Skip to content
June 18, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Anti-resolutional affirmatives–affirmatives that critique the resolution

I think also the limits debate can win based on definitions of: “affirm” versus “negate”
Even outside the “rules” of the game….or even the social contract of the game.

Shared core expectations beyond just the time limits is key to checking the Hoover Damn or Nagasaki or Titanics of topic explosion. That would kill novices, small programs, and would cause a hyper-reliance on generics. And people who wanted to develop well roundedly would run from the activity. Students and coaches would jump to PF, etc…. That undercuts every one of the education claims 10x.

Also, I’m not saying the resolution is good…i’m saying the aff should have burdens and rules so we can have a fair and education exchange.


First factually. This is the 2010 update. Not sure if there is a difference with earlier rule sets:

Page 2 of the document.The first paragraph. And the second paragraphy esque thing is OK. Mostly the first paragraph.
(It won’t let me cut & paste without giving me ^(*(^&)()() letters for everything.)

Second, it might not skew ground–it skews predictable ground.

As a side note, its not clear what the neg. burdens are in that case.

* I just Googled NFL rules for policy debate. My guess is other interps of that role will likely mirror that interp.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: