1AC – Corona Round Robin – R1

AC – Pander Sam😳
1AC
 Fuck it – Racialized War Time (im not losing to ur word pik
buddy)
We are in the midst of a racialized war and people of color are fighting for their
lives. Black churches are being burned in Louisiana. The election of an alt right
president who told four ethnic minority congresswomen, to “go back” to the
“broken and crime infested” “countries” and called Rev. Al Sharpton “a con
man, a troublemaker, always looking for a score” who “Hates Whites & Cops!”,
and white nationalists like Dylan roof slaughtering African Americans while
afterwards confessing to “trying to start a [racialized] race war.” The 21st century
wave of racialized white nationalist violence has solidified the racialized war
and we need to fight back.
We are in the midst of a racialized war and Jackson Hanna has refused to
definitively align themselves with militant deliberation on the NDCA LD Wiki.
Hesitation in the Racialized War is a voting issue – Survival Planning – debate is
not a safe space proven by debaters calling the cops on black students playing
music and labeling native debaters cheaters for publishing their scholarship in
journals to read in debates. Even the level of scholarship is used to abstract
from discussion. Jackson Hanna must disclose the position they are reading so
colored debaters can navigate hostile spaces and arguments to their best
abilities– remedies violence- that outweighs since every other impact assumes
the ability to access the debate space. Pre-round side disclosure is key to
planning out survival tactics and circumventing racial violence that may be
inflicted on debaters.
 Framing
God exists.
Aquinas St. Thomas Aquinas, Italian Dominican friar, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church, 1485, “Summa Theologica,”
New Advent,

first
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is
in motion is put in motion motion by another, for nothing can be in except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For

potentiality to actuality
motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from . But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is
actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is
actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in

But this cannot go on to

motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.

infinity the first mover

, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by ; as the staff moves only

is
because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it God second
necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be . The way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of

There is no case
sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing cause itself is found to be the efficient of ;

for it would be prior to itself

so , which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the
intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no
ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to

admit a first efficient cause , to which everyone gives the name of God third . The way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are

found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at
one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not

begins to exist
exist only by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence —

every necessary thing has its

which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But either

necessity The
caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. refore we cannot but postulate

being having
the existence of some of itself its own necessity God , and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as . The

fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good ,

they resemble
true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as something which is the in their different ways

maximum which is
, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something

uttermost being ; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all

also something which is

hot things. Therefore there must the cause of goodness
be to all beings their being, , and every other perfection; and this we call

God fifth . The things which lack intelligence act for an end
way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that , such as natural bodies, ,
and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be

directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists whom by all natural things are

direct to their end ed ; and this being we call God .

Christianity is true.
Porter 19 – Joshua Porter, Strake Jesuit Senior, 5/2/2019, “The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” Strake
Jesuit, accessed 5/5/2019 SJCP//JP

The Resurrection is the best explanation for five facts surrounding the Resurrection that New Testament scholars and secular sources verify. The first fact is that Jesus
did die by crucifixion in accordance with testimony from Christian and non-Christian authors. While this fact does not confirm the Resurrection by itself,
this evidence both answers a common objection and establishes a basis for the other facts. Jesus of Nazareth’s death by crucifixion is documented in all

four Gospels, and John reports that Jesus was pierced in His side and blood and
water flowed from His heart (signifying death due to asphyxiation). According to Habermas and Licona, there are five secular
sources that support the claim that Jesus died: Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara
Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud. Josephus was a credible Jewish historian that documented eyewitness testimony and the cultural background
of the New Testament in Jerusalem. Tacitus, a Roman historian, also corroborates the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate as described in the Gospels. Historians generally agree
on the authenticity and veracity of Tacitus’s account of the death of Christ. Lucian refers to the crucifixion of Jesus and the persecution of early Christians. Mara Bar-Serapion, a
Roman philosopher, gives an early account of the crucifixion of the wise king of the Jews. The Babylonian Talmud corroborates multiple facts found in the accounts of the Gospel
such as Jesus’s death by crucifixion and the time of Jesus’s death on Passover eve. The next four facts are independent developments after the crucifixion that each confirm the

