Current focus of the TVPA prevents survivors of trafficking from attaining necessary social services

JDI 09

1Topp/Murray

Theory

Theory2Framework

3AT: Framework

4***Aff Theory***

4Extra-Topicality Good

5Conditionality Bad

6Dispo Bad

750 State Fiat Bad

8Severance Perms Good

9Intrinsic Perms Good

10***Neg Theory***

10Extra-Topicality Bad

11Conditionality Good

12Dispo Good

1350 State Fiat Good

14Severance Perms Bad

15Intrinsic Perms Bad

Framework

1. Our framework for the debate is that the affirmative must defend a topical plan and its consequences and the negative must defend a competitive policy option or the status quo

2. Reasons to prefer

A. Ground- the topic was chosen because it had equitable division of ground, we should be debating about that topic, not avoiding itB. Infinitely regressive- there are literally thousands of possible kritik frameworks, our framework is the best for limits and predictability

C. Judge intervention- our framework is most clear and gives judges the best way to evaluate the debate

D. Plan focus good- kritiks can only have links to the plan, not the advantages and focusing on the plan is best for learning about politics

E. At the very least, the framework debate is a reason that we should be able to weigh our advantages against the impact of the kritikAT: Framework

( ) Counter-interpretation- The aff should be forced to defend the assumptions of their planReasons to prefer:

1. Aff choice- The aff got to choose the topic of the debate and all of the ideas and advantages that they wanted to read- they should be required to defend them

2. Key to check sexist and racist language- Only looking at the plan means wed have no tools to prevent people from saying morally repugnant things3. Education- Learning about the assumptions and expanding debate into philosophical literature means that well be learning more4. Learning about assumptions is key to deciding whether a policy is a good idea or not- we have to have these debates to have a well-rounded understanding- as policy makers, we need to understand our motivations for supporting or rejecting particular policies***Aff Theory***

Extra-Topicality Good

1. No link- were not extra topical- Everything in our plans stems from the resolution2. Extra topicality is inevitable- most social services are targeted at the larger population, and we are forced to defend those social services3. Ground- Extra topicality is actually better for the neg- The more things the aff does, the more arguments the neg gets against our aff, allowing them to have more disads, counterplans, etc.

4. Education- we provide more topics for debaters to learn about- you should prefer breadth over depthConditionality Bad

( ) Conditionality is a voter for the following reasons:1. Time Skew They can drop it whenever, after weve spent a large portion of our speeches on it

2. Neg Bias They have 13 minutes in the negative block, while we only get 5 minutes to refute it in the 1AR

3. Multiple Worlds Bad they can just kick out of whatever arguments theyre losing4. Strategy Skew the aff has to answer different arguments on multiple levels

5. Not Reciprocal the aff has to stick with the plan no mater what, when the neg can kick out of the counerplan

6. Moving target hurts education because we dont know what arguments they will go for

7. Argumentative Responsibility they arent held accountable for their arguments

8. Err aff on theory

Dispo BadDispositionality is a voter for the following reasons:

1. Time skew- Unfair for the Aff to have to spend so much time arguing the counterplan/kritik when the Neg can functionally kick it when it is in their best strategic interests2. Not Real World- Politicians are expected to defend their positions and we should emulate policy-making3. Multiple Worlds- The aff is forced to defend multiple worlds of the status quo and cp unfairly increasing the chances of a double turn4. Moving Target- Dispositionality creates an unstable advocacy. Neg is a moving target and this hurts predictability which is key to in-depth topic education5. Not reciprocal- Aff must defend plan through the entirety of the debate, neg should be held to the same standard to maintain competitive equity6. Straight turn doesnt solve- The affirmative should always get the opportunity to test the competitiveness of the counterplan. Dispositionality doesnt allow this to happen without unfairly advantaging the neg7. Err Aff on theory- The 1AR is the hardest speech in the round and they have 5 minutes to answer the entire neg block8. Reject the team not the argument50 State Fiat Bad( ) 50 State Fiat is a voter for the following reasons:

1. Unpredictable- With multiple actors, Neg is unlimited in who they can choose to support CP. This leads to crazy, unpredictable CPs

2. Not Reciprocal- Affirmative gets to fiat one agent, the Federal Government, Neg should get the same option

3. Not Real World- The 50 states have never worked in conjunction before.

4. Unfair Research Burden- The Affirmative should be required to have evidence on all 50 states.

5. Infinitely Regressive- If Neg is allowed 50 actors, where does it end? 100, 1,000, 1,000,000?

6. Lose Affirmative Ground- Affirmative is limited in the offense we can provide against the CP

7. Reject the Team, not the Argument- Dont encourage this mindset that Neg can run whatever they want thats crazy like this CP. We need to create a general consensus that this is unacceptable

8. Err A on theory- Neg has the negative block, and an endless supply of generic arguments they can run. Dont allow them to get away with arguments like this.

Severance Perms GoodSeverance perms arent a voter:A. Real World- Congress amends and changes plans, so we should too. This also gives neg the ability to predict that we would do this because it happens in the real world.

B. Fairness- Checks infinitely regressive counterplans and disads. The neg can sever plans, so the AFF should be able to also.

C. Education- Gives us the ability to find the best policy options and we can learn how congress acts in the real world.

D. Err Aff- They have the negative block, generic arguments, ks, as well as case evidence so you should prefer the aff on theory.

