mini-theory file with relevant args for 2k12 (Kevin Coltin's conflicted copy 2013-02-19)

Mini-theory file with relevant args for 2k12 (Kevin Coltin's conflicted copy 2013-02-19)

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
mini-theory file with relevant args for 2k12 AFC bad ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Nibs bad ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Nibs good ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Contingent standards bad-NC ...................................................................................................................... 3 Contingent standards good ......................................................................................................................... 4 Disad must be intrinsic to the af .................................................................................................................. 5 Disads must be disclosed ........................................................................................................................... 6 Pics bad ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Cx does not check ..................................................................................................................................... 8 1ar going for new theory when they read theory ............................................................................................. 9 Fairness voter ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Education voter ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Drop the Debater ................................................................................................................................... 12 Competing interps .................................................................................................................................. 13 RVIs bad ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Must have fairness and education .............................................................................................................. 15 Education before fairness ......................................................................................................................... 16 Fairness before education ........................................................................................................................ 17 Drop the arghhh .................................................................................................................................... 18 Drop the argument-cards ......................................................................................................................... 19 Drop the debater-cards if u need them ........................................................................................................ 20 Reasonability ......................................................................................................................................... 21 RVIs good ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Err neg on 1ar theory .............................................................................................................................. 23
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1ar framing-both read theory 1. If both debaters win ofense to a theory interpretation and have a violation for that interpretation you should vote af. A-Time skew-neg can make 13 minutes of theory arguments while af is only limited to 7 minutes of explaining theory. They will say I can make theory arguments in the ac, but pre-emptive theory doesn’t operate on the same level as theory with a violation because neg can adjust their strategy to avoid the violation. This means if we both were unfair or uneducational I did the better debating by proving it in less time. B-Checks abuse-Neg has access to T and theory and can go for a procedural in any round. Even if the af wins a counter- interp, they don’t get as much time to flesh out the abuse story to their ofensive interpretation which means neg has an easier time getting away with abusive strategies. This means I did the better debating by proving they are abusive with a less developed shell. 2. Neg must concede that theory is an rvi for the af in the next speech. A: checks abusive theory-Neg won’t run theory unless I’m actually abusive if there’s a conceded rvi going into the NC. Allowing them to argue about it links into the argument because it proves they’re not sure if the abuse is actually there and want to hedge their bet by winning RVIs bad. B: Reciprocity-just because it’s a framing issue doesn’t mean it can’t be unfair. If there’s no turn ground on the argument it’s functionally a nib. Theory itself is abusive unless it’s an rvi And They will say this justifies running an abusive af to go for the rvi in the 1ar, but if my af is actually abusive then I wouldn’t be able to win that debate.
Image of page 2
1ar framing- they read theory 1. Neg must concede that theory is an rvi for the af in the next speech. A: checks abusive theory-Neg won’t run theory unless I’m actually abusive if there’s a conceded rvi going into the NC. Allowing them to argue about it links into the argument because it proves they’re not sure if the abuse is actually there and want to hedge their bet by winning RVIs bad. B: Reciprocity-just because it’s a framing issue doesn’t mean it can’t be unfair. If there’s no turn ground on the argument it’s functionally a nib. Theory itself is abusive unless it’s an rvi And They will say this justifies running an abusive af to go for the rvi in the 1ar, but if my af is actually abusive then I wouldn’t be able to win that debate.
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern