Xtra T + Felons Aff Case Neg?

Info
Yea just read this versus teams that read the felons aff – you should ask in CX if they generate
any performative offense from the plan text or affirm something other than the direct
consequences of the plan or the resolution as a preliminary question – you can also ask how
giving felons the right to vote expands into a praxis of prison abolition or something along those
lines – they’ll probs say smth like “we think the aff is a first step to _____” which not only can
sometimes give you a sweet solvency push but can also just be the violation for the T shell

On case – you should be questioning the solvency page a ton – point to specific pieces of
evidence – ask for modeling, all the good stuff – ig establish cap k links in cx if you’re going for
that but imma assume not – the biggest problem with this aff is that it doesn’t solve for the
broader question of prison abolition and a model that does violates the extra t shell

Without further ado, y’all can check out this scuffed extra T file!!!!
NC
 T – Extra
Interpretation: The aff advocacy must not generate offense outside of the
resolution – to clarify, the aff may not defend extra planks or actions divorced
from the plan text.
Violation: The aff defends not only defends the enforcement of compulsory
voting in the United States but also fiats re-instating voting rights for felons
Standards:
The 1st is predictable limits – their model of debate explodes them and creates
an infinite amount of affs because they can add any permutation of new add-
ons to the plan - makes neg prep impossible – evaluate predictability as an
internal link to clash since being able to predict what strategies are within the
realm of the topic allows us to effectively test them – it’s an independent
impact to our model of debate since
The 2nd is ground – their model of debate allows debaters to spike out of a
litany of core topic related DAs and advantage CPs – decimates ground and
pigeonholes debaters into topic generics like the Politics, Populism, and
Polarization DAs – irreparably skews the debate since the aff has infinite prep
time pre-round to block these args out
It’s a voter for fairness – the only factor that’s constitutive of the activity is that
debate is a game with winners and losers – competitive incentives and
tournament invites prove its intrinsic to the activity
Default to competing interps:
A] No brightline for reasonability – its arbitrary at best
B] Reasonability opens the floodgates for judge intervention
C] Reasonability is filtered with respect to a offense/defense paradigm which
means it collapses to competing interps
D] Reasonability is a race to the bottom
DTD on T – they’ve skewed the round irreparably
No RVIs on T
A] Allows good T debaters to bait the debate to T and win on the RVI – creates a
chilling effect for actual abuse claims
B] It’s illogical – you don’t win for proving that you’re fair