AFC File

Shell
 1AC Version- AFC [Stacked](48s)
Interpretation: The negative must concede the affirmative framework
Violation: It’s preemptive
Prefer-
1] Time skew- Winning the negative framework moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense
and forces a 1AR restart against a 7 min 1NC – that outweighs on quantifiability
and reversibility – I can’t get back time lost and it’s the only way to measure
abuse.
2] Topic Ed- Every debate would just be a framework debate which crowds out
our ability to have core debates about the topic – that outweighs- A] Time
Frame- We only have 2 months to debate the topic B] Inclusion- Phil and K
literature is incredibly dense and requires a vast amount of prior knowledge
and experience which excludes novices while topic literature is less esoteric C]
Constitutivism- The only thing intrinsic to debate is the topic so it should be
prioritized D] Portability- topics are carefully chosen to have modern relevance
so only debate about them can generate portable skills.
3] Prep skew- We can’t predict every single negative framework before round
but they know the aff coming into round which makes pre-tournament prep
impossible. Especially true since there are millions of K’s and NC’s that could
negate. Prep skew outweighs A] Sequencing- It’s a perquisite engaging in-round
since you need prep to debate B] Engagement- It ruins the quality and depth of
discussions that make debate rounds educational.
 1AR Version- AFC [Short]
Interpretation: The negative must concede the affirmative framework if it is not
morally repugnant and the advocacy is topical and disclosed
Violation: they didn’t
Prefer-
1] Time skew- Winning the negative framework moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense
– that outweighs on quantifiability and reversibility – I can’t get back time lost
and it’s the only way to measure abuse

2] Topic Ed- Every debate would just be a framework debate which means we
never get access to core topic lit – that outweighs on time frame – we only have
2 months
 1AR – Xu Short
Interp – negs must concede the aff’s framework if it is not morally repugnant or
descriptive, and the advocacy is topical and disclosed
Violation: they didn’t
Prefer-
1] Time skew- Winning the negative framework moots 6 minutes of 1AC offense
– that outweighs on quantifiability and reversibility – I can’t get back time lost
and it’s the only way to measure abuse

2] Topic Ed- Every debate would just be a framework debate which means we
never get access to core topic lit – that outweighs on time frame – we only have
2 months
1AR- Interp
 Time Skew
Extend AFC
Going to go for time skew – contesting the framework allows the 1NC to ignore
the entirety of the 1AC and just beat back the framework which moots 6 mins
of 1AC offense which outweighs on quantifiability and reversibility – it’s the
only way to measure abuse and I can’t gain back time lost

A2 Nonuq/Inevitable
1] The abuse story proper says your specific practice is extremely abusive since
it moots an entire speech which should ow on specificity
2] Just because it’s inevitable doesn’t mean we should stop it
3] Doesn’t give a reason why it’s good which means any risk of offense should
be sufficient

A2 Straight Ref Worse

1] You winning offense makes me lose half the 1AC but that’s way better than
me losing all of it which outweighs on magnitude

A2 Critical thinking and efficiency

1] Justifies reading Infinite NIBs in the 1NC so I can critically think and get better
which is a terrible norm
2] No reason why the education gained from critically thinking outweighs the
massive time lost for the aff
 Topic Ed
Extend AFC
Going to go for topic ed - Contesting the framework allows the 1NC to ignore
the entirety of the 1AC and just beat back the framework ignoring the entirety
of the aff’s contention which moots phil and topical and philosophical clash –
outweighs on time frame – theres only two months to debate the topic

A2 Topic Skew
1] We massively outweigh on scope – Your one cherry picked example isn’t
sufficient to beat back the tons of topic education gained from the variety of
affs
2] You would still gain topical education from the aff – e.g. international sphere
of the topic lit if it was ILaw
1AR - Counterinterp
 Negative Testing
1] The interp isolates why there are much fairer and educational ways to test
the aff from different angles – there’s no specific reason for an NC
2] Justifies things like infinite NIBs in the NC to test the aff which is intuitively
exclusionary – intuitions ow – you wouldn’t vote for someone who said the N
word but won the flow
 Phil Ed
1] We control the middle ground- instead of every debate solely being phil-
oriented, we learn about the topic through different frameworks each round
2] Phil ed gives ivory-tower analysis of what we ought to do but topic ed
explains why we ought to do them which means it controls the internal link
 Strategic Case Writing
1] There is no one framework that is strategic against all positions which makes
it impossible to access your standard – 1NC reactivity means you can always
adapt to gain strategic leverage which means AFC is key
 Inclusion [Edited]
1] Use specificity framing- Anything else is infinitely unpredictable and leads to
vague theory debates; [insert framework] obviously isn’t repugnant since it
says everyone, especially minorities, should be allowed to deliberate.
2] We outweigh on probability – no debater reads positions that proactively say
slavery is good – either way, judges would stop the round which is terminal
defense – empirically proven by paradigms on tab
3] Testing- Our AFC offense proves any contestation of our framework would be
skewed to the negative so affirmatives don’t have an adequate ability to prove
their framework’s inclusive.
4] Inclusion is a fallacy of origin- just because it’s a pre-requisite doesn’t mean
it’s most important.
 Inclusion [Unedited]
1] The interp avoids this - it says you must only concede frameworks that aren’t
and you’re still allowed to call it out regardless
2] Use in-round specificity framing – if my framework was not morally
repugnant this round, then there is no reason to drop me – anything else is
unverifiable
3] We massively outweigh on probability – no debater reads positions that
justifies slavery or the holocaust – either way, judges would stop the round –
empirically proven by paradigms on tab
 Real World
1] We control the internal link - learning the perspective of other frameworks is
what allows us to confront other viewpoints through understanding them
2] Empirically denied – Everyone agrees that the holocaust was unjust and
never go into specific details of moral philosophies in the real world
2AR
 Time Skew
Extend the interpretation- The negative must concede the normatively justified
affirmative framework if it is not morally repugnant and the advocacy is topical

Yes, new 2AR Weighing- We can’t predict all of the negatives weighing
arguments and the 1ar is too short to preempt all of them. Additionally, the 2nr
made weighing arguments so we need to be able to at least respond to those
arguments.