First, Jesus’s disciples sincerely believed he rose and appeared to them in accordance with the Gospels. There was
historicity of the Resurrection of Christ.

no motive for the apostles, the fearless leaders of the fledgling Church, to depict themselves as cowards
who fled from Jesus during His persecution, and their willingness to die for their
belief in the Resurrection after Jesus’s death indicates that they genuinely believed that the event
happened. In fact, ten out of the original twelve apostles of Jesus were tortured and
killed for this belief, and none of these ten retracted this belief (Curtis). There are five Christian sources (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke/Acts, John,
and Clement) from the apostles and their followers that corroborate the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. These are ancient documents that were written within decades of

nine distinct eyewitnesses that confirm that the

the event in question. Also, Habermas and Licona provide

Resurrection happened and were willing to suffer for that belief. Second, Saul of
Tarsus, a persecutor of the Church , documents his sudden conversion in his epistles to the Galatians:
“He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Both Saul (better known as the apostle Paul) and Luke document that Paul’s

conversion resulted from him seeing the risen Jesus. Rather than changing his beliefs due to information relayed by a secondary
source, Paul converted from being a stubborn opponent of Christianity to a prominent apostle through

witnessing the primary evidence of the risen Christ . Paul was also willing to suffer for his belief in the risen Christ
and died as a martyr. Third, the skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, suddenly changed , and he died as a martyr. Hegesippus confirms that

James was a pious Jew who adhered to Jewish laws. The Gospels document that James did not believe Jesus was the Messiah during his ministry
(Mark 6:3-4). Paul documents that the risen Christ appeared to James (1 Cor. 15:7). Luke documents that the result of

witnessing this primary source causes James to convert and become the leader
of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:12-21). Both Christian and non-Christian sources
(Hegesippus, Josephus, and Clement of Alexandria) confirm that he died for his belief in the risen Christ. Fourth, the tomb was

empty since this fact was attested by both women and enemies. Since enemies such as the Jews accused early Christians of

stealing the body, there was no corpse in the tomb. Through this accusation, enemies admitted that the body
was unavailable for public display. Also, the accounts of the Gospels claim that women were the first
primary witnesses. Women in the first-century CE were lowly esteemed, and evidence from women was not
considered credible.This proves that the story of the Resurrection was not invented since the apostles would not have used

women as the first witnesses of a fake story. The Resurrection is the only explanation for all of these occurrences that
happened at the same time and place.

Thus the standard is consistency with the beliefs of the modern church. Means
all indicts that say the framework is violent fail since the Pope rejects all
sexism, racism, and discrimination in the Bible.
Prefer additionally:
[A] Pascal’s wager – default to a belief in the God since disobeying the God’s
will would be infinite badness, but irrationally following a nonexistent God is
only instrumentally bad.
[B] Performativity – you couldn’t contest the arguments of the 1AC without
being here because of the first mover which means every argument you make
concedes the authority of God and collapses to the aff framework.
[C] Changing the framework moots 6 mins of offense and skews my time 7-13
[D] If I win the framework, it impact turns any Ks of it because it proves that the
one true obligation we have is to Jesus Christ and our framework doesn’t
exclude or erase others, rather we just try to peacefully spread the word.
[E] drop them if they read a K or shell of this framework – evangelization is a
unique obligation we have to spread the word under Christianity and critiquing
it is a voting issue because God told us to spread the word which means you’re
shutting me out of my religion.
[F] God is the most inclusive and least violent – Jesus literally went to all the
prostitutes, sinners, etc. and included them which means we outweigh and link
turn any Ks since the religion teaches us to be peaceful and reject violence.
 Advocacy
Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. CP and PICs affirm
because they do not disprove my general thesis and check the doc for a list for
spec.
For SPEC, if you need a list in the aff its here, but im willing to change it to what you need in cx

Enforcement: 93+2 Plan on https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/IAEAProtoco

Actor: States (see below)

States: All governments of countries that carry nuclear arsenals.

Eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something).

Nuclear Arsenal: their collection of nuclear weapons
 Offense
Modern church says nukes bad.
Tooley 19 Mark Tooley, 11-25-2019, "Pope Francis, Christianity & Nukes," Juicy Ecumenism,
https://juicyecumenism.com/2019/11/25/pope-francis-christianity-nukes/ SJCP//JG

Pope Francis in Japan denounced possession of nuclear weapons even for deterrence as

Yesterday

“immoral.” He moved beyond the stance of previous popes, and the U.S. bishops in their pastoral letter on nukes in the 1980s, who grudgingly
accepted nukes for deterrence as a step towards disarmament.
 Underview
[1] Affirming is harder – all theory arguments have an implicit aff flex standard
because of huge side bias – reject neg theory and fairness arguments unless
they prove how it uniquely outweighs the disparity since it’s structural – also
ignore everything they say since you have a psychological bias toward them so
it’s unfair.
Shah 19 Sachin “A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SIDE-BIAS ON THE 2019 JANUARY-FEBRUARY LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE TOPIC”
NSD, 15 February 2019. http://nsdupdate.com/2019/a-statistical-analysis-of-side-bias-on-the-2019-january-february-lincoln-
douglas-debate-topic/ SJCP//JG

To further quantify the side-bias,the proportion of negative wins when the affirmative was favored (p1) can be compared
with the proportion of affirmative wins when the negative is favored (p2). Ideally the difference between the proportions would be 0;

however, p1 = 34.84% while p2 = 28.77, a staggering 6.07% difference. Now the question
is whether this difference is statistically significant. In order to determine the answer, a two-proportion z-test was used. The null hypothesis is p1 – p2 =
0 , because that means both sides are able to overcome the debating level skew equally. The alternative hypothesis is then p1 – p2 > 0, meaning the
negative is able to overcome the skew more than the affirmative is able, demonstrating a side-bias. This two-proportion z-test rejected the null

(p-value < 0.0001). There is sufficient evidence that the

hypothesis in favor of the alternative

negative is able to overcome the skew more often than the affirmative can . This
implies there is a less than 0.01% chance that there is no side-bias because it

demonstrates the higher proportion of negative wins when the affirmative is

favored is significant. In short, the negative has a greater ability to win difficult
rounds than the affirmative does, which indicates there exists a skew in the
negative’s favor. This analysis is statistically rigorous and relevant in several aspects: (A) The p-value is less than the alpha. (B) The data is
on the current January-February topic, meaning it’s relevant to rounds these months [2]. (C) The data represents a diversity of debating and judging

styles across the country. (D) This analysis accounts for disparities in debating skill level. (E) Type I
error was reduced by choosing a small alpha level. The combination of these points validates this analysis. As a final note, it is also interesting to look at
the trend over multiple topics. In the rounds from 93 TOC bid distributing tournaments (2017 – 2019 YTD), the negative won 52.99% of ballots (p-value

This suggests the bias might be structural, and

< 0.0001) and 54.63% of upset rounds (p-value < 0.0001).

