Procedural Killer

7/28/2019 Procedural Killer

1/26

Procedural Killer/Abuse Stopper TOC 1

Overview/Term Explanation 2

A/T A-Spec (USFG) 3

A/T E-Spec (Normal Means) 4A/T F-Spec (Specified) 5

A/T F-Spec (Normal Means) 6

A/T O-Spec (Specific Agency) 7A/T O-Spec (Mandates) 8

A/T O-Spec (Funding) 9

A/T O-Spec (Enforcement) 10

A/T Extra-Topicality (Specified Funding) 11A/T Extra-Topicality 12

A/T Effects Topicality (On Planks of Plan) 13

A/T Effects Topicality (On Advantages) 14

A/T Vagueness (Mandates) 15A/T Potential Abuse 16

Citation Abuse 17

Computer Abuse 18

Cross Applied Standard Abuse 19Cross Examination Abuse 20

Division of Ground Abuse 21

New in the 2 Abuse (T) 22

New in the 2 Abuse (DA, CP, K) 23New in the 2 Abuse (Procedural) 24

Speed/Clarity Abuse 25Tag-Teaming/Prompting Abuse 26

This brief is to be used by affirmative teams trying to counter common arguments from a

negative team that should not constitute a win. It also includes several common points of abuse

that should be considered independent voters against negative teams. These arguments can be

used any and all years in Cross-X, policy debate.

1


2/26

Overview/Term Explanation:

A-Spec: Agency Specification The affirmative team should specify its agency beyond theUnited States Federal Government

E-Spec: Enforcement Specification The affirmative team should specify their enforcementbeyond normal means

F-Spec: Funding Specification The affirmative team should specify their funding differently

O-Spec: Over Specification Some part of the Plan has been over specified

X-T: Extra-Topicality Something that the affirmative team is doing is going outside of thebounds of the resolution, to the point that it is abusive to the negative team

FX-T: Effects Topicality The affirmative team is only meeting the resolution through a number

of steps. That number of steps is excessive, unnecessary, and abusive

Vagueness: Some part of the plan is so vague that it is abusive to the negative team

Potential Abuse: The affirmative team has the potential to abuse the negative team and should be

voted down for it

Citation Abuse: The negative team has not read full citations

Computer Abuse: The negative team has hidden evidence on a computer

Cross Applied Standard Abuse: Standards from Negative topicalities have been cross applied

Cross Examination Abuse: Answers to cross-x questions have changed in previous speeches

Division of Ground Abuse: The negative team has gone all off-case in the 1NC and all new on-case in the 2NC

New in the 2 Abuse: The negative team has presented new off-case in the 2NC

Speed/Clarity Abuse: The negative team has read evidence so that the affirmative team, and

presumably judge, could not understand the actual text of the card

Tag-Teaming/Prompting Abuse: The negative team has partaken in excessive tag-teaming and

prompting

2


3/26

A/T A-Spec (USFG):

A. No Violation:

The agent the United States Federal Government is a legitimate actor and, as is the case in the

real world, can work to pass and execute laws and mandates.

B. There is no in round abuse:

1. USFG is a Common Actor: Each and every year, thousands of debates are won with the

United States Federal Government as an actor. It is predictable and causes no abuse in

this round.

2. No spike out: The affirmative team has not, and will not, spike out of DAs orcounterplans by arguing that the USFG, or any of its parts, are not its actor.

C. The USFG is actually a beneficial actor for the Negative team:

1. Counterplan Ground: The negative team is allowed almost an almost unlimited amount of

counterplan ground with the USFG as an actor, as it can use any other nationsgovernment, non-governmental organization, international body, or sub-sect of the

federal government.

2. More DA Ground: By using the USFG as an actor, the negative team can present DAsthat focus on almost any part of the federal governments workings.

3. Predictable: Instead of using some small piece of the federal government that the

negative team may not have been prepared for, the affirmative team granted the negative

team with an actor that they are most assuredly prepared for.

D. No voter:

1. Education: A-Spec arguments take away from the amount of debating done about policy,

hurting the educational value of the round.

2. Fairness: The USFG is a predictable, and fair, actor, preserve fairness in the round byvoting affirmative on A-Spec.

3


4/26

A/T E-Spec (Normal Means):

A. No violation:

Enforcement specified as normal means is indeed enforcement. As the affirmative team has an

agent of enforcement, it meets its burden of proof and there is no loss to the negative team.

B. No in round abuse:

1. Predictable: Normal Means as a method of enforcement is extremely predictable. It in

no way puts the negative team at a disadvantage in the round.

2. Sufficient: Since enforcement is not the biggest point in this round, as long as it is

present, it should be considered sufficient and be allowed.3. No Lost Arguments: Because enforcement is specific as normal means, make the

negative team prove which arguments were lost. Make the negative team prove abuse.

C. Normal Means Allowable:

1. Precedent: Each year, round after round is won, even with enforcement as normalmeans. The precedent, much like in a courtroom, is that it is allowable.

2. No Spike Outs: With enforcement as normal means, the affirmative team has not, and

will not spike out of arguments that the negative team makes in regards to enforcementability.

3. The Other Hand: The negative team is simply fishing for arguments. If enforcement

would have been specified, then an over-specification argument would have been made

instead.

D. No Voter:

1. Education: The issue of enforcement has no weight on the educational value of the round

and therefore should be disregarded.

2. Jurisdiction: As the affirmative case clearly falls within the scope of the resolution, youhave ever right as a judge to vote for it.

3. Potential Abuse: Do not vote on abuse that has not happened. Force the negative team to

show you abuse in this round before even thinking of voting on it.

4


5/26

A/T F-Spec (Specified):

A. No violation: Funding is a Necessary Part of Plan

As funding is of the total planks necessary for the plan, by including a specific source for

funding, there is no abuse, or no violation to this funding specification argument.


1. No advantages are being claimed off of the affirmative funding, thus, there is no in

round abuse against the negative team.

2. Specified funding creates a specific, non-moving target for the negative team to

attack in this round.

C. Specifying Funding is Good Anyways:

1. Limits: In this case, it provides specifics for the affirmative case so that theaffirmative team cannot, and will not, become a moving target.

2. Cuts Down on Potential Abuse: It expands the ability for the negative team to attackcertain areas of the affirmative case. Instead of just normal means which can be

vague, specific funding cuts down on this vagueness.

3. Education: These parts of the plan provide for an increase in education in the round.

D. No Voter:

1. Education: F-Spec is taking away from the value of the debate round, making itseducational value worthless.

2. Jurisdiction: It is in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote for a case that is topical, as is

the affirmative case.3. Fairness: Preserve the fairness of the round by voting affirmative on this F-Spec.

5


6/26

A/T F-Spec (Normal Means):

A. No violation:

Enforcement specified as normal means is indeed funding, and includes taxes and well as

deficit spending. As the affirmative team has funding, it meets its burden of proof and there is noloss to the negative team.


1. Predictable: Normal Means as a method of funding is extremely predictable. It in no

way puts the negative team at a disadvantage in the round.

2. Sufficient: Since funding is not the biggest point in this round, as long as it is present, itshould be considered sufficient and be allowed.

3. No Lost Arguments: Because funding is specific as normal means, make the negative

team prove which arguments were lost. Make the negative team prove abuse.

C. Normal Means Allowable:

1. Precedent: Each year, round after round is won, even with funding as normal means.

The precedent, much like in a courtroom, is that it is allowable.

2. No Spike Outs: With funding as normal means, the affirmative team has not, and willnot spike out of arguments that the negative team makes in regards to affirmative

funding.

3. The Other Hand: The negative team is simply fishing for arguments. If funding

would have been specified, then an over-specification argument would have been madeinstead.

D. Normal Means is Good for the Negative Team:

1. DA Ground: As the affirmative team will not simply spike out of DAs, more ground is

given to the negative team for arguments such as deficit spending DAs and funding tradeoff DAs.

2. Predictable: Instead of using some small piece of the federal government that the

negative team may not have been prepared for, the affirmative team granted the negative

team with an actor that they are most assuredly prepared for.

E. No Voter:

1. Education: The issue of enforcement has no weight on the educational value of the round

and therefore should be disregarded.

2. Jurisdiction: As the affirmative case clearly falls within the scope of the resolution, youhave ever right as a judge to vote for it.

3. Potential Abuse: Do not vote on abuse that has not happened. Force the negative team to

show you abuse in this round before even thinking of voting on it.

6


7/26

A/T O-Spec (Specific Agency):

A. No violation: Agency is a Necessary Part of Plan

The agent of a plan is literally of the plan which the affirmative team must include. By

including a specific agent, the affirmative team is merely meeting its burden of proof.


1. Common Practice: Specifying a specific agency of the United States Federal Government

is a common practice and should come as no surprise for the negative team.

2. No Ground Lost: The negative team has lost no DA ground, or counterplan ground, by

the affirmative team specifying its agent.3. Provable Abuse: Make the negative team show you specific ground that they have lost.

Do not just take their word for it.

C. Specifying Agency is Good Anyway:

1. Counterplan Ground: The negative team is allowed almost an almost unlimited amount ofcounterplan ground with a specified actor, as it can use any other nations government,

non-governmental organization, international body, or other sub-sect of the federal

government.2. No Spike Outs: The affirmative team will not be able to simply spike out of a DA

argument by simply saying: We dont use that agency.

3. Non-Moving Target: By specifying an agency, the affirmative team has made sure that it

will not become a moving target by changing which agency it is using.4. The Other Hand: The negative team is simply fishing for arguments. If our agency

would have been the United States Federal Government, A-Spec would have been run

instead.

D. No Voter:

1. Education: O-Spec arguments take away from the amount of debating done about policy,

hurting the educational value of the round.

2. Fairness: Specific Agencies are predictable, and fair, actor, preserve fairness in the round

by voting affirmative on O-Spec.

7


8/26

A/T O-Spec (Mandates):

A. No violation:

An affirmative team can not over-specify their mandates. If anything, the mandates are just

explained more in this round than in others. This is not a bad thing for the negative team.


1. No Ground Lost: The negative team has no lost DA ground, or counterplan ground, by

the affirmative team simply stating what the plan is doing in the mandates.

2. No Abuse: Because there is no ground lost, force the negative team to show you where

they have lost ground in this round.

C. Specifying Mandates is Good anyway:

1. Non-Moving Target: By specifying mandates in such a way, the affirmative team haslocked themselves into arguments and will not be able to become a moving target.

2. Education: Specifying mandates, as was done, provides the ability to explore the topiceven further as more groundwork has been laid. This increases the educational value of

the round.

D. No Voter:

1. Education: O-Spec is taking away from the value of the debate round, making its

educational value worthless.2. Jurisdiction: It is in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote for a case that is topical, as is the

affirmative case.

3. Fairness: Preserve the fairness of the round by voting affirmative on this O-Spec.

8


9/26

A/T O-Spec (Funding):



funding, there is no abuse, or no violation to this O-Spec argument.


1. Meets Burden of Proof: The affirmative team has the burden of proof and is meeting it by

providing a specific funding.

2. No advantages are being claimed off of the affirmative funding, thus, there is no in round

abuse against the negative team.3. Even if the affirmative team is over-specifying, this creates a specific, non-moving target

for the negative team to attack in this round.

C. Specifying Funding is Good Anyways:

1. Limits: In this case, it provides specifics for the affirmative case so that the affirmativeteam cannot, and will not, become a moving target.

2. Cuts Down on Potential Abuse: It expands the ability for the negative team to attack

certain areas of the affirmative case. Instead of just normal means which can be vague,specific funding cuts down on this vagueness.


D. No Voter:

1. Education: O-Spec is taking away from the value of the debate round, making its

educational value worthless.2. Jurisdiction: It is in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote for a case that is topical, as is the

affirmative case.

3. Fairness: Preserve Fairness in the round by voting affirmative on this O-Spec.

9


10/26

A/T O-Spec (Enforcement):

A. No violation: Enforcement is a Necessary Part of Plan

The enforcement of a plan is literally of the plan which the affirmative team must include. By

including a specific agent, the affirmative team is merely meeting its burden of proof.


1. Common Practice: Specifying a specific agency of the United States Federal Government

for enforcement is a common practice and should come as no surprise for the negative

team.

2. No Ground Lost: The negative team has lost no DA ground, or counterplan ground, bythe affirmative team specifying its enforcement.

3. Provable Abuse: Make the negative team show you specific ground that they have lost.

Do not just take their word for it.

C. Specifying Agency is Good Anyway:

1. No Spike Outs: The affirmative team will not be able to simply spike out of a DA

argument by simply saying: We dont use that agency.

2. Non-Moving Target: By specifying enforcement, the affirmative team has made sure thatit will not become a moving target by changing which enforcement it is using.

3. The Other Hand: The negative team is simply fishing for arguments. If our

enforcement would have been normal means, E-Spec would have been run instead.

D. No Voter:

1. Education: E-Spec arguments take away from the amount of debating done about policy,hurting the educational value of the round.

2. Fairness: Specific Enforcement is predictable, and fair. Preserve fairness in the round by

voting affirmative on O-Spec.

10


11/26

A/T Extra-Topicality (Specified Funding):



funding, there is no abuse, or no violation to this extra-topicality argument.


1. Plan in a Vacuum: Evaluate extra-topicality based solely upon the planks of the plan, not

through any advantages or any other part of the case. Because having funding in and of

itself is not extra-topical, the affirmative team is not extra-topical.

2. No advantages are being claimed off of the affirmative funding, thus, there is no in roundabuse against the negative team.

3. Even if the affirmative team is extra-topical, this creates a specific, non-moving target for

the negative team to attack in this round.

C. Extra-Topicality is Good Anyways:

1. Limits: In this case, it provides specifics for the affirmative case so that the affirmative

team cannot, and will not, become a moving target.

2. Cuts Down on Potential Abuse: It expands the ability for the negative team to attackcertain areas of the affirmative case. Instead of just normal means which can be vague,

specific funding cuts down on this vagueness.


D. No Voter:

1. Education: Extra Topicality is taking away from the value of the debate round, making itseducational value worthless.

2. Jurisdiction: It is in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote for a case that is topical, as is the

affirmative case.3. Fairness: Preserve the fairness of the round by not voting negative on extra topicality.

11


12/26

A/T Extra-Topicality:

A. No violation:

All of the steps of the plan fall within the conceivable scope of the resolution. All advantages

being claimed come from the steps taken by the plan, and therefore, the affirmative team is notextra-topical.


1. Plan in a Vacuum: Evaluate extra-topicality based solely upon the planks of the plan, not

through any advantages or any other part of the case. Because having funding in and of

itself is not extra-topical, the affirmative team is not extra-topical.2. Even if the affirmative team is extra-topical, this creates a specific, non-moving target for

the negative team to attack in this round.

C. Extra-Topicality is Good Anyways:

1. Limits: In this case, it provides specifics for the affirmative case so that the affirmativeteam cannot, and will not, become a moving target.

2. Cuts Down on Potential Abuse: It expands the ability for the negative team to attack

certain areas of the affirmative case.3. Education: These parts of the plan provide for an increase in education in the round.

D. No Voter:

1. Education: Extra Topicality is taking away from the value of the debate round, making its

educational value worthless.

2. Jurisdiction: It is in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote for a case that is topical, as is theaffirmative case.

3. Fairness: Preserve the fairness of the round by not voting negative on extra topicality.

12


13/26

A/T Effects Topicality (On Planks of Plan):

A. No violation:

The affirmative plan provides no more steps than any other plan that is topical this year. The

only steps that could be construed are the passage of plan, reallocation of money, and thenimplementation.


1. The number of steps included in the implementation of the plan is limited currently.

There are no advantages being claimed off of intermediate steps that would cause the

negative team any in round abuse.2. Even if the affirmative team is effectually topical, this is an advantage to the negative

team as there are more areas for them to attack.

3. Real World Analogy: Even in Congress, once a bill is passed, the desired outcome is not

automatically achieved. There are generally several steps, or process, that must first beundergone. Our plan is no different than a plan that Congress would really pass.

C. Effects Topicality is Good anyway:

1. Limits: If anything, being effectually topical is disadvantageous to the affirmativebecause the negative team is not as severely limited in their attacks.

2. Real World: In policy making in real life, steps have to be acknowledged, as there are no

100% direct relations. Therefore, it is unrealistic that education about policy be increased

if the relations are not the same.3. Education: Effects topicality actually increases education in a debate round as because

more steps are discussed, the educational value is greater.

D. No Voter

1. Education: Effects Topicality is taking away from the value of the debate round,making its educational value worthless.

2. Jurisdiction: It is in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote for a case that is topical, as is

the affirmative case.

3. Fairness: Preserve the fairness of the round by not voting negative on effectstopicality.

13


14/26

A/T Effects Topicality (On Advantages):

A. No violation:

The advantages of a plan, in and of themselves, can not be effectually topical. The only thing thatcan be effectually topical is the plan, and, because the negative team argued that the affirmative

advantages are effectually topical:

1. Lock the negative team into this argument and do not allow it to change. Any change

should be noted as a moving target.

2. Put Plan in a Vacuum: Look at the affirmative plan without any of the advantages. Note

that the affirmative plan takes no more steps than any other reasonable affirmative thisyear.


1. The number of steps included in the implementation of the plan is limited currently.

There are no advantages being claimed off of intermediate steps that would cause thenegative team any in round abuse.

2. Even if the affirmative team is effectually topical, this is an advantage to the negative

team as there are more areas for them to attack.3. Real World Analogy: Even in Congress, once a bill is passed, the desired outcome is not

automatically achieved. There are generally several steps, or process, that must first be

undergone. Our plan is no different than a plan that Congress would really pass.

C. Effects Topicality is Good anyway:

1. Limits: If anything, being effectually topical is disadvantageous to the affirmativebecause the negative team is not as severely limited in their attacks.

2. Real World: In policy making in real life, steps have to be acknowledged, as there are no

100% direct relations. Therefore, it is unrealistic that education about policy be increasedif the relations are not the same.

3. Education: Effects topicality actually increases education in a debate round as because

more steps are discussed, the educational value is greater.

D. No Voter

1. Education: Effects Topicality is taking away from the value of the debate round, makingits educational value worthless.

2. Jurisdiction: It is in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote for a case that is topical, as is the

affirmative case.3. Fairness: Preserve the fairness of the round by not voting negative on effects topicality.

14


15/26

A/T Vagueness (Mandates):

A. No violation:

The mandates of the affirmative plan are not vague, beyond what any other plan text wouldcontain, and indeed set out what the affirmative plan is doing.


1. C-X Checks Abuse: The negative team had ample opportunity in the Cross-X following

the 1AC to clarify anything that it deemed vague in the plan text. The affirmative team

always has the right to clarify.2. No Ground Lost: The negative team has not lost any ground in the form of DAs or

counterplans. Even if it claims to have, force the negative team to show the lost ground in

this round.

3. Infinitely Regressive: An argument on vagueness is a justification for a five page plantext as something can always be pointed to for even more clarification.

C. No Voter:

1. Fairness: The affirmative presented reasonable mandates and is willing to clarify any andall points of them, preserve fairness in this round.

2. Reasonability: As long as mandates are present, and a Cross-X took place after the 1AC,

a vagueness argument is not reasonable.

3. Potential Abuse: Do not vote on potential abuse. Force the negative team to show youwere they have been abused in this round.

15


16/26

A/T Potential Abuse:

Do not vote on Potential Abuse because it:

1. is not a Voter. Voting on potential abuse is like voting on a potential DA orcounterplan.

2. promotes lazy debate. By not showing abuse in the round, the negative team is looking

for an easy win without doing any work.3. allows the negative team to avoid arguing. If the negative team is not forced to take a

possibly risky stand to prove abuse, granting them Potential Abuse is unfair to the

affirmative team.

4. does not focus on this round. Potential Abuse asks the judge to vote on a round thatthe judge has not seen.

5. sets a poor precedent. By voting negative on Potential Abuse, you say that it is

acceptable for the negative team to continue arguing it.

6. forces the judge to intervene. It asks the judge to determine whether abuse couldhappen, instead of whether abuse did happen.

7. destroys the in round arguments. Instead of evaluating the round based on whatarguments were made, it asks the judge to instead think of the arguments that were not

made that the negative team may not have thought of.

8. ignores policy. Since this is policy debate, the main focus should be on policy. If theaffirmative team is within reasonability, Potential Abuse should not be an issue.

