Blake Invitational 1 Kamiak nb aff

25 Whitman DH Neg

https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Walt+Whitman/Harris+Neg

Case Defense – Rawls

Here’s some framework responses – they negate because you don’t show a moral obligation insofar as you don’t give the proper account of morality, so the resolution is false and you negate.

Recognizing all agents are equal doesn’t entail that we have to treat them equally - just because all children in the world are morally equal, my father doesn't have an obligation to feed every orphan in the world- no individual would choose a world like that, even under the veil.

2. There is no such thing as a reason without a desire so the veil of ignorance is impossible.

JOYCE 02

Joyce, Richard. Myth of Morality. Port Chester, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p 109-110.

tapu is a translation of term used by certain African tribes to denote something similar to a taboo

Back to the

AND

an internal one.

Additionally, the veil fails to provide a motivation to look through the veil in the first place because it is not in our self-interest.

3. The veil doesn't account for risk takers, it might a. be in our future self-interest to contract principles that would benefit one disproportionately or b. we might prefer a system that benefits the wealthy because we could be wealthy from behind the veil.

DA Court Clog

The courts are fine now, but only because of long term innovation – a massive surge in caseload would be bad.

Pryor 11/29 William H. Pryor Jr., (William H. Pryor Jr. is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and acting chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission.) "Conservatives Should Oppose Expanding The Federal Courts" The New York Times, 11-29-2017, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/opinion/conservatives-expanding-federal-courts.html, DOA:12-8-2017 WWBW

Although caseloads are

AND

And they’re not.

Plea bargains clog the courts and kill judicial functioning- local bans prove.

Weninger 87 Robert A. Weninger, (Texas Tech University School of Law, ) "The Abolition Of Plea Bargaining: A Case Study Of El Paso County, Texas" Ucla Law Review, Vol. 35, Pp. 265-313, 1987, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2264459, DOA:12-12-2017 WWBW

The changed policy

AND

to criminal work.

Bans on plea bargaining cause court clog- local bans prove.

Acvedo 95 Roland Acevedo, () "Is A Ban On Plea Bargaining an Ethical Abuse of Discretion? A Bronx County, New York Case Study" 64 Fordham Law Review 987, 1995, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol64/iss3/14/, DOA:12-9-2017 WWBW

The plea bargaining

AND

Bronx is dismissed.

Overworked court system disproportionately hurts minorities.

Van Brunt 15 Alexa Van Brunt, (Alexa Van Brunt is an attorney and clinical assistant professor with the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at Northwestern University Law School) "Public defenders are overworked and underfunded. That means more people go to jail" Guardian, 6-17-2015, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked, DOA:12-9-2017 WWBW

Money can buy

AND

to appoint counsel.”

This outweighs and turns case – it’s a prior question to the AC impacts.

a) arbitrariness – identity is morally arbitrary, so allowing discrimination undermines the foundation of a moral theory.

b) inclusion is an epistemic prerequisite – oppression is the biggest impact since we can’t form moral theories until those affected are included by it

c) any theory that condones an unequal societal order should be rejected since it would not be accepted by those at the bottom – this makes it useless as a political philosophy, which must be justifiable to the citizens who the government rules over.

Off NIBs/A Prioris

Contention A is the Resolution

Negate:

“To” is defined as “indicate movement” (Merriam Webster), but that means the resolution is incoherent because the word ought cannot move to the word be – they’re both abstract concepts. Means you negate on face because you can’t even know what the resolution looks likes and an incoherent claim can’t have truth.

2. The resolution says an action ought to happen but insofar as it does not specify who ought to take the action we can’t say that’s true because a) we don’t know what the aff looks like and b) it could be radically different depending on who does it under any number of moral theories.

3. The resolution says in the “United States”, which is defined as a “federation of states” (Merriam Webster), but absent a specification of what federation, we can’t affirm because there isn’t an actor and because there could be a country in which plea bargaining doesn’t exist.

Contention B is the Paradox

Affirming Negates:

Premise 1 – Plea bargaining ought to be abolished.

Premise 2 – Plea bargaining only ought to be abolished if it has not already because otherwise a) we wouldn’t fiat and b) we would just say the fact that it was abolished was good, but the infinitive in the resolution indicates an action ought to be taken.

Conclusion – Plea bargaining ought not be abolished. Means you negate because a) the resolution is paradoxical and therefore can’t be true b) even if it is true you negate.

PIC “Abolition”

Counter-plan text – I defend the aff advocacy without the term abolition.

PIC “Flesh”

Counter-plan text – I defend the aff advocacy without the term flesh.

Theory ASPEC

A. The affirmative must specify what actor does the Aff advocacy in an explicit text in the 1AC. To clarify, you must specify who or what bans plea bargaining.

Theory Spikes on Top

A. All arguments concerning fairness or education and arguments that the negative could violate must be numbered and read first in the affirmative speech. To clarify, theory arguments must be read at the top of the affirmative case before all substantive arguments.

This is for my dear friend Abhilash, who tragically died because of a hidden spike at the bottom of an aff that killed him. Rest in peace, Abhilash.

T Topic

A. In the 1AC, the Affirmative must defend as their only source of offense the hypothetical implementation of a government action.

I didn't read the Parcher evidence with this shell - my word crashed and I had to extemp it.

~

V2

A. The Affirmative must defend as their only source of offense in the 1AC the desirability of topical action.

B. Violation – they do not defend it.

Resolved implies a legislative action. Also means you don’t have the jurisdiction to vote off the aff.

Parcher 1 Parcher, Jeff (debate coach at Georgetown). “Is the resolution a question?” CEDA Debate. Feb 2001 http://cedadebate.org/pipermail/mailman/2001-February/031021.html. Accessed 2 August 2017.

Pardon me if

AND

to a question.

C. Inclusion – Not defending the topic means people with access to less resources don’t have access to the round. This means you exclude poorer debaters without coaches and resources, and small school debaters who come to the round with only their own prep. The only thing they have to read against you if they’re lucky is T, and you’ve already frontlined it which means they’re going to lose. You are excluding marginalized groups from the debate space. Outweighs to accessibility because exclusive spaces make debate inaccessible.

Anxiety – Non T affs are uniquely bad for mental health. Tournaments are already a toxic environment, and the last thing someone needs to hear before the round is that you’re reading an aff they have no good case neg to, with literature they aren’t familiar with and you know infinitely more than they do, after they have sacrificed hours of their time going in depth on topic research. Outweighs to accessibility because you again exclude certain groups, usually marginalized ones, for personal benefit and don’t give them the opportunity to engage.

Agonistic Engagement – Maintaining a clear and defined stasis for deliberation is the only way to create a rigorous testing of the aff – turns case and means they have no solvency.

Steinberg and Freeley 13 David Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA, officer, American Forensic Association and National Communication Association. Lecturer in Communication studies and rhetoric. Advisor to Miami Urban Debate League, Masters in Communication, and Austin, JD, Suffolk University, attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, Argumentation and Debate. Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, Thirteenth Edition

Debate is a

AND

the guidance provided

D. Accessibility is a voter and turns case – arbitrary exclusion of certain groups from the debate space makes voting for the better debater impossible – means it precludes any obligation of the judge. This also means they can’t leverage case against T because it’s a procedural indict of the accessibility of the aff.

Drop the debater – 1) To deter future abuse and ensure debaters can engage the round. 2) Drop the argument makes this shell a positive time tradeoff which encourages more abuse. 3) The round is already skewed so drop the argument doesn’t solve.

No RVIs – 1) You don’t win the round because you set a new norm – it just means the judge can vote off the aff. 2) RVIs encourage abuse - good theory debaters will read abusive positions and either get away with it or win off theory. 3) If case matters, no RVI means we can get back to it, or I can collapse to substance for a better round. They’ll say it makes T a nib, but you can link turn the violation.

Use Competing Interps – 1) Reasonability leads to a race to the bottom with more abuse being justified and brightlines that PIC out of specific abuse. 2) Brightlines are entirely arbitrary because you can set it at whatever you want. 3) It collapses since we just compare net benefits to the brightlines.

T cannot be a reason to drop me – 1) Perfcon – if you vote off something saying I shouldn’t read theory, it’s still theory and infinitely regressive. 2) Even if T is a bad norm it doesn’t follow that you drop me, it just justifies Counter interpretation – I can do what I want. 3) Even if T is bad you should allow for it in debate as a testing of the procedurals of the aff to ensure abuse is checked.