Cypress Woods JD

BIG BELTS BIG BELTS BIG BELTS

Part one is interpretations.

The aff gets to choose the comparative and sufficient mechanism for ethical evaluation and
resolution framing interpretations. Theres a few reasons to prefer.
The A point is time skew. Negs win tons of outrounds because the 7-4 skew and the proliferation
of counterwarrants means NCs can uplayer the debate with prestandards and framework. AFC
checks this back since I only need to win offense to win instead of having to justify a framework.
This precludes other notions of time because persuasive appeals dont matter if the neg can line
by line all my arguments, and judges are less likely to buy tricks with ink next to them. Time
precludes any other internal link since arguments dont matter if you dont have the ability to
make them. To reject this standard, the neg must offer an alternative way to rectify the skew
implementable in this round since aff choice always has a risk to help. This is empirically
verifiedAFC sets the parameters in policy and side wins are comparatively more balanced.
The B point is topic education. Aff choice improves discussion on the topic because it forces
negs to engage the AC warrants and link stories instead of going for the same rote framework
debate weve seen countless times. This is especially key as tons of rounds now are decided on
permissibility or skepticism that has literally nothing to do with the topic. Topic-specific research
is key to education because generic strategies dont garner the educational benefits critically
engaging new issues. This outweighs your philosophy claims- I could have learned about
different frameworks a while ago but the rotation of topics is the only thing that garners fresh
knowledge. They might frame the impacts, but the impacts themselves are what matters. Even if
this isnt true in a general sense, prefer AFC independently because this is TFA State and since
its most likely the only tournament on the topic, it encourages lazy debatewere given a topic
and this is our one shot to talk about it, lets do it.
The C point is philosophy education. AFC increases philosophy education because smart
affirmatives wont choose the same goddamn framework every round or negs will crush them
every time by shitting 12 DAs on case. Aff choice encourages 1ACs to come up with new fair
frameworks to surprise negs with, and negs have to do more philosophy research to have turns
and keep up with the trends. This isnt defensivewithout AFC, cool aff frameworks can be
mitigated by negs uplayering with metaethics and triggers. Key to education to understand the
normative basis for why we think certain actions are good. And, no predictability deficit since I
have no idea what prep circles my opponents a part of, so they could very much know whats
coming so dont buy unabashed abuse claims.
Fairness is a voter since the ballot makes debate a competition which must be constrained by
rules as people only debate with an understanding of competitive equity. Voter for education as
judges have an obligation to promote practices with the ballot that have a lasting impact outside
the round.
Next, the neg must have an explicit advocacy text defending the converse of the resolution
proving a positive obligation exists to not intervene, else you affirm. This ensures reciprocity
since both sides should defend DAs under a framework to the resolution which has the strongest
internal to fairness to maintain competitive equity and stability is key to make them engage my
arguments. Other interps make AC ground nonunique and unclear which is key as the basis for

Cypress Woods JD

BIG BELTS BIG BELTS BIG BELTS

determining relevant arguments. Next, if the aff wins any offense to a counter interp or an I meet,
vote affA) theory takes more time to respond to than to read skewing my 1AR stratforce the
neg to defend their interp, B) Competing mutually exclusive interps force the aff into a double
bind of being subject to theory no matter what is run in the AC so no neg RVIs. Im forced to
defend something in the 1AC so dont drop me for violating. Next, presume aff since the 57%
neg bias (FantasyDebate) means affirming overcomes the greatest disadvantages.
And, neg must defend a morally relevant distinction between citizens in the US compared with
citizens in countries we intervene in that justifies a principle of nonintervention since a) we
presume people as moral equals absent a reason to not treat them the same so any action to
alleviate inequality would be justified and b) if theres moral uncertainty, it is better to treat
someone well than treat them poorly. Furthermore, justified is defined by Merriam Webster as
having sufficient reason to take an action, it does mean we have to take an action meaning that
absent a reason to not intervene we should always leave the action as a tool in the toolbox and
assume there is sufficient reason to at least declare intervention a reasonable action.
Part two is framework.
I value morality.
Ethics devolve to the individual perspective since people constantly gain new knowledge,
making their perspective the most indicative of truth.
Anker, (Michael Anker, [PhD Dissertation] The Ethics of Uncertainty: Aporetic Openings, Atropos Press, 2009. Pg 25)
If
some-thing is constantly in a state of also becoming some-thing other, there is no
stable ground for absolute knowledge and judgment. Furthermore, and to complicate matters even more so, it is not only the
object being considered that exists in a state of transformation, but also the subject doing the
interpretation. What we have left is a thoroughly perspectival (Nietzsche) relation to viewing and
interpreting what we see and know of this world. By affirming this, knowledge becomes not a
ground or an end in itself, but the means for a continual perspectival shifting . Perspectivism, as a thoroughly
As mentioned and affirmed, all things (concepts, words, objects, subjects, etc.) are in a state of becoming. Gaining knowledge or insight into any of these particulars thus entails an unstable terrain.

ungrounded and continuously shifting mode of interpretation, furthermore affirms the uncertainty of an indeterminate subject, object, and conceptual becoming.

And, disagreement plagues objectivist systems of morality or justice since theres no way to
resolve differences, so evaluation devolves to the first person.
McGrath, (Sarah McGrath, Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise, http://www.princeton.edu/~smcgrath/moraldisagreement.pdf)
moral disagreement seems to parallel the diversity of opinion as [color] to which shade
When asked to select the [a particular shade] shade
which is unique green, different subjects with normal color vision will select different shades . As in the case of our controversial moral views,
In some ways,

of green is unique green. Unique green is that shade of green that is neither bluish nor yellowish.

opinion about which shade is unique green not only fails to be unanimous, but is substantially divided. Perhaps if there were relatively widespread agreement as to which shade is unique green, then the dissenting

division of opinion is substantial suggests that

human beings are not reliable detectors of the relevant property. That relevantly similar creatures
[since] creatures with the same type of visual systemarrive at different verdicts
when similarly situated seems to show that that kind of creature is simply not well equipped to detect the presence or absence of the property in question. That human beings are
judgments of a few who possessed otherwise normal color vision could be dismissed. But the fact that the actual

not, as a species, reliable detectors of unique green seems to tell against crediting any individual with knowledge that a certain shade is unique green, particularly if the individual knows of this general lack of
reliability and has no good reason to think that he is exceptional in this respect. Note that although questions about which shade of green is unique green are hard questions for human beings, such questions do not

Cypress Woods JD

BIG BELTS BIG BELTS BIG BELTS

each persons view strikes her as

obviously correct. This seems parallel to the moral case: in the moral case too, many find that
their own views about controversial moral questions strike them as obviously
correct.
present themselves to us as difficult ones. In fact, most subjects are quite confident of their initial judgments;

In order to reconcile our subjective beliefs, we must look towards community desires. In a first
person world, community is epistemologically most likely to be true and key to identity
construction.
Christiano, (Thomas Christiano. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Jul 27, 2006. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#NonInsVal Democracy)
Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: relatively good laws and policies and improvements in the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill argued that

democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic
citizens (Mill, 1861, Chapter 3). Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the
interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each more people are taken into account than under
aristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, for example, that no substantial famine has ever occurred in any
independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press

Epistemologically, democracy is thought to be the best decision-making method on the grounds that it is generally
it can take advantage of
many sources of information and critical assessment of laws and policies. Democratic decision-making tends to be
have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor.

more reliable in helping participants discover the right decisions. Since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making,

more informed than other forms about the interests of citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. Furthermore, the broad based discussion typical of democracy enhances the critical

moral ideas that guide decision-makers. Many have endorsed democracy on the basis of the proposition that
democracy has beneficial effects on character. Many have noted with Mill and Rousseau that democracy tends to make people
stand up for themselves more than other forms of rule do because it makes collective decisions depend on
them more than monarchy or aristocracy do. Hence, in democratic societies individuals are encouraged to be more autonomous. In addition, democracy tends to get people to think carefully and
assessment of the different

rationally more than other forms of rule because it makes a difference whether they do or not. Finally, some have argued that democracy tends to enhance the moral qualities of citizens. [In Addition] When they

they are called upon to justify themselves to others and they

are forced to think in part in terms of the interests of others. Some have argued that when people find themselves in this
participate in making decisions, they have to listen to others,

kind of circumstance, they come genuinely to think in terms of the common good and justice. Hence, some have argued that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality and morality of
participants. Since these beneficial effects are thought to be worthwhile in themselves, they count in favor of democracy and against other forms of rule (Mill 1861, p. 74, Elster 2002, p. 152).Some argue in addition
that the above effects on character tend to enhance the quality of legislation as well. A society of autonomous, rational, and moral decision-makers [Democracy] is more likely to produce good legislation than a
society ruled by a self-centered person or small group of persons who rule over slavish and unreflective subjects.

And, the US is a federal republic defined as a state in which power rests with the people or their
representatives (CIA.gov), so the US definitionally ought to do what its people will, making it
justified. This means not only that democracy is the only way to say what the US should do in
terms of justice, but also that any other ethical system would change the agent we are talking
about, and is thus incoherent, so textually it precedes other justifications.
Thus, the standard is consistency with communal norms, defined as looking towards what the
majority of Americans view on an issue. My standard is completely fair and predictableIve
read democracy all through Jan/Feb and LD has a history of democracy frameworks even at the
TOC, and even if you didnt do enough to works to have turns to the aff, everyone has poll
indicts.
Next, neg must give an alternative to intervention with a solvency advocate that articulates why
it solves the specific advantages in the 1AC and evidentially compares to my advocacy; they
may not advocate the squo. Key to ground since she could read no-risk DAs forcing me to
defend perfection where any taint becomes sufficient if it cant be weighed which links to
education as the basis of comparing arguments in a substantive way, and key to clash to ensure

Cypress Woods JD

BIG BELTS BIG BELTS BIG BELTS

mutually exclusive advocacies since it garners direct comparison instead of non-opposing

positions which links to fairness to force the neg to engage my position.
Part three is the plan.
Text: United States federal government, in conjunction with United Nations peacekeeping forces,
should intervene using military operations and political condemnation for genocide-supporting
candidates in the Darfur region of Sudan and Southern Sudan.
Short term aid nowplan revitalizes humanitarianism in the region.
AllAfrica on March 3, (Radio Dabanga, Africas leading news source or at least I think so since Im on a bus without wifi, 3/3/13, http://www.allafrica.com/stories/2013030300006.html)
Sudan announced the guidelines for 2013 for the work of
humanitarian agencies operating in Darfur, which include facilitating their travel procedures to the region. Suleiman Abdul Rahman, HACs general
commissioner, specified that travel permits would be cancelled maximum 72 hours prior to agencies departure to Darfur, adding
this is valid for both national and international organizations. He said that would [to] ensure that organizations are established in
Darfur for longer periods of time promoting stability and the regions quick recovery. The principle of the new guidelines is based on
the provision of access to all areas of Sudan in need of humanitarian intervention, the commissioner said.
The Humanitarian Aid Comission (HAC) of the government of

Aff may fiat an international agency doing the plan if theres solvency advocates. Key to real
world policymaking since actors inevitably work together on issues in the globalized world
which has the strongest internal to education since debate preps us to be out of round advocates
and improves quality of ground since now you get DAs that link to either actor which links to
fairness so they can generate unique offense against the aff. This also textually affirms the
resolution since if the US is justified in doing it with someone else, theyd be justified
independently.
Part four is offense.
Three-fourths of the American public wants interventionprefer because he cites multiple PIPA
polls.
Stephens,

(Angela
Stephens,
reporter
for
Save
Darfur
and
reporting
http://ww20.savedarfur.org/index.php/pages/press/poll_shows_vast_majority_of_american_voters_think_darfur_should_be_a_top_fo)

poll

done

by

Zagby

International,

3/23/06,

The crisis in Sudans western Darfur region, which began in 2003, has largely been pushed off the international news pages by escalating violence in Iraq and tension over Irans nuclear program. Yet despite
Americans weariness of the Iraq war, a new poll by Zogby International finds strong support for greater efforts to stop the killingwhat many, including the Bush administration, call a genocidein Darfur. Seven in
10 support the United States imposing a no-fly zone over Darfur to prevent Sudanese planes from bombing civilians. Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats backed the idea of a no-fly zone over the region,