9. destroys fairness. Potential Abuse deals with what ifs instead of reality. As the

affirmative team came to debate the arguments actually made in the round, voting

negative on Potential Abuse wipes out fairness in the round.10. skews ground. Arguing Potential Abuse undoubted skews ground in favor of the

negative team. Do not allow the negative team to proceed in this direction in this round.

16


17/26

Citation Abuse:

A. Violation:

The negative team has not read full citations (author, qualification, and full date) for its evidence.

B. This is bad because:

1. Ignores Responsibility: Much like in the classroom, in debate, evidence, or others ideas,

should be given full, stated credit.

2. Promotes Bad Habits: In college, proper citations are required almost exclusively. Do not

promote this bad habit.3. Hurts Flowing: The affirmative team, and judge, should be able to flow more than just

Smith 07 along with the tag of each card.

4. Sidesteps Potential Arguments: By not giving a full citation, the negative team can avoid

arguments pertaining to the credibility of the author, or to the recentness of the cardspublication.

C. Options:

1. Force the negative team to state full citations in the next speech and the cards that theycorrespond to.

2. Make this Abuse an independent voter:

a. Fairness: The affirmative team has provided full citations throughout the debate.

Force the negative team to do the same to preserve fairness in the round.b. Responsibility: It is the responsibility of each and every debater to give credit where

credit is due. Do not allow the negative team to sidestep this task.

c. Lost Ground: The affirmative team has lost ground by not being able to arguecitations. Punish the negative team for this.

d. Abuse: The affirmative team has proven lost ground and should be granted an

independent voter on this abuse argument.

17


18/26

Computer Abuse:

A. Violation:

The negative team will not allow our team to examine the evidence from their laptop.

B. Detrimental to Debate:

1. Skews ground: Hiding evidence utterly skews the ground in this debate as being unable to

examine evidence provides an extreme advantage

2. Unfair: We have, and always will, provide any evidence upon request. The other team

should do the same to preserve fairness3. Education: By not being able to examine evidence, education from that evidence is lost

4. Courtroom Analogy: Even in a courtroom, evidence used is allowed access by both sides.

Preserve the same standard in this debate.

C. Independent Voter

1. Fairness: Preserve the fairness in this round by voting down the negative team

2. Abuse: Vote on the abuse that has occurred in the round

18


19/26

Cross Applied Standard Abuse:

A. Violation:

In reading topicality arguments in the previous speech, the negative team cross appliedstandards.

B. Reject These Standards Because:

1. Standards are Specific: Standards are meant to be specific to each and every term that is

being defined in a topicality argument.

2. Cross Applying Standards Skews Time: By cross applying standards, the timing of thisround has been skewed. Because the affirmative team will read independent standards for

each and every term of a topicality argument, the negative team has gained an unfair

advantage in the round.

3. Promotes Laziness: Cross applying standards is lazy practice and should be rejected.Debate should not be promoting such actions.

C. Options:

1. Force the Negative team to read standards in their next speech for each and every termthat had cross applied standards in the last speech.

2. Turn this into an independent voter, on the basis of:

a. Fairness: Preserve fairness in the round by not allowing the negative team to get

away with this practice.b. Time Skew: The negative team has gained an unfair advantage and should not be

allowed to do this.

c. Abuse: If the negative team does not read standards for each term of a topicality,this constitutes abuse and should afford the affirmative team your ballot.

19


20/26

Cross Examination Abuse:

A. Violation:

The negative team has changed answers from their Cross Examination to their last speech.


1. Kills an Affirmative Speech: By a quick reversal of an answer, the strategy of a whole

affirmative speech could be killed. Do not allow this to happen.

2. Promotes misspeaking: While occasional mistakes are to be expected from any team, to

allow the negative team to simply say that they misspoke in cross-x and changed theanswer in the next speech promotes this behavior.

3. Cross Examination is binding: Cross-X, is, and should be, binding. What is said in

cross-x is meant to be for clarification, or to build arguments on. By changing answers

after the fact, it destroys the purpose of this activity.4. Undermines Affirmative Strategy: The affirmative teams strategy was based upon an

answer given in cross-x. To allow the negative team to sidestep this argument is to allowthem to get away with abuse.

