bracketd

s- consistency with will of people

freddom of own choices
jgs
stanrda will of power
prereq to morality
best of mailirty
delinks
outweighs of fw
necessary way
repecct for raiotnality
brodricks
american culture
minirtires
moral thoriws
black rationality ky to standard analysis
impososible to assign value
consqueailism bad
no business
debate not ulitmet standrd
severance
maximize freedom
contention
combined will in gov
joint act of slaves not act of ppl
jgs actions not coercive
even if its the will
snider
econ dev bad (exploitation) in squo unless receive lws
circumstances
no prop rights
prop rights only valid if prupose
julius
underview
general principle
specify advocacies in cx
time skew
clash substatively with fw (drop ac args)
resultional negs only (must defend squo)
drop the arg on t
strat skew, time suck, only ac has to be topical (unreciprocal)
jg govs, my fw shows what jg is
multiple shells bad
collaping on theory is ba
infinite interps of rez

intention/foresight distinction,
the intent of work

class bias fw in squo, universil

thus- ethics bad, we need solv

I answered, gen priciple is con

unveifiable whether cx clarfied
judges dont flow cx, shift adv
cp can permute
comtpetion to 1ac
imposoible to know what impl
neg squo args- competition so
unconditioanlly deny an advoc
kills neg ground
spec shell- majority
impossible to understand squo

neg shows possibl interps

no neg benfits
education in thoery
underview 2
non educational inteper and fws bad
sustantive fw debate k2 education
roe
out of jurisdiction is bad
moral obligation to go to ac
no jurisdiction to make world a better plpace
args not functional
must link to rob
shapiro
rob args actually better

can drop neg on spec

infinite interps- blosters spec

extend
extned

extend
no link to intent (olman)

ntention/foresight distinction, only neg solves for this apllication

he intent of work

lass bias fw in squo, universilizable ethics bad

hus- ethics bad, we need solve for system first, only cp gives anti cap advoacy and intent

answered, gen priciple is contradicaticotu

nveifiable whether cx clarfied
udges dont flow cx, shift advocacy
p can permute
omtpetion to 1ac
mposoible to know what implication of drops are
eg squo args- competition solves
nconditioanlly deny an advocacy
ills neg ground
pec shell- majority
mpossible to understand squo

an drop neg on spec

nfinite interps- blosters spec

extend fw,
vote on substance

abolish min wage establish basic income

competition
solves poverty carman 13
basic income
net benefits
life beyond wroth
possiblity for life
speaks 11
cap system allowed to flourish uner 1ac
resistance cap struictures
ethical olibgation to resist cap
lorente 03
cap allows for double standards xplotiation
determine moral phil

ac fw, constituivism best measure of malirt

fw debate to valutate this

ac fw concessions
double bind- product of same cap system
I was thinking of cap when I cut 1ac fw
dont justify negating
ac not cap
wages accurate system
olman
perm to the alt not even perm, this is ac ad

st measure of malirty

f same cap system

hen I cut 1ac fw

n perm, this is ac advoacy

evaluate thru comepting interps

brightline maximizing fairness
reasonability bad
win interps/cis
interpdelinateied employers covered iunder lws
vilates
sh doesnt
best ground is contractors disticntion
neumark/adams 03
controntrators subjected to different
chapman 06
benefit fromo public investment, others dont
ground
general pricniple bad
creates contradictory policies
shirft out of advoacies
move entirty of 1ac
predictaility
text can be held
clarification
cx for strat
defense to clarify
cross x is best way
in order to leverage
I must be able to hhave discusssion of lw laws
voter
fairness
cant drop on spec
drop debater
time skew
cant debate susbatnce
norms setting is bad
education is a voter
substance in 1ac was undecational
reject interp thru education

I meet
spec employers
employess empployed by employers
counterinterp=
ac must have ac spec advocaacy
consequntialists impacts dont matter
ac fw only cares about freedom
no abuse
doesnt matter about scope of ground
clarification of advocacy
lets nc use cx as stategic place
dropping args
lost on subantces
fairness
no way to evalute the round
limiting education
losing theory not actually unfair
dont vote on unfairness

empployed by employers

e ac spec advocaacy
lists impacts dont matter
ares about freedom

ter about scope of ground

of advocacy
cx as stategic place

valute the round

y not actually unfair

n unfairness

1ar offense on thoery is not offense

resonablility bad
more offense is best, so you vote neg

spec- lw different things, general principle doesnt mean anything

cant solve for historical application
she violates own standrds
lw will matter for freedom

turn
counterfw, gernates links, no offense in 1ac interps
historical applications bad
no spec
dropping too much on cx checks bad
education no voter
fairness not on cheater,
potential abuse arg solves back for this
fairness can prove unfair advocacy
lose for making it unequal
potential abuse solves back for abuse
spec in future
I have the best interp

oesnt mean anything

extend 1 nc interps
general piciple, no spec done by th e1ac
groups of employers
she cant meet
level of the lw law
enforcement mechanisms
no way winnnign debate
scope of ground is unclear
no way to determine bettter debater
violates monetary amount
disad/ cap k
job creation, delink by not speccing general principle
cant leverage it against the ac
contradictory ground arg extension
she will use whatever advocacy I dont attack
prefer text
extension
no net ben to ci
defensive arg- cis always better
conceded cx better
cx better for strat, shouldnt be for clarfication
links to clash and education
nonverifiable whether she would have specced
not cheater arg
extend fairness voter
drop the debater extension
no offense in 1ar counterinterp

we care about fairness

excludes norms creation
ballot says vote for fair, but he hasnt proven this at all
I havent done anything to shwo cheating
cant vote me down on flow
no warrant for why this time skew
no arg skew no way to determin ebetter debater
ballot is off of inequality
no way to evaluate ground
hasnt shown cheating args
fairness is an rg
dropping evaluting interps lost theory on flow, is not voting for better debater
debate is voting for args on flow
the way I argue is unfair
unfair to decide better debater

2-1 whitman (aff)

(squirrel)
fairness about sturture,debate
shell wins
aff
fairness is a voter
2nr was good
collapse
preetham misses fairness not a voter in round
more prep than other
equality always there
2nr responses were nonresposive in this regard
doesnt matter for norms settign
theory debate doesnt determine better deabter
unfairs skews
always unequal skews
dont look for theory
what determine actual cheating
vote on substance