Sanction Theory File

Sanction Theory File - SANCTIONTHEORYFILE Aff must defend a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
S ANCTION  T HEORY  F ILE Aff must defend a world A. Interpretation - The affirmative should have to defend a world. B. Violation - The aff does not provide an alternative method to economic sanctions. C. Standards- 1. Ground Skew-If they don’t provide an alternative, it skews my ground because it prevents my ability to run disadvantages to an alternative, whereas they get to run a ton of disadvantages against my 1NC and sanctions in general. Fair ground is key to fairness because it insures competitive equity by preserving symmetrical burdens. 2. Predictability- Nearly all topic lit is about comparisons between policies, and there affects on nations. In the real world, sanctions do not exist in a vacuum, and debate becomes meaningless and impossible to preempt when we cannot even debate relevant to real life. Predictability is key to fairness because it allows for both debaters to have a fair chance of coming prepared to debate a ton of relevant issues. 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
- Fairness. Without fairness, we deter debaters from participating in a competitively equal activity. We should preserve rules of the game that encourage debaters to play it. And in order to do that winning should be determined by merit which requires a fair playing field. Vote him down to enact a positive impact on the debate community to prevent unfair practices from proliferating. Theory is an issue of competing interpretations, and without a counter interp he links 100% into the standards. Don’t allow him to give an alt in his next speech, my speech time is already skewed, the reciprocity is already destroyed. Extra T – Aff Provides an Alternative A. Interpretation - The focus of this resolution is only to debate whether the existence of economic sanctions should be continued in terms of foreign policy objectives. This means the aff should only defend a world without sanctions and the neg a world with sanctions. B. Violation - The aff goes beyond the resolution and is extra T by providing an alternative system. C. Standards- 1. Predictability -The neg is forced to defend the entirety of economic sanctions – the aff going beyond the resolution allows for minute changes that force a huge research burden on the negative to leverage against an aff. 2. Education skew – the framers of the resolution wanted a debate centered on the merits of economic sanctions, not arbitrary alternatives the aff creates. My interpretation allows for the best division of ground and allows for a focus on empirics of economic sanctions as well as country hypotheticals. 3. Ground- they can claim extra unpredictable advantages from non topical portion of plan – killing the neg burden of clash. 2
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/09/2011 for the course US 122 taught by Professor Trelawney during the Spring '10 term at Colby-Sawyer.

Page1 / 18

Sanction Theory File - SANCTIONTHEORYFILE Aff must defend a...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online