5. Allows a Spike-Out: By allowing this change of answers, you are allowing the negative

team to simply spike-out of an affirmative answer. This is abusive to the affirmativeteam.

C. Options:

1. Allow the negative team to rescind their change of answer and proceed with the

arguments made that are independent of the change of answer.

2. Make this an independent voter for:a. Ground Lost: The affirmative team obviously loses ground because of a change of

answer; do not allow this to happen in this round.

b. Precedent Created: By allowing the negative team to just change cross-x answers asthey please, you are setting a precedent for the negative team that it is an acceptable

practice.

c. Abuse: The affirmative team has proven abuse in this round and the negative team

should be punished for it.

20


21/26

Division of Ground Abuse:

A. Violation:

The negative team presented multiple new on-case attacks after only presenting off-casearguments in the 1NC

B. Detrimental to Debate:

1. Fairness: The negative team has 13 minutes in the neg block for the affirmative to cover

in 5 in the 1AR. If coupled with off-case, it creates an unfair situation

2. Skews Ground: The negative team has over 2x the amount of speaking time in the negblock which skew s the ability to cover arguments in the round

3. Education: By covering a few broad issues, as is done by division of ground, this

decreases in-depth education

C. Independent Voter:

1. Fairness: Preserve fairness in the round for voting against the abuse from the 2NC

2. Education: Vote for the team providing for the most education in the round by limiting

the arguments in the round3. Abuse: As a judge, do not allow abuse in this round

21


22/26

New in the 2 Abuse (T):

A. Violation:

The negative team presented new topicality arguments in the 2NC.

B. Reject these arguments because:

1. Promotes Lazy Debate: By allowing new topicality, you are telling the negative team that

it is acceptable to essentially take a speech off from thinking about strategy.

2. Extends Negative Ground: The negative team is given the 1NC to develop their off-case

strategy. Giving another speech to do this explodes ground in favor of the negative team.3. Kills Affirmative Strategy: The affirmative came prepared to debate topicality with two

constructive speeches. Without this time, affirmative strategy is killed.

4. Time Skew: After the 2NC, the affirmative team has only 5 minutes to construct an

argument against this new topicality as well as answer all previous arguments. Thisskews time in favor of the negative team.

5. Debate Construction: Cross-X debates are structured so that topicality comes in the 1NC.This should not be changed as it is how the affirmative team expected to debate.

6. Importance: If a new topicality is presented in the 2NC, it was obviously not important

enough of a point for the negative team to bring up in the 1NC and should be ignored.

C. Options:

1. The negative team should drop the new topicality argument.2. If the negative team does not drop the argument, this constitutes abuse and should be an

independent voter:

a. Fairness: Preserve fairness in the round by voting against the abuse in the 2NCb. Time Skew: The negative team should not be allowed to unfairly skew time

allotments in the round.

c. Abuse: Abuse has been proven as the affirmative team is put at a disadvantagebecause of time to answer this topicality argument.

22


23/26

New in the 2 Abuse (DA, CP, K):

A. Violation:

The negative team presented new, off-case arguments in the 2NC.


1. Promotes Lazy Debate: By allowing new off-case arguments, you are telling the negative

team that it is acceptable to essentially take a speech off from thinking about strategy.


strategy. Giving another speech to do this explodes ground in favor of the negative team.3. Kills Affirmative Strategy: The affirmative came prepared to debate off-case arguments

with two constructive speeches. Without this time, affirmative strategy is killed.


argument against this new off-case attack as well as answer all previous arguments. Thisskews time in favor of the negative team.

C. Options:

1. The negative team should drop the new off-case argument.2. If the negative team does not drop the argument, this constitutes abuse and should be an

independent voter:

a. Fairness: Preserve fairness in the round by voting against the abuse in the 2NC

b. Time Skew: The negative team should not be allowed to unfairly skew timeallotments in the round.

c. Abuse: Abuse has been proven as the affirmative team is put at a disadvantage

because of time to answer this off-case argument.

23


24/26

New in the 2 Abuse (Procedural):

A. Violation:

The negative team presented new procedural arguments in the 2NC.