E. Reject the argument, not the team- Even if they win severance is bad, you should reject the argument not the team for the above reasons. They decided to run all the theory arguments on severance. Intrinsic Perms Good

Intrinsic perms arent a voter:

A. Real World- Congress amends and changes plans, so we should too.

B. Fairness- Checks infinitely regressive counterplans and disads. The neg can sever plans, so the AFF should be able to also.

C. Education- Gives us the ability to find the best policy options and we can learn how congress acts in the real world. D. Key to check artificially competitive counterplans that destroy aff ground like consult counterplansE. Err Aff- They have the negative block, generic arguments, ks, as well as case evidence so you should prefer the aff on theory.

F. Reject the argument, not the team- Even if they win intrinsicness is bad, you should reject the argument not the team for the above reasons. ***Neg Theory***

Extra-Topicality Bad1. Ground extra topicality allows the Affirmative to generate advantages bases on the populations external to the resolution

A. This generates unique link turn ground and advantages ground that outweighs core Negative ground and guts specific linksB. The aff chooses the plan, and everything else should be negative ground- When they claim ground outside of the resolution they are encroaching on our arguments2. Limits Completely nullifies the value of the resolution- They can literally do an infinite number of things that are outside the resolution, which we could never predict or be prepared for

3. Education Untopical Affirmatives extremely overstretch the Negative research burden and decrease the amount of detailed knowledge about each case. This also narrows/strictly limits in depth learning. More predictable cases raise the level of education.

4. Its a reason to vote neg- they are conceding that the resolution is insufficient, so theyre no reason to vote affConditionality Good

1. Best policy option- If they prove the counterplan is a bad idea, we shouldnt be stuck with it, we should be able to defend another, better policy, i.e., the status quo2. Multiple Worlds Good It increases education by forcing critical thinking

3. Err neg they get the 1st AND last speeches, infinite prep, a higher winning percentage, and choice of plan

4. Time Skew Inevitable its the negs job and some people are naturally different speeds6. Reject the argument, not the team7. No infinite Regress Competition and the need for net benefits ensures that heres a limited number of arguments we can read

Dispo Good

1. Neg Theory- Negs responsibility is to prove the aff is a bad idea. How we do it doesnt matter2. Reciprocity- Aff can kick out of advantages so we should be able to kick out of cps/kritiks3. Real World- Politicians constantly change their opinions in Congress and in order to emulate policy making we should be able to do the same4. Aff Choice- The Aff controls how we argue the cp/kritik. If the choose to give use the option to kick it, we shouldnt be punished for that5. Dont vote on potential abuse6. Reject the argument, not the team7. Education- Dispositional cps/kritiks increase potential ground and breadth of education.

8. Strategic Thinking- Dispositionality increases strategic thinking for aff and neg by forcing both teams to consider strategy and concede certain arguments to plan ahead.

50 State Fiat Good1. Predictable- Congress always argues about whether the Federal Government has the right to enact certain policies

2. Reciprocal- Affirmative gets to fiat the vote of hundreds of politician

3. Tests Federal Key Warrant- Examines if the Federal Government really is the best actor to carry out a plan- Which is one of the key questions on this topic in particular4. Increases Affirmative Ground- Affirmative can run a D/A on any of the states

5. Increases Education- Provides a deeper look into how politics works on a federal level, state level, and both

6. Increases Critical Thinking- Both teams have to attack and defend more than just the Federal Government

7. Debate is not the real world- Here, were only debating hypothetical situations

8. Reject the Argument, not the Team- Affirmative gets first and last speech, chooses topic, and chooses plan text.

9. Err Neg on Theory.Severance Perms BadSeverance perms are a voter:1. Moving Target- Changing plan as debate goes on is abusive because we dont know where to attack.

2. Ground- Takes away ground because essentially the perm would act as a whole new world and moots the entire 1NC. The plan text is where we get our strategy so they should have to stick to it.

3. Time and Strategy Skew- Wasted our time arguing the original plan, now they change it in the middle of the round. Also we have had to waste time answering their illegit perm.

4. Err Neg- Such a big topic the aff has a lot of ways to interpret the resolution and there are infinite amount of plans as well as infinite choice for plan text.

5. Reject the team not the argument- Since we had to waste all this time on theory, the aff should be punished. The only way to stop illegitimate perms is to punish teams that do it. We have lost significant education in the round because they decided to do the perm. Intrinsic Perms Bad

Intrinsic Perms are a voter:

1. Ground- Unfair, intrinsicness allows the affirmative team to hypothetically escape any disadvantage by simply changing their plan. The Neg has too much ground to cover.

2. Limits- The affirmative have unlimited advocacy.

3. Precision- Potentially, the affirmative team would become a moving target. Or a hydra with 7 heads. Etc etc. They can change their plan whenever they want.

4. Education- Basically if you allow the affirmative team to intrinsically perm, they can change their plan whenever they want, making debate uneducational because any disadvantages the negative team tries to link they can simply destroy the link by changing a part of their plan to whatever they want.

5. Example: Consult counterplan. The neg team says to do our plan except consult Japan about our poverty decision to appease their bloodthirsty appetite. If the aff team says Perm: consult Japan about doing back flips off of a bike rack, then it is intrinsic because the counterplan said nothing about a bike rack.PAGE 1