T- Implementation (Truth/False)

(2:00)
A - is the Interpretation: The affirmative can only garner offense by
defending the hypothetical implementation of a government policy
option. To clarify, they may not win by defending the truth value off
the resolution.

B - is the Violation: The affirmative debater doesnt defend the

hypothetical implementation of the plan, they assume it will happen.
CX Proves

C - is the Standards:

1) Textuality - Textuality is a prima facie voter for the neg. It doesnt matter how fair the
aff is; if the case doesnt affirm the topic, then they havent met the aff burden. Also,
textuality link turns other theory standards because it is the basis for claims to
predictability and ground. Aff isnt textual.

Resolved means a policy.

Websters Dictionary 98 [Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (http://www.websters-online-
dictionary.org/credits/websters.html)

Resolved: 5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to

declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was
resolved by the house) that no money should be appropriated (or, to appropriate no money).

And Grammar outweighs --- it determines meaning, making it a pre-

requisite to predictable ground and limits and, without it, debate is
impossible
Allen 93 (Robert, Editor and Director The Chambers Dictionary, Does Grammar Matter?)
Grammar matters, then, because it is the accepted way of using language, whatever ones
exact interpretation of the term. Incorrect grammar hampers communication, which is the
whole purpose of language. The grammar of standard English matters because it is a codification of
the way using English that most people will find acceptable.
Also prefer our definition because its the most applicable given the context. Applicability
controls the internal link to textuality because words only have meaning depending on how we
apply them.

2) Advocacy Skills
The Debate space is key to mobilize citizenship which translates into
real-world change. Role-playing is uniquely empowering --- this
imagination is critical to understand how the government reaches
decisions, how to hold it accountable and determine how we should
act
Rawls 99 (John, Professor Emeritus Harvard University, The Law of Peoples, p. 54-7)
Developing the Law of Peoples within a liberal conception of justice, we work out the ideals and principles of the foreign
policy of a reasonably just liberal people. I distinguish between the public reason of liberal peoples and the public reason of the
Society of Peoples. The first is the public reason of equal citizens of domestic society [by] debating the
constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice concerning their own government; the
second is the public reason of free and equal liberal peoples debating their mutual
relations as peoples. The Law of Peoples with its political concepts and principles, ideals and criteria, is the content of
this latter public reason. Although these two public reasons do not have the same content, the role of public reason
among free and equal peoples is analogous to its role in a constitutional democratic regime
among free and equal citizens. Political liberalism proposes that, in a constitutional democratic regime,
comprehensive doctrines of truth or of right are to be replaced in public reason by an idea of
the politically reasonable addressed to citizens as citizens. Here note the parallel: public reason is invoked by
members of the Society of Peoples, and its principles are addressed to peoples as peoples. They
are not expressed in terms of comprehensive doctrines of truth or of right, which may hold sway
in this or that society, but in terms that can be shared by different peoples. 6.2. Ideal of Public Reason.
Distinct from the idea of public reason is the ideal of public reason. In domestic
society this ideal is realized, or satisfied, whenever judges, legislators, chief executives, and other
government officials, as well as candidates for public office, act from and follow the idea of public reason and
explain to other citizens their reasons for supporting fundamental political questions in terms of the political conception of justice
that they regard as the most reasonable. In this way they fulfill what I shall call their duty of civility to one another and to other
citizens. Hence whether judges, legislators, and chief executives act from and follow public reason is continually shown in their
speech and conduct. How is the ideal of public reason realized by citizens who are not government officials? In a
representative government, citizens vote for representatives-chief executives, legislators, and
the like-not for particular laws (except at a state or local level where they may vote directly on referenda questions, which are not
usually fundamental questions). To answer this question, we say that, ideally, citizens are to think of
themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by
what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think it most reasonable to enact.7l When firm and
widespread, the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators, and to repudiate
government officials and candidates for public office who violate public reason, forms part of the political and social basis
of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. Thus in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of
civility and support the idea of public reason, while doing what they can to hold government officials to it. This
duty, like other political rights and duties, is an intrinsically moral duty. I emphasize that it is not a legal duty, for in that case it
would be incompatible with freedom of speech.
And Policy discussions outweighs Philosophical education alone. We
can still talk about philosophy but that it should apply within in the
context of policy decisions.

Drop the Debater on T -

1) Ultimate Punishment Debates a game of wins and losses. Dropping them
represents the biggest punishment which deters them from reading this position again.
2) Affs Obligation The aff has a burden to be topical. Topicality controls the internal
link to education because it creates the point of dispute where clash happens. Also
controls the internal link to fairness because a clear point of dispute is key to reciprocal
burdens otherwise they can justify endless AFFs

No RVIs on T -
1) Chilling Affect RVIs deter people from reading T for fear they may lose on it. This
leads to more abusive positions being read which undermines the purpose of RVIs.
2) RVIs ineffective People dont read theory less because of RVIs, their incentivize to
use it as strategy instead which leads to more abuse.
3) Tradeoffs Exists I have to invest time to read T which is an opportunity costs to
reading other positions. This means RVIs would not make sense to rectify trade-off
abuse, it just means the aff needs to be more efficient.

Competing Interps -
1) Creates the best Interp Forces a clash between two ideals which leads to the best
interp rather than just a brightline.
2) Reasonability doesnt make sense for T debates because you cant be reasonably topical,
they are either topical or not
3) Most objective Reasonability invites judge intervention which is uniquely bad
because it takes away the powers from the debaters and gives it to the subjective judge.