A. Interpretation The aff must specify a normative ethic in the text of the AC.

Holt
clarifies:1
Normative ethics is the attempt to provide a general theory that tells us how we ought to live. Unlike metaethics, normative ethics
does not attempt to tell us what moral properties are, and unlike applied ethics, it does not attempt to tell us what specific things
have those properties. Normative
ethics just seeks to tell us how we can find out what things have what moral properties, to
provide a framework for ethics. For any act, there are three things that might be thought to be
morally interesting: first, there is the agent, the person performing the act; second, there is the act itself;
third, there are the consequences of the act. There are three types of normative ethical theory
virtue, deontological, and consequentialisteach emphasising one of these elements. This first normative ethical
theory, virtue theory, concentrates on the moral character of the agent. According to virtue theory, we
ought to possess certain character traitscourage, generosity, compassion, etc.and these ought to be manifest in our actions. We
therefore ought to act in ways that exhibit the virtues, even if that means doing what might generally be seen as bad or bringing
about undesirable consequences. Normative theories of the second type, deontological theories, concentrate on the act being
performed. According to deontological theories, certain types of act are intrinsically good or bad,
i.e. good or bad in themselves. These acts ought or ought not to be performed, irrespective of the consequences. The third approach
to normative ethics is consequentialism. Consequentialist theories hold that we ought always to act in the
way that brings about the best consequences. It doesnt matter what those acts are; the end justifies the means.
All that matters for ethics is making the world a better place. Application To give an example, then, suppose that a man bravely
intervenes to prevent a youth from being assaulted. The virtue theorist will be most interested in the bravery that the man exhibits;
this suggests that he has a good character. The deontologist will be more interested in what the man did; he stood up for someone
in need of protection, and that kind of behaviour is intrinsically good. The consequentialist will care only about the consequences of
the mans actions; what he did was good, according to the consequentialist, because he prevented the youth from suffering injury.

B. Violation You dont specify normative principles. It is super unclear what the aff
defends

C. Standards-

Ground- there have been an explosion of quasi consequentialist quasi kritikal affs in debate.
These affs are always purposefully unclear on what impacts are relevant under the AC so
they can shift in the 1ar dependent on the 1nc strategy. Supercharged in this specific case
because the aff says traditional util calc is bad but doesnt clearly set up a deontic
framework. Multiple impacts here

a. clash- 1nc cant engage in a productive ethical impact discussion in the world
where it is unclear what links into the AC framework. That kills fairness because
I cannot engage in well prepped arguments to turn the aff. Also kills education
because we dont have a in deptn critical discussion.
b. Stable advocacy- 1ar can shift between all three aspects of the framework, which ever
one excludes 1nc offense best, screwing over 1nc strategy and mooting all my routes
to the ballot killing fairness.

1 2009 Tim Holt moralphilosophy.info/normative-ethics/

c. Judge intervention- if I dont know how the AC frameworks function then neither does
the judge. They will be unable to decide the round in an objective way and have to
intervene for which ever side they want better in the framework.