2NC AT:

Hard
debate =
Good
debate
1)

No link - our
argument isnt
debate should be
easier, its that
debates participation
barrier should not be
determined by ones
class or disability
level. Circuit style
speed debate is a
capital
-intensive process
that
isnt neutral
their conception of
hard debate is
weighed with
ideological
baggage.2)
Turn

harder debate for
one team is easier
debate for another

spreading makes
it easy for well-
resourced teams
to outcompete us
simply
by outspreading
us

evening the
playing field is a
pre-requisiteto
rigorous debate.3)

Turn

their form of debate

isnt rigorous or
educational
cross apply our
Sjoberg and
Tickner evidencea
bout dialogic
knowledge
production.4)
Militarism
outweighs

the production of
violent
subjectivities
outweighs any
nebulous benefits
thatspreading
might have.
2NC AT
Reps
Dont
Matter

1. False

extend
Cohn

the
language
we use
to articulat
econtent
shapes the
way we
filter
the content
. Mitchell
isspecific
to debate
on this
question
and demon
strateshow
the
sanitization
produced
by
spreading
leads tocel
ebrations o
f
suffering. P
refer
our debate
specificevi
dence to
their
generic
evidence.2.
Exclusion
matters
- the
affirmative
participate
s inconstru
cting a
participatio
n barrier
based on
class
anddisabilit
y


thats an
independe
nt reason
to dr
op
them.The
National
Federation
of High
School
Associatio
nsevidence
impacts
this
argument
saying
participatio
n isdirectly
connected
to speed.
2NC AT
Breadth >
Depth
1. Misses
the boat

our
Sjoberg
and Tickne
r
evidencein
dicate their
education
is bad
education
whether or
notits
broad or
deep.2.
Inaccessibl
e

if we cant
access the
education,
itdoesnt
matter how
much
breadth yo
u cover
because
wecant
engage it.
3. Depth is
superior

its better to
read 100
pages of
onebook
than the
first page
of 100
books.
2NC AT
Perms
Group the perm
debate

1. No perms

our kritik
doesnt have or
need an
alternative, so
theres
literally nothing
to perm. Our
reading of the
1NC and 2NC is
acounterperfor
mance that
disrupts the
performance of
the 1AC, and is
whatthe judge
votes for.
2.
Dont need an
alt
all we have to
do is prove the
affirmative
advocacyundes
irable, which
the kritik does,
and then prove
why voting
against itsolves

thats the
Polson and
Althusser
evidence from
the overview.
2NC AT:
How fast
is too
fast?
1) About 4-5
words per
second,
adjustable to
the request of
the other team

Sjoberg and
Tickner say that
all participants
must be able to
interact
andinvest in the
dialogic
process of
knowledge
production to
avoid
thereproductio
n of epistemic
heirarchies.
2NC AT:
Time
Skew
Inevitable
1)

Turn

time skew is a
question of
gradients, not
thresholds. Even
if its inevitable,

its severity is
not.
2)
This is purely
defensive

not a reason to
reject our
argument3)

D
oesnt answer our
militarism
arguments
extend Shanahan

violent
subjectivityformat
ion is an
independent
voting issue.