T Shell Barebones

Interp:

Debaters may only garner offense from the hypothetical implementation of the resolution or from responses to non topical arguments.

Violation:

They don’t defend the resolution

Standard 1:

Clash - limited topic → clash → better arguments (even if AFF good, it can be manipulated absent clash) → coopts their offense

Standard 2:

Limits - unpredictable, explodes limits, infinite re-contexualization, kills fairness - controls their internal link to offense because they get no engagemen

Standard 2 Independent:

Lack of fairness causes burnout - Główczewski + Clevenger. Outweighs because it hurts everyone in debate including vulnerable.

Underview:

DTD norms and disincentivize bad practice, CI topicality is about models of debate they should justify, No RVIs because it forces us to collapse on T which is high risk, reject impact turns we don’t have enough time exclusions are inevitable, Theory Uplayers it determines whether we should debate in the first place.

What if they turn? (OV)

T Filter OV: no power to impose norm, only to say reject them. voting neg doesn’t reject them from debate.

A2 Fairness Bad

1. Symbolism DA - debate isn’t the crux of their violence, if you focus on debate you’re lazy and don’t deal with real problems

2. No Impact - losses cause strategy revision, not mindset shift

3. Err Taipei - they’ll say fairness bad because they’re unfair

4. No Link - their fairness bad is about structures NOT debate and they follow debate rules like time too

5. Double Bind - either fairness good or fairness bad so you vote for us even though its unfair

6. Link Turn - they forced us to go for T because its the best bet