Abuse Arguments Theyre example essay topic

Their argument that we " re un limiting is unproven- the only argument in the 2 nr is why theyre more limiting than we are, so all we have to win is that we " re reasonable- the 2 nr doesn't give any reasons why us allowing 30 cases to their 25 is bad- that wouldnt change education or their prep- now even if they win limits debate, our definition is best for education and predictability because it is contextual and discussed in the core literature on the topic. the first argument they make on the 2 nc overview is that we prevent links to biz con and politics, but that's because our case is a military case. Plus that ground isn't key, theres no reason why they should always get links to certain positions- that would make all debates generic and boring. Now drop down to the first we meet argument- since they don't define what use means, our interpretation is as good as theirs- use includes destruction, and we protect marine natural resources from destruction. Even if you think this is arbitrary, they haven't answered our business times evidence which says the best way to protect natural resources is accident prevention. Extend all the reasons in the overview why contextual definitions are better- they set the best Bright line because either its in the literature or not, and its best for education because it best reflects the framers' intent, theyre more predictable because theyre discussed in the core literature of the topic.

Furthermore, all their ground args are arbitrary- ground can only be discussed in terms of predictability- if we ran nmd good, theyd have lots of nmd bad ground but it wouldn't be predictable. Now the counter interpretation debate- our CI from the chambers dictionary is that protection is a guard or defense. Banning stealth tracking is a guard against accidents and nuclear leakage. Our CI is good for a couple of reasons- 1st it sets the best limits because we allow all the cases they do while still limiting out gmo's, lfa sonar, iron for algae, dolphins.

They say we allow cases that solve global warming and lifeguards to protect resources but those wouldn't be an ocean policy- other words check all the abuse arguments theyre making. Drop down to the abuse debate- our arg is that you shouldn't vote on potential abuse because the negative has some adv in the debate- they have the 13 mins of the block vs. the 1 ar, the 1 nc sets the focus of the debate, and they have access to generic topic ground, which is huge on this topic. Frame topicality like a DA- the uniqueness is the abuse issue, and the link is the violation. Their T DA is non unique, because they have the adv in the debate. That means that even if you err affirmative on T, that would only serve to level the playing field, it wouldn't uniquely abuse them. Additionally, in round abuse is the best way to evaluate these args because T is a check against a ffs that kill education and give a strategic adv to one side- in other words, T is key to make sure theres good clash within the debate- if the negative can compete within the round, then there's clearly no reason to pull the trigger on T. Potential abuse is arbitrary because each judge has different biases and setting precedents is empirically denied.

Beat them on the fact that their counter interp is worse T as a DA not good Make an arg that sounds offensive as to why underlimitng a little is better than overlimitng. Down phrase args as negatives- not they didn't say, but we say. Don't just say whats missing but why its bad that its missing. Debate is about predictabilility.

They have to win that to win... Take the extra step to compare args- err on the side that we can extrapolate the impact of this arg.