ASK IN CX FOR DEFINITION OF THE VEIL The aff never defines the veil in the AC, he must accept

my args, otherwise, this skews strat because he can shift out of all my answers by saying his veil is different somehow than the veil Im attacking, mooting the entire NR. Strat skew is key to fairness because ability to coherently develop a strat is the basis of fair debate. This outweighs any other standard because strategy is the basis for debate; any other standard depends on no strat skew. ASK IN CX IF THERE IS A WAY TO WEIGH We have no way to weigh between competing claims under the veil, i.e. if I would negate under the veil and he would affirm, we have no way of choosing one over the other, thus, the theory is essentially flawed and we pref deont. The veil fails because either people know no desires or motives, in which case they wont be able to make any principles because they have no idea what they might prefer or they know their desires, making the veil too weak because people will use it for their advantage, making the veil useless. The aff is in a double bind. Just because people agree to some rule doesnt mean that its a moral rule, i.e. I can say the sky is blue and everyone could disagree with me but t` hat doesnt mean that what Im saying is false. Even if people would agree to something under the veil, it doesnt generate an ought because the rules derived arent necessarily the rules we ought to agree to. Contracts presuppose morality because a. to decide things under the veil we must have a conception of morality beforehand to decide what we value and b. the veil presupposes that we will follow the contract after we derive it, appealing to a conception of morality that says following the contract is moral. This interacts with the off because AND, this makes it an impossible ethical theory to follow because a. we cant implement it and b. we cant ever really know how we would act under it, all the args the AC makes are just extrapolations that may or may not be true. The veil would derive deont principles; Rawls AND the AC confirms, the AC works under the assumption we are evaluating the action and not the ends; deont flows neg