1. Promotes Lazy Debate: By allowing new procedural, you are telling the negative team

that it is acceptable to essentially take a speech off from thinking about strategy.


strategy. Giving another speech to do this explodes ground in favor of the negative team.3. Kills Affirmative Strategy: The affirmative came prepared to debate topicality with two

constructive speeches. Without this time, affirmative strategy is killed.


argument against this new procedural as well as answer all previous arguments. Thisskews time in favor of the negative team.

5. Debate Construction: Cross-X debates are structured so that procedurals come in the1NC. This should not be changed as it is how the affirmative team expected to debate.

6. Importance: If a new procedural is presented in the 2NC, it was obviously not important

enough of a point for the negative team to bring up in the 1NC and should be ignored.

C. Options:

1. The negative team should drop the new procedural argument.2. If the negative team does not drop the argument, this constitutes abuse and should be an

independent voter:

a. Fairness: Preserve fairness in the round by voting against the abuse in the 2NCb. Time Skew: The negative team should not be allowed to unfairly skew time

allotments in the round.

c. Abuse: Abuse has been proven as the affirmative team is put at a disadvantagebecause of time to answer this procedural argument.

24


25/26

Speed/Clarity Reading Abuse:

A. Violation:

The negative team, in their last speech, read several pieces of evidence in a manner that it was sounclear that the affirmative team was not able to understand the evidence.


1. Destroys Debate: Debate is supposed to be a speaking exercise, not a reading exercise.

Speaking entails conveying a message. When that is lost, the purpose of debate is lost.

2. Kills Affirmative Prep Time: By forcing the affirmative team to read each and everycard, instead of listening to it, it destroys the affirmatives prep time which should be

used to formulate arguments, not try to do the negative teams job.

3. Promotes Mistagged Evidence: If speed or clarity clouds what the text of a card says, in

order to flow an argument, it forces both the affirmative team, and the judge, to acceptthe tag, whether it is warranted or not.

4. Allows Potential for misrepresented evidence: If the affirmative team does not havesufficient time to reread a piece of evidence, and does not hear key qualifiers, or other

pieces of information that may refute what the card is saying, the card read could be

misrepresented.

C. Options:

1. Force the negative team to reread cards [insert reference here] in a manner that can beunderstood.

2. Disregard those cards for the following reasons.

a. Fairness: The affirmative team could read many more cards at the cost of clarity.Preserve fairness in the round by holding the negative team to the same standard.

b. Skews Ground: Do not allow the negative team to skew the ground in this debate by

destroying the intent, and system, established by hundreds of thousands of roundsbefore this one.

c. Abuse: Do not allow the negative team to get away with this in round abuse.

25


26/26

Tag-team/Prompting Abuse:

A. Violation:

The negative team, in this debate, has used excessive tag-teaming and prompting to gain adistinct advantage over the affirmative team.


1. Destroys Individual Performance: Debate is a team activity, yet, each member of the

team should be responsible for the teams success and/or failure. By allowing this

excessive tag-teaming and prompting, you are not holding each individual accountable.2. Extends Negative Prep-Time: Tag-teaming and prompting helps extend the negative

teams prep-time by allowing one member of the team to prep the speech of the other

member while the latter is speaking. This should not be allowed.

3. Kills Cross-X: Excessive tag-teaming and prompting ruins the ability of a team that isstrong in a cross examination situation. It takes away potential chances for arguments by

effectively changing cross-x from a 1 on 1 activity to a 1 on 2.4. Hurts Affirmative Strategy: Tag-teaming and prompting excessively helps to overcome

affirmative strategy. While using a team effort in prep-time is more than welcome in

debate, to do this during a speech should not be allowed.5. Sets a Poor Precedent: By allowing the negative team to collaborate excessively during a

speech, without punishment, you are effectively saying that it is acceptable to do in any

debate.

C. Independent Voter:

1. Rules of the Game: Excessive tag-teaming and prompting is generally not allowed andshould not be allowed in this debate.

2. Fairness: The affirmative team has not partaken in this abusive act. To preserve fairness

in the round, the negative team should be punished.3. Abuse: This tag-teaming and prompting has caused the affirmative team to lose several

key arguments. Punish the negative team for this blatant abuse.

Documents

Procedural Killer