Word PICs Bad Updated

2AC Word PICs Bad Short

Word PICs are a voter---Moots the whole 1AC and kills clash
especially since theres no offensive reasons why words are
good. Trades off with topic focus in favor of stale discursive
analysis. Infinite number of words means its impossible to
prepare and infinitely regressive. Forces debate about silly
details of the plan. Justifies PIC the hyphen or do the plan
except for $1. Reading as a disad solves their offense.

2AC Word PICs Bad Long

Word PICs are a voter
1. Aff ground---it moots and steals the entirety of the 1AC and
kills clash about the aff since we cant weigh the aff against
the PIC
2. Topic education---they trade off topic focus and crowd out
important topic discussions in favor of stale discursive
analysis---they force debates about the silly details of the
plan which trades off with substance
3. Infinitely regressive---infinite number of words to be
prepared on which makes it impossible to be aff since there
are no offensive reasons why words are good in the lit--justifies PIC the hyphen or the PIC. Reading as a disad
solves all their offense

AT: Etymology First

Etymology isnt offense against the aff
Saphire 1990 (William Saphire, journalist and author, author of the On Language column in New York
Times Magazine from 1979-2009, On Language; Dark Words Of Disapproval, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/28/magazine/on-language-dark-words-of-disapproval.html)

Historically, black and dark have signified ''bad'' (Satan was called the Prince of Darkness long
before the self-styled meanie, Robert Novak, was born), and white and light have meant ''good'' (none but the brave deserve the

The question is: Should we now take cognizance of the

prejudice inherent in this and try to root it out? For example, should an aide to
the Mayor of Washington whisper to him, ''You should not use denigrate in
reference to Jesse Jackson, because the root means 'to blacken,' and for
years we have been saying that black is beautiful.'' I think that is taking anti-racism too far.
Language is like a great coral reef, built of the fossils of millions of
fair, meaning ''light-colored'').

organisms ; to go back through the language's development and to

''correct'' what we now see as wrong or cruel unnecessarily hacks away at
the reef . Of course, some words are now taboo; the epithet nigger - from Negro, from the same
Latin niger - has been expunged from the vocabulary because it betrays contempt and gives offense. However, boy, when used
toward a black, or African-American, male also gives offense, because of its use toward adults in days of slavery; we do not use boy
in that context any longer, but we do not drop boy from the language in its general sense as ''young male.'' Indeed, home boy is
black English for ''close friend,'' which is roughly equivalent to the CB user's good buddy.

Denigrate , though

undoubtedly rooted in dark-light symbolism, is not to be derogated

lessened)

or deprecated

(disapproved of earnestly).

(its value

Etymology is a key to understanding

the development of meaning , not a weapon for correct-thought police .

Mayor Barry has made his share of mistakes, and does not hesitate to charge critics with racism, but in using denigrate he did not
blunder into unconscious racism. (He would have been more accurate in using disparage, ''to subtly belittle,'' because that is more
often applied to people than denigrate, which is usually used to run down ideas or values.) Umbrage, a word used in the lead of this
item, is from the Latin umbra, ''shadow''; such darkness falling across a person was considered offensive to the one so cast in the
shade, and to take umbrage is ''to take offense'' or to become more than miffed but less than outraged. A favorite word of writers
about subjects who blaze back is the infrequently used umbrageous, ''easily offended.''

Answers
AT: In-depth education
1. No impact reading as a da solves
2. No way your interp trades-off with the scholarship of the aff and the topic
3.

AT: Forces affs to think about the entire plan

1. Reading as a DA solves all your offense we get to weigh the
pedagogy/scholarship of the aff against competitive neg args any other
interp steals the entirety of the aff

AT: Everything is a PIC

1. Everything may be a PIC, but not everything is a word PIC, uniquely bad since
it steals the aff

AT: Potential Abuse

1. We have won in-round abuse since you stole the entire aff

AT: Reasonability
1. Competing interps on issues of negative cheating reasonability is arbitrary,
invites judge intervention, and any debate about what is reasonable collapses
into competing interps

AT: Err neg

1. Neg gets the block, aff has 1ar, and gets to test the aff from their choosing

Other Stuff
Shell v1
PICS are bad and its a voting issue:
A.
Kills debate by forcing us to debate ourselves adopting all components of a
plan except for what links to a disad means they can just kick the counterplan and
cross-apply our arguments against us unfair and steals aff ground.
B.
Infinitely regressive justifies arbitrary and minute counterplans like exclude
a penny and a risk of a bad disad means PICs would be impossible to predict.
C.
Steals aff ground the plan is the focus of the debate; PICs moot the entirety
of the 1AC by retaining any good parts, making it impossible for us to use the 1AC
as leverage.
D.
Encourages vague plan writing unpredictable affs will always be extremely
broad in order to capture the perm, forcing unlimiting debate
E.
Disads check they can run the net benefit by itself, reducing artificial
inflation of the risk of a link rejecting PICs still allows for the same amount of
education while preserving ground on both sides.
F.
Intellectual plagiarism- they moot 8 minutes of our offense and steal our work
decreasing strategic pre-round thinking.
G.
Its a voter for fairness and education PICs destroy education by stealing aff
ground and shifting focus away from the core of the debate.

Shell v2
Interpretation: PICs prevent education and are abusive.

Voter: PICS are a voter for education, fairness, and predictability.

Destroys education: Prevents education because the aff cannot learn from debating
against other plans and criticisms. There is no offense for the aff to fight against the
neg because the neg has stolen the affs plan.

Destroys fairness: There is an unfair research burden because the neg does not
need to research anything while the aff spends time to create a plan and results in
the neg stealing it.

Not predictable: The neg can take out any section of the affs plan, preventing the
aff from predicting the neg and prepping for it. Leads to time skew.

Time Skew: The aff needs time to find cards to attack its own plan

REJECT THE TEAM NOT THE ARGUMENT. >:)