not topic specific, as this data spans six different topics. Therefore, this analysis
confirms that affirming is in fact harder again on the 2019 January-February
topic [3]. So don’t lose the flip!
Outweighs – empirics account for all factors – that’s why we trust experiments
over analytics. Also means give me perfect speaks since you’re inclined to dock
my speaks since I’ve done a worse job as the aff since you’re biased negative.
[2] AFF theory is no RVI, Drop the debater, competing interps, under an interp
that aff theory is legit regardless of voters a) infinite abuse since otherwise it
would be impossible to check NC abuse b) it would justify the aff never getting
to read theory which is a reciprocity issue c) Time crunched 1ar means it
becomes impossible to justify paradigm issues and win the shell and this comes
first because time skew means I couldn’t respond to all neg args so they’re
false. And, reject theory and Ks on spikes since it would be a contradiction since
they indict each other, but prefer mine since they are lexically prior. This means
all contradiction flow aff since I spoke first which makes any contradictions
their fault. AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can’t
engage on multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-
crunched b) Sets up an invincible 2n since there are a million of unfair things
you can collapse to win every round. Treat each of the aff spikes as separate
offensive theory arguments, which if the neg contests is drop the debater – key
to normsetting since it provides strong incentive to set paradigm norms.
[3] No 2n theory arguments and paradigm issues. a) overloads the 2AR with a
massive clarification burden b) it becomes impossible to check NC abuse if you
can dump on reasons the shell doesn't matter in the 2n. There will always be
multiple conflicting interpretations of the resolution but the aff has to start
somewhere, which means you should accept mine. And, all neg interps are
counter interps since the aff takes an implicit stance on every issue which
means any neg theory interp requires an RVI to become offensive. Affirm
means state as a fact – evaluate the theory debate after the 1AR since a) the 6
min 2n can dump on theory making the 3 min 2AR impossible b) we both get 1
speech on theory. No new 2N framing issues or responses. a) Destroys aff
ability to frame the round, k2 recourse because the neg can uplayer in the 1N
unchecked, makes the 4 minute 1AR impossible because either I have to
respond to every layer or I have to make a weaker uplayering that is stomped
by the 6 min 2N. b) Reciprocity – I can’t make new 2AR responses because
there’s no 3N, so you shouldn’t be able to pin the aff to defense. c) Implications
are clear out of the AC per arguments – you can respond to the new parts of
extended interps like violations and voters, but not the arguments themselves.
No neg args – aff autowins help spread the message that affirming is unfair so
people will change LD rules to be more structurally fair. No neg responses –
they’re circular since they assume they get neg arguments, but that’s what they
must prove.
[4] I get an RVI on NC theory a) reciprocity-you can read arguments such as T
that are exclusively neg so I need other theory arguments to balance b) NC
ability to uplayer and moot all of my offense means I need as many outs as
possible in the 1AR because the 2AR is way too short to beat back a 2N dump
on one layer.
[5] Neg can’t read framing issues against aff spikes or use embedded clash –
they must line by line. 1AR can’t tell the implication of their arguments so negs
can outspread me with them in the 2NR – 2AR has no chance to recover
because 6-3 time skew and no new 2AR args. And, prefer aff arguments since
aff speaks first which means they constitutively define the terms of the round,
any abuse is solved for you next round which makes fairness a question of your
ability to engage in the same practice, any other conception is incoherent since
the rules are clearly defined before entering so it’s also terminal defense to all
neg theory since you can just do the same thing next round.
[6] The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or
falsity of the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it
false.
Prefer: [A] Text: Five dictionaries1 define to negate as to deny the truth of and
affirm2 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. Any other 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.
Constitutivism outweighs because you don’t have the jurisdiction not to truth
test – if a chess player says you should break the rules for a more fun game, the
proper response is to ignore them as a practice only makes sense based on its
intrinsic rules. Jurisdiction is also an independent voter and a meta constraint
on anything else since every argument you make concedes the authority of the
judge fulfilling their jurisdiction to vote aff if they affirm better and neg the
contrary – otherwise they could just hack against or for you which means hack
against them if they contest truth testing and it also controls the internal link to
fairness since that’s definitionally unfair. [B] Logic: Any counter role of the
ballot collapses to truth testing because every property assumes truth of the
property i.e. if I say, “I am awake” it is the same as “it is true that I am awake”
which means they are also a question of truth claims because it’s inherent. It
also means their ROB warrants aren’t mutually exclusive with mine. First, what
the neg reads doesn’t prove the resolution false, but challenges an assumption
of it. Secondly, statements which make assumptions like the resolution should
be read as a tacit conditional which is an if p then q statement. Thirdly, for all
conditionals, if the antecedent is false, then the conditional as a whole is true

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