Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

A.

Interpretation: Standards and ethical frameworks must account for the moral value
of all potential impacts and reach moral conclusions based on their analytical
comparison; they cannot be based purely on descriptive observations of the status
quo.

B. Violation: They violate because the only things that link back to their standard are
arguments that are descriptions of the status quo. (Elaborate)

C. The standard is ground. A) Turn ground. Their interpretation eliminates my


ability to generate any valid offense on-case because their case relies upon factual
observations, which are either by default correct or false. One scientific
observation is sufficient to garner terminal offense to their standard, AND I can’t
“turn” a factual observation because it doesn’t rely on logical justification. This
problem is compounded by the lack of resolvability between competing
descriptive claims; since their framework only relies upon observations for its
conclusions, contradictory descriptive claims would prevent their framework from
objectively assessing the ethical value of the action, killing debatability which
overwhelms other theoretical claims because the capacity to reach a non-arbitrary
conclusion is necessary to determine both the objective winner of the round and
the strength of the debating. B) Reciprocity. Their interpretation creates a HUGE
strategy skew because each descriptive claim is sufficient to meet their standard.
Even if I disprove all but of one of them, it’s still sufficient for them to win
because the observation verifies the factual nature of their framework; their
framework allows their contentional arguments to function EXACTLY like
necessary but insufficient burdens, making my chances of winning the round
virtually zero because it’s impossible to generate terminal defense on all their
descriptive claims. Ground is key to fairness because it’s the basis on which we
make arguments.

D. Fairness is a voter because it is an axiomatic principle of debate since debate is a


competitive activity that should be based on merit rather than luck. Fairness is a
gateway issue because ground loss skews the results of substantive debate,
preventing objective evaluation. Because I was already forced to run theory, the
rest of the round is permanently skewed against me so theory is the only fair place
to vote.

Finally, theory is a matter of competing interpretations since reasonability is 100%


subjective. Prefer an objective, non-arbitrary evaluation of theory based on who’s
winning the argument, not your subjective preferences.