1. Destroys predictability: if some of their cards are just framed arguments we cant predict the use of authors to consistently advocate anything 2. Kills qualifications: if they can read cards without real cites of people who believe the claims, we don’t need warrants or quals either, turn: voting against me makes the world implode 3. Reject the team: they’re poisoning the well of conversation with their bogus cards and putting all evidence under suspicion, smack them down with the ballot 4. Kills their advocacy: they lied to us about sources, now all their advocacy is suspect, reject it all 5. Kills education: if the card only frames stupid arguments we can’t learn what opinions are truly germane and credible 6. No answers written: no authors answer other answers framed arguments, no one actually made the argument to start with, so no one answers it 7. It’s lazy: if we can just cut cards that frame someone else’s argument we can be lazy which is antithetical to the purpose of debate, education and work ethic 8. Highlighting: when they read cards highlighted down to omit the part where the author disagrees, it discredits all highlighting as possibly the same trick, that forces us to read random crap in cards and makes it harder for you to read all the evidence, killing education and efficiency 9. counter-interpretation: debate is an activity to discuss real social issues and how to deal with them, discussion which involves the support of evidence from authors who actually believe the claim they are used to make

read ‘em 2. strawman arguments still make a point . but the warrants are still right there. Non-unique: every claim we make not supported by a card is a strawman argument.STRAWMAN LEGIT 1. but we can’t 5. same with them: we’re debaters if we were on the other side of things now we’d say the opposite. Counter-interpretation: debate is a role playing game where we play as opposing sides of clashing viewpoints to amuse the judge. Key to education: without strawman arguments we couldn’t learn as much from single sources and we couldn’t read cards against obscure positions 4. Reject the card: if its a trash card treat it like one without warrants. the author’s conclusions are trash and we’ll gladly answer his objections if made as real arguments 6. Don’t vote on it: we won’t magically change our ways if you drop us on this lame argument. don’t punish us for our team’s crappy files 3. we’ll just get bitter about it 7. It’s all we could find: don’t force debate to be an elitist game of “where’s waldo” hunting for super cards. It’s an argument: we concede there are no author quals to it. It’s still true: the claim isn’t suddenly false if it appears as a straw man. we’d read a better card if we could access it. don’t give it any weight. don’t punish me if my author does it too 8.

I don’t learn: if you vote against me i’ll just write bigger badder blocks and cover that crap more and be bitter at you. potential for abuse: they could put an indi voter on anything they wanted and screw me over easily. they don’t even believe the charade 11. that’s abusive 2. Kills education. Time allocation: it kills all my time allocation if some stupid voter can popup out of nowhere and eat me alive. interested in making good policies and in nothing else . there’s no debate about whether its true. makes debate binary: either i answer the particular crappy voter. that’s a real speech act since it matters whether we break or not. it’s no speech act 8. encourages lazy debate. No one cares: there is no precedent set. you can’t kick out a senator if you think his plan is abusive or he’s a jerk 5. or i don’t. even if I’m being a jerk. why should I even run a case if I can run a bunch of independent voters and win if they don’t answer each and every 7. Counter-interpretation: we’re playing make-believe congress. not the positions they discussed 10. if I’d said word one you’d throw it out 4. if we’re being abusive kill our speaks instead.INDEPENDENT VOTERS BAD 1.. only our records show 9. Not real world. no one will know about what you voted on. Slash speaks. Punish the speaker who is bad. it doesn’t really matter to them except as a way to make you vote. Voter checks abuse. it’d make the block always win because they could say the word independent voter more times than the aff could answer 3. if they make it a voter. this teaches us you can ignore the real issues and focus on some nit pick detail and win rounds 6.

I’ve changed. If we took consistent stances we’d be out of a job and lose all our rounds 2. We’re debaters. and that’s enough 3. i’m making arguments not explaining my personal views on the issue. we have to argue on opposing sides of issues all the time. counter-interpretation: debate is a game of creating possible futures and selecting between them based on the elements brought up and including nothing outside of the round’s constructs . we lie. my current advocacy is what i believe now. whatever i said before has no bearing on me now. vote on the arguments as you see fit as judge 4. I don’t need no stinking advocacy.OUT OF ROUND ADVOCACY IRRELEVANT 1.

but we didn’t really mean it 4. deserve it or not. non-unique: Oddo. don’t vote on it: the issues in the round still exist. we apologize and trust him if he says our previous accusations aren’t true 3. an extra insult makes no difference 2. it’s a joke: it wasn’t funny. hey he’s let us come to New Trier before and his mom drove us around. turn: if you drop me i’d probably think you’re in a vast Oddo-run conspiracy and tell tales to everyone about it 6. we’re sorry. slash our speaks or yell at us if you think it was cruel. Oddo’s actually a pretty cool guy. no one knows: the damage has not already been done. so we can just forget about it.CALLING ODDO SHADY LEGIT 1. since we’re sorry . has a reputation as being shady and a little nuts. but it does not have anything to do with the issues in the debate 5.

they don’t lose any ground. you don’t have to care about my 2ac answers as links to the kritik. I have to turn them in the 1ar. kills clash. killing the education that comes through discord 6. Justifies new 1ar answers: if they can make my 2ac frontline into a pack of new links. the 2ac answers are not part of the plan. it won’t help. you vote only on the plan at the end 5. i can’t answer anything and i lose all education from the round. rejection kills clash. they have enough already -i’m the only one with any risk of abuse against me . without it we just sit around and chat about criticques. say you dropped me on this: i’m going to make darn sure next round to not answer the kritik and just outweigh it with a disad. I’m a product of society: their kritik author admits it. its just our reaction. if all my answers are new links. don’t punish me for my history. and they’d have to answer those links with new cards in the 2nr. jurisdiction. that same society will still control me 7. it makes me powerless 4. Fiat exists: the plan’s passage is the focus of the debate. i’m a product of society without any free will. totally horrifically abusive 2. don’t let them have 2ac answers as links. but vote on the plan not on the speakers 3.2AC ANSWERS AS LINKS BAD 1.

allows advocacy shift. when the 2ac figures out the plan sucks as is. when they don’t actually define their use of fiat I cannot argue against an amorphous plan anymore than i can argue against nothing or learn from it. they fiat the government does stuff perfectly.OPTIMAL MEANS BAD VIOLATION A. which it has never done before . they can morph the plan to skip out of my disads and become my counterplan 2. optimal means illegitimate 1. fiat abuse. there’s no education. since real bills actually have guidelines 3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful