1-Nc

Permissibility and presumption negate – a. the resolution indicates the

affirmative has to prove an obligation via ought, and permissibility would deny
the existence of an obligation b. Statements are more often false than true
because any part can be false. This means you negate if there is no offense
because the resolution is probably false.
Any moral valuation presupposes the unconditional worth of humanity—that
means treating others as ends in themselves.
Korsgaard 83 bracketed for gendered language (Christine M., “Two Distinctions in
Goodness,” The Philosophical Review Vol. 92, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 169-195, JSTOR)
The argument shows how Kant's idea of justification works. It can be read as a kind of regress upon the conditions, starting from an important

when a rational being makes a choice or undertakes an action, [they] he or she

assumption. The assumption is that

supposes the object to be good, and its pursuit to be justified. At least, if there is a categorical imperative there must be
objectively good ends, for then there are necessary actions and so necessary ends (G 45-46/427-428 and Doctrine of Virtue 43-44/384-385). In order for

there to be any objectively good ends, however, there must be something that is unconditionally good and so
can serve as a sufficient condition of their goodness. Kant considers what this might be: it cannot be an object of inclination, for those have only a

conditional worth, "for if the inclinations and the needs founded on them did not exist, their object would be without worth" (G 46/428).It
cannot be the inclinations themselves because a rational being would rather be free from them. Nor can it be
external things, which serve only as means. So, Kant asserts, the unconditionally valuable thing must be
"humanity" or "rational nature," which he defines as "the power set to an end" (G 56/437 and DV 51/392). Kant explains that regarding your

existence as a rational being as an end in itself is a "subjective principle of human action." By this I understand him to mean that we must

regard ourselves as capable of conferring value upon the objects of our choice, the ends that we set,
because we must regard our ends as good. But since "every other rational being thinks of his existence by the same rational ground which holds also

for myself' (G 47/429), we must regard others as capable of conferring value by reason of their rational

choices and so also as ends in themselves. Treating another as an end in itself thus involves making that person's ends as far as
possible your own (G 49/430). The ends that are chosen by any rational being, possessed of the humanity or rational nature that is fully realized in a
good will, take on the status of objective goods. They are not intrinsically valuable, but they are objectively valuable in the sense that every rational
being has a reason to promote or realize them. For this reason it is our duty to promote the happiness of others-the ends that they choose-and, in
general, to make the highest good our end.
This outweighs:
[A] All other frameworks collapse—non-Kantian theories source obligations in
extrinsically good objects, but that presupposes the goodness of the rational
will.
[B] Necessity—my framework is inherent to the way we set ends. Ethics must
be necessary and not contingent since otherwise its claims could be escapable.
Necessary truths outweigh on probability—if a necessary truth is possible that
means it’s true in a possible world, but that implies it’s true in all worlds since
that’s what necessity is, so they have to prove there’s 0 risk of my framework.
That justifies universalizable ends – A) a priori principles like reason apply to
everyone since they are independent of human experience and B) any non-
universalizable norm justifies someone’s ability to impede on your ends i.e. if I
want to eat ice cream, I must recognize that others may affect my pursuit of
that end and demand the value of my end be recognized by others.
Thus the standard is consistency with treating people as ends in themselves.
Prefer:
Impact Calc: A violation of freedom does not respect others as ends in
themselves and is not universalizable because in violating someone’s freedom
you justify someone to violate your freedom simultaneously which results in
contradiction
 1NC – Offense
[1] Nuclear arsenals do not intrinsically interfere with anyone’s ends because
they don’t involve aggression – that makes elimination illegitimate and a
violation of liberty
Maximus 16 Maximus, Nullus. “The Libertarian Case For Private Nuclear Weapons.” The Zeroth Position, 30 June 2016,
www.zerothposition.com/2016/06/30/the-libertarian-case-for-private-nuclear-weapons/. //Massa

Second,some will argue that unlike small arms, a nuclear weapon is always pointed at
someone. The implication is that such a device cannot be stored safely, and so must not be
stored at all. The problem with this argument is that it confuses risk with
aggression, accident with intent, and incompetence with malice. This argument also
demonstrates a misunderstanding of the construction of nuclear weapons; like small arms, they may be stored

in such a condition as to be unavailable for immediate use. We also cannot take

this argument to its logical conclusion, as doing so would prohibit any activity
which potentially endangers someone, such as flying aircraft or spacecraft, transporting
hazardous materials by rail or pipeline, or even driving cars. However, there is one legitimate concern raised by this argument; that
a free society could deal with radiation pollution by
of radiation pollution from improper storage. But

