Be Topical. Don¶t be FX topical. Don¶t be extra-topical. Vote them down for vagueness mixing burdens prima facie ipso factor make it a reverse reverse reverse independent voter. 3 Snakes are naturally competitive. The will fuck you up. 4 Plan Plus CPs are competitive Subpoint a They can fuck up snakes. b If they say plan plus CP justify things like µdo the plan plus save a baby¶ that makes them baby-hating nihilists. This is an independent voter. c If we cannont have plan plus counter-plans we can only have plan minus counter-plans and no one likes negative nelly d Answering our CP is a time skew. This is an independent reverse voting issue. E Abuse arguments prove competition. If arguments were fair they could not win. Fairness is the antipode of competition. f Having a plan without snakes is unfair. Snakes are unjustly represented in our predominatly Judeo-Christian activity. Snakes find our community inaccessible and boring. We have a moral obligation to increase meaningful serpent participation in debate. Thus our proposal is to Take It To The Snakes

Sub sub point I The Judge has the neg block find a snake. We will give the judge a stick, a carrot and a plastic halo. Double I The snake will slither toward the team of its choice and that team will be the victor. Triple I if the judge cannot find a snake Neg wins for discursive change. I V If the aff rejects this proposal interpret it as Speciest V If this is unfair Bard wins for being unfair VI Arguing that our claims have no warrants is a forfeit by proxy. V double I if this is unfair, cross apply V V triple I the snake cannot be domesticated. Domestication is speciest. The claim that µnegative existential propositions cannot be proven is itself a negative existential proposition. But the claim that there are no proofs for an negative existential proposition is itself a negative existential proposition but the claim that there are no proofs is itself a negative existential proposition. Additionally, Harris 92 Being is being and not nonbeing. Non-being is thought as being but nonbeing is not, not being thought which as identitity is exclusion of everything i.e. nonbeing Double I this means they have no proof and we do. It¶s called evidenceBased debate. Our second Net Benefit is Fantasy A We actually put snakes on a plan B They did not do their plan, they proposed a fantasy world God is dead Nietzche 1883 µthe Gay Science¶ µwhither is God? I will tell you. We have µ we have killed him. They occupy a certain position within the hierarchy of ideas. Our subversion of hierarchy is proven by their procedural arguments. Taylor 1984