Fairness O/W’s Education-

A] Reversibility- we can always access their education offense through things
like books but the thing that makes debate unique is clash which only fair
engagement preserves
B] Sequencing- Fairness is a necessary side constraint on having educational
debates since it ensures both sides can engage. Even if you don’t buy this top
level work use it as a tie-breaker for the rest of the debate.

Going for the time skew, which outweighs other standards for 2 reasons-
A] Quantifiability- it’s the only abuse we can verifiably see and measure
B] Reversibility- we can’t correct abuse to the 1ar but their impacts can be
garnered elsewhere.
Lets imagine the world of the counter interp- a strategic 1nc would just read an
alternative framing mechanism moots all 6 minutes of case since all the
framework-specific offense I read no longer matters and all my framework
justifications get shredded by a 7-minute NC answering 2 min worth of an AC. It
forces the short 4 min 1ar to restart the debate with new framework responses
and recontextualizing new offense under their framework. Even if I could
leverage case in the 1AR, I would only have 2 min of framework justifications to
leverage versus an entire 7 min 1nc which o/w on probability because it gives
the negative a structural incentive to do it, which in turn proliferates this
strategy.
This is supercharged by 2 additional skews:
A] Structural Skew- the 1ar is already at a 7-6-4-3-time skew that it has to
overcome, which o/w on reversibility since we can’t change it
B] Prep Skew- The negative isn’t bound by the resolution but we are so it makes
preparing for any of those possible positions functionally impossible which o/w
on reciprocity.
SSD Solves their offense- we can discuss other frameworks in different rounds
when they affirm but each round should be about one framework

AT Phil Ed: We increase phil ed because we allow understanding

Prefer going more in-depth over one framework rather than multiple-
A] It’s key to making sure debaters have a robust understanding of each
framework rather trying to resolve a thousand year old debates in 45 min,
which leads to worse-quality debates
B] Increases clash and phil education because it prevents the 1NC from
spreading out the 1ar and banking on conceded arguments.
 Topic Ed
Going to go for AFC
Extend the interpretation - The negative must concede the affirmative
framework if it is not morally repugnant and the advocacy is topical (a) If we
had a fair game but no education happened, then there would be no reason for
it to exist and (b) people create rules for debate to make the game more
accessible for new debaters so they can get an educational benefit from the
activity, but if I’m being educational that incentive is unnecessary.
Going for topic ed, here is the abuse story
First, not allowing the affirmative to use its framework allows the 1NC to ignore
the entirety of the 1AC and just beat back the framework ignoring the entirety
of the aff’s contention. Lets imagine the world of the counter interp- a regular
affirmative spends usually 1-2 min on the framework debate, a strategic 1NC
would spend 7 min answering the framework and providing an alternative
framing method which means 4 to 5 minutes of potential topical clash is
completely ignored which ows on probability since it gives the negative a
structural incentive in doing so which just proliferates the strategy- This is
supercharged by 2 additional factors- A] It’s impossible to make turns against
the NC in the 1AR since Debaters would rather leverage some part of the AC
rather than having a 1AR restart which outweighs on probability due to the
structural disadvantage B] the fact that the advocacy is topical and disclosed
means that all NC’s and K’s automatically are viable strats where you can easily
run to avoid any form of contention-level clash with the 1AC while the only
predictable stasis of preparation I have before round is the resolution which
means this already heavily skewed 1AR has about 4 min of prep to understand
and beat back something you have infinite frontlines on while you knew the
what the aff was about which just guarantees 0 topic education
Second is clash- Their model of debate destroys incentive for high quality clash
and testing exploding an already skewed 1AR, forcing debaters to go for short
analytics rather than in-depth responses. We increase topical clash and phil ed
by debating contention-level arguments which forces debaters to weigh under
certain framing mechanisms different impacts that relate to the topic. The
alternative is debating two extremely complicated ethical theories that take
huge amounts of background knowledge to understand which inhibits any form
of clash since speeches would be spent banking on one conceded analytic in the
5th subpoint of the 4th impact calc section or explaining the entirety of the
syllogism. Conceded weighing- Outweighs because external education and
multiple rounds solve their education impacts but clash only occurs in-round.
Third, the world of the interp with switch side debate is a happy medium and
solves for (insert standards) A] The fact that the aff is disclosed and topical
sufficiently allow the 1NC adequate time to prepare and beat back the 1AC pre-
round prep. B] Switch side debate means we can discuss all types of
frameworks in different rounds getting to the nuances of each position C] We
increase clash vertically ensuring that the 1NC doesn’t win debates by
spreading the affirmative and banking on conceded arguments but rather on
who does the better debating.
Conceded the weighing arguments
1] Time frame – We only have two months to talk about the topic which means
we should prioritize something that everyone is willing to talk about to
maximize education
2] Constiutivism – The resolution is what allows for debate to function and is a
core central part of any debate – that means any disad to our interp is nonuq
3] Portability – Learning about how the state approaches different policies in
the real world mobilizes citizenship and ensures that we as real life individuals
can gain something out of debate when we leave