much the same procedure as it would use for any other form
of air or water pollution.
And, any object has an prima facie claim to be produced without restriction
unless there is reason not to allow it. For example, if I use a pencil I don’t need
to warrant why I need it, it’s just within my rights. Additionally, they’ve been
used for nonaggressive or deterrent reasons i.e. destroying asteroids which
takes out all aff turns.
[2] Submitting to international limits on power is a contradiction in will – it
weakens the republic and has no binding force.
Waltz ’62 (Waltz, Kenneth N. "Kant, Liberalism, and War." The American Political
Science Review 56, no. 2 (1962): 331-40. doi:10.2307/1952369.)
So long at least as the state "runs a danger of being suddenly swallowed up by other
States," it must be powerful externally as well as internally. In international relations the difficulties
multiply. The republican form is preferable, partly because republics are more peacefully inclined; but despotisms are stronger- and
no one would expect or wish to bring the state into jeopardy by decreasing its
strength.15 Standing armies are dangerous, arms races themselves being a cause of war, but in the absence of an
outside agency affording protection, each state must look to the effectiveness of its
army.'6 A freely flowing commerce is a means of promoting peace, but a state must control imports, in the interests of its subjects
"and not for the advantage of strangers and the encouragement of the industry of others, because the State without the prosperity
of the people would not possess sufficient power to resist external enemies or to maintain itself as a common- wealth."'7 Not only
standing armies but also, indeed more so, the disparity of economic capacities may represent danger, occasion fear, and give rise to
war. Kant's concern with the strength and thus the safety of the state is part of his
perception of the necessities of power politics. Among states in the world, as among individuals in the state
of nature, there is constantly either violence or the threat of violence. States, like "lawless
savages," are with each other "naturally in a nonjuridical condition.'8 There is no law
above them; there is no judge among them; there is no legal process by which states
can pursue their rights. They can do so only by war, and, as Kant points out, neither war
nor the treaty of peace following it, can settle the question of right. A treaty of peace can end only
a particular war; a pretext for new hostilities can always be found. "Nor can such a pretext under these
circumstances be regarded as un- just; for in this state of society every nation is the
judge of its own cause."'19 More surely than those who extract and emphasize merely Kant's republican aspirations and
peaceful hopes, Khrushchev speaks as though he had read Kant correctly. "War," in Khrushchev's peculiar yet apt phrase, "is not
fatalistically inevitable." Kant does set forth the "shoulds" and "oughts" of state behavior.2' He does not expect them to be followed
in a state of nature, for, as he says, "philosophically or diplomatically composed codes have not, nor
could have, the slightest legal force, since the States as such stand under no common
legal constraint.... 22 His intention clearly is that the "oughts" be taken as the basis for the juridical order that must one day
be established among states, just as the rights of the individual, though not viable in a state of nature, provided the basis for the civil
state.
 2-TT

Role of the ballot: Vote for the debater who best defends the truth or falsity of
the resolution. The aff burden is to prove the resolution is true, and the neg is
to prove its falsity. Prefer:
[1] Text: Five dictionaries1 define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm 2
as to prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the
resolution’s truth or falsity. This outweighs on common usage – it is abundantly
clear that our roles are verified.
[2] Co-opts their role of the ballot – they say we need to compare
methodologies for solving oppression, but that assumes truth testing (a)
intrinsically – proving one methodology good assumes we’ve proven its truth
and (b) any comparison between worlds requires proving a statement “X world
is more desirable than the Y world” true. FREGE ‘03:
Frege, Gottlob. “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” in Logicism and the Philosophy of Language: Selections from Frege and Russell.
Broadview Press. March 2003. Pg. 204.

we cannot recognize a property of a thing without

“It may nevertheless be thought that realizing that at the same time the thought

this thing has this property to be true. is joined a property of truth So with every property of a thing a thought, namely, that of .

the sentence “I smell

It is also worthy of notice that violets” has the same content as “it is true
the scent of just the sentence

that I smell violets” the scent of . So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. \.”

And, their role of the ballot enforces an external norm on debate, but only
truth testing is intrinsic to the process of debate i.e. proving statements true or
false through argumentation. Only constitutive rules are relevant to debate, not
pragmatic or higher purposes because a practice only makes sense based on its
intrinsic rules i.e you cannot makeup new rules about random moves in the
game of chess.

1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negate, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negate,
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/negate, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/negate

2
Dictionary.com – maintain as true, Merriam Webster – to say that something is true, Vocabulary.com – to affirm something is to
confirm that it is true, Oxford dictionaries – accept the validity of, Thefreedictionary – assert to be true
 Now negate

Vote negative:
[1] Oxford Dictionary defines state as “the particular condition that someone or
something is in at a specific time.” A condition can’t possess nuclear weapons,
so the resolution must be false.
[2] Defining an arsenal is impossible – neg on presumption.
Starr 07 [Steven Starr, () "An Explanation of Nuclear Weapons Terminology" Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation, 11-29-2007, https://www.wagingpeace.org/an-explanation-of-
nuclear-weapons-terminology/, DOA:12-3-2019 // WHSRS]

Discussions of nuclear weapons and the policies which guide them often utilize terminology
which lacks standardized definition. Much of the nuclear jargon consists of words or phrases
which are essentially descriptive terms whose meaning is generally agreed upon, but in fact do not have precise technical definitions in any military or civilian dictionaries.
Such imprecision in language has created confusion among those trying to
comprehend nuclear issues and has even hindered the process of negotiation among nations. This problem of imprecision exists for a variety of
reasons. Some terms may not be listed in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) online Dictionary of Military Terms (see http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/) because
they refer to policies, such as “launch-on-warning”, which the U.S. government does not wish to acknowledge or discuss. Other terms, such as “high-alert status”, “hair-trigger
alert” and “de-alerting”, may be regarded as useless by military officers who would wish to regard their forces as always “alert”. Although civilians and the military may approach

A lack of precise
the use of such terminology from different perspectives, it is important that they at least be able to understand each other when conversing.

terminology will continue to plague discussions of nuclear policy until adequate

definitions are finally agreed upon by all parties. The U.S. recently employed imprecision in terminology as a tactic during the 2007 General
Conference on Disarmament at the United Nations, when it announced, “The fact is that U.S. nuclear weapons are not and have never been on “hair-trigger alert”. By repeatedly

the U.S. deliberately muddied

using the term “hair-trigger” (which lacks technical meaning but is commonly used to describe fire-arms and bad tempers),

the semantic waters in an attempt to avoid serious discussion about the true status of
its nuclear arsenal[1].
[3] Affirming Negates because of the Good Samaritan Paradox: Premise 1 is that
the resolution is true. Premise 2 is that if the resolution is true states must have
nuclear weapons, or else we wouldn’t say we’re obligated to eliminate them.
Conclusion is that states must have nuclear weapons, so affirming logically
negates.
[4] Oxford Dictionary defines eliminate as “murder”, and it’s impossible to
murder something that isn’t alive, so the resolution is impossible.
[6] States can’t eliminate their nuclear arsenals because they wouldn’t be their
arsenals after elimination because the nukes are incapable of being possessed
by anyone.

[7] anakins paradox

And if we win any of the nibs it means the res is conceptually incoherent so you
still negate on presumption
 3-Shoes
A. interp debaters must wear shoes during the round
B. violation
C. standards
1. risk of injury
https://www.orthoticshop.com/blog/the-importance-of-wearing-shoes/ orthotic shop
Another way wearing shoes helps is that they can keep your feet safe from injuries . While we love to imagine
our favorite walking trails or tracks a clean, we know that they’re not. Sure, you will be able to walk on the grass and other softer
ground, but you do not know what people have thrown in the grass. There are always rocks, but there can also be glass, sharp
objects, and other items that can cause injury. If this happens, the germs
we encountered in point one could
cause an infection in the open wound. Wearing shoes protects you from this and
makes sure your feet stay healthy and safe. 
 4-Open Source

Interpretation: At the TOC bid distributing tournaments, debaters must disclose

all constructive speech docs open source with highlighting on the NDCA LD wiki
within an hour after debating.
Violation – you don’t disclose open source only first 3 last 3
A. Debate resource inequities—you’ll say people will steal cards, but that’s
good—it’s the only way to truly level the playing field for students such as
novices in under-privileged programs.
Antonucci 5 [Michael (Debate coach for Georgetown; former coach for Lexington High
School); “[eDebate] open source? resp to Morris”; December 8;
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-December/064806.html //nick]
a. Open source systems are preferable to the various punishment proposals in
circulation. It's better to share the wealth than limit production or participation . Various
flavors of argument communism appeal to different people, but banning interesting or useful research(ers)
seems like the most destructive solution possible. Indeed, open systems may be the only
structural, rule-based answer to resource inequities . Every other proposal I've seen
obviously fails at the level of enforcement. Revenue sharing (illegal), salary caps
(unenforceable and possibly illegal) and personnel restrictions (circumvented faster than you can
say 'information is fungible') don't work. This would - for better or worse. b. With the help of a middling
competent archivist, an open source system would reduce entry barriers. This is especially
true on the novice or JV level. Young teams could plausibly subsist entirely on a diet of
scavenged arguments. A novice team might not wish to do so, but the option can't hurt. c. An open source
system would fundamentally change the evidence economy without targetting
anyone or putting anyone out of a job. It seems much smarter (and less bilious) to change the value of a
professional card-cutter's work than send the KGB after specific counter-revolutionary teams.
B. Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify before round that
cards aren’t miscut – otherwise you could have highlighted unethically. That’s a
voter – maintaining ethical ev practices is key to being good academics and we
should be able to verify you didn’t cheat
C. Depth of clash – open source allows debaters to come up with more nuanced
researched objections to their opponents evidence before the round at a much
faster rate, which leads to the highest quality evidence comparison instead of
guessing what was highlighted
Drop the debater to deter future abuse
Fairness is a voter- debate is a competitive activity that requires objective
evaluation, you cant do it if one side is structurally skewed
Education is a voter- only reason why schools fund debate
Competing interps—leads to the race to the top to find the best possible norms,
2nd reasonability collapses to ci because comparing between brightlines
concedes the authority of an offense defense paradigm
No rvis: chilling effect—debaters would be scared to read theory for fear of
losing to a prepped-out counterinterp, proliferating abuse
Illogical you shouldn’t win for meeting your burden of being fair and
educational logic is meta constrain on all your args because it definitionally
determines if you arg is valid

Next, Evaluate the theory debate after the 2NR 1) I have no 3NR, so evaluating
the theory debate after the 2AR puts me at a structural disadvantage since I
can’t point out 2AR argument shifts or extrapolations and to respond to new
2AR arguments. 2) Time skew: the aff has 7 minutes of speech time between
the 3 minute 2AR and 4 minute 1AR, while I only have a 6 minute 2NR.
 On case

Reject consequentialism:
1. Problem of induction
Vickers 14, John Vickers, 2014, The Problem of Induction,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or
justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of
which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (THN, 89). Such methods are clearly essential
in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to
the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent , and only
a dilemma:
necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively —by
arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the
question by assuming just what is to be proved.

Takes out their offense since it is predicated on using past experiences.

2. Prediction is impossible. Any action can lead to a domino effect that can have
disastrous impacts in the end. For example, if I sneeze, it could lead to a
butterfly effect that eventually causes my sneeze to form into a hurricane and
kill thousands.
7. Fairness outweighs the AFF – A] Prior question. My theory argument calls
into question the ability to run the argument in the first place. They can’t say
the same even if they criticize theory because theory makes rules of the game
not just normative statements about what debaters should say B] Fair testing.
Judge their arguments knowing I wasn’t given a fair shot to answer them.
Prefer theory takes out K because they could answer my arguments but I
couldn’t answer theirs. Without testing their args, we don’t know if they’re
valid, so you prefer fairness impacts on strength of link. Impact turns any
critical education since a marketplace of ideas where we innovate and test
ideas presumes equal access. C] Fair version of K solves. My interp allows their
position but not vice versa. That means I solve 99% of their impacts, but they
solve none of mine. D] Debaters quit – turns their dialogue args and maintains
squo oppression of the dominant voices in debate – prereq
Spiece 03
Speice and Lyle Patrick Speice, Debater at Wake Forest University, and Jim Lyle, Director
of Debate at Clarion University, 2003 (“Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever,”
Debater’s Research Guide, Available Online at http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/
MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm, Accessed 09-11-2005)
creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair
As with any game or sport,

chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the

game is slanted toward one particular competitor, the other participants are
likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a
“rigged game.” Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that
they would always win or lose. The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative
arguments would be non-existent because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a
particular team did. TPD, as defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational
for all participants.

E] Most accessible since they’re analytic arguments that don’t require

knowledge of technical lit bases. And, that means you prefer analytics to cards.
 Don’t vote on independent voters
1. There is no fw or metric to evaluate why independent voters are in fact
voting issues which means even if they win why what I did was bad does not
mean you drop me.
2. Destroys fairness since they are usually 5-10 second blips but I have to over-
invest so much of my time in order to make sure I won’t lose on it. Time skew
ow bc a pre-req to making args is having time to do so.
3. Destroys substance education because have to answer all these independent
voting issues in order access my substantive offense. Ow on reversability bc
only have two months to talk about the topic.
4. Independent voters make the debate round irresolvable since there is not fw
to evaluate which one comes first. Resolvability comes first bc otherwise the
judge cannot make a coherent decision