62 percent agree that

the United States has a responsibility to help stop the killing in the Darfur region and that 58
percent believe more can be done by the United States to help end the crisis in
Sudan. President Bush has called for more NATO involvement in Darfur. NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer said this week during a meeting with Bush that NATO is prepared to support
where more than 180,000 have been killed and more than 2 million displaced, according to figures from the United Nations.More broadly, the poll found that

a U.N. force in Darfur. Americans have expressed their readiness to back such an effort. A June 2005 Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) poll asked if NATO, including the United States, should assist

Sixty-one percent said the

members of the United Nations should step in with military force to stop the violence in Darfur, while 32
percent said it should not do so. Perhaps most significant, 54 percent said in the PIPA poll that the Unites States should be willing to
contribute troops to a military operation in Darfur if other members of the U.N. are willing, while 39 percent said the United States
should not be willing. The wide support among Americans for action in Sudan is consistent with findings of several polls by PIPA. When the word genocide has
the African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Seventy-one percent said that it should, while only 21 percent said it should not.

Cypress Woods JD

BIG BELTS BIG BELTS BIG BELTS

been used to describe the conflict, as was done in a December 2004 PIPA poll, support for U.N. military action was especially high 74 percent
said the U.N. should step in with military force. Just 17 percent said it should not.
Reject metatheory A) its infinitely regressive because theres always a higher order to appeal to
the winner is who speaks last on the issue, B) its inconsistent with the functionality of rules
themselves since theres no rulebook for rules.
Counterstudies are marred by American ignoranceonce they realize what it is, they
overwhelmingly support.
WPO, (World Public Opinion, Poll Shows Vast Majority of American Voters Think Darfur Should Be a Top Foreign Policy Priority, polls by the Genocide Intervention Network, 2007)
two-thirds (62 percent) believe taking action to stop
humanitarian crisis like genocide should be a high (42 percent) or the highest (19 percent) foreign
policy priority for the country. Among respondents who had heard a lot or some about
Darfur previous to the poll, support climbs further to 71 percent. The survey also indicates large changes in awareness
Among

the

1,018

adults

surveyed

in

the

poll

last

December,

nearly

about the conflict, the result of sustained campaigns, in particular by the Save Darfur Coalition. Over half of Americans 59 percent now say they know a lot or some about the conflict in Darfur, compared

62 percent of
support the use of targeted individual sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, against
Sudanese leaders responsible for planning and executing genocide even though respondents were told
that some of these officials occasionally provide intelligence to the United States on al Qaeda activities .
to levels reported in 2004, when a similar question commissioned by the Program on International Policy Attitudes found only 14 percent familiar with the conflict. fNearly two-thirds
Americans

And, neg must defend a world in which US aid and military forces stay inside our political
jurisdiction, so nothing outside our borders. Other interps make AC ground nonunique and
unclear because it destroys the distinction between our political processes and other states. Cross
apply the internal link.
Because the American public supports the plan, you affirm.

Cypress Woods JD

BIG BELTS BIG BELTS BIG BELTS

Tricks 1AR

Extend the interpretation under the voter that the neg must prove a positive obligation to not intervene
(with an advocacy text since it prevents them from being a moving target which is key to fairness to make
them engage my arguments. Big mistake not having onethis is the easiest way out, a conceded theory
argument which is a voter since the ballot creates contextual rules to follow so shut the door on the 2NR
and vote aff right now. The other standard is) since reciprocity dictates that the neg be bound to the
converse of the resolution as the strongest internal to fairness to maintain competitive equity. Fairness is a
voter because the ballot creates contextual rules to follow, this means that any argument that prevents
them from proving a positive obligation to negate is sufficient to affirm, so permissibility flows aff.
Presumption also affirms since structural barriers make it harder on the aff.
So, overview to framework. Ill concede their democracy defense, but if I win that ethics devolves to the
first person, it renders all actions permissible like the resolution since its up to the agent to decide for
themselves whether or not the US is justified. The topic is descriptive so it doesnt matter the agent or the
evaluative term.
So, extend Ankerpeople constantly gain new knowledge via their perspective on the world so their
interpretation is the most consistent with their subjective sense at truth. Since people each have different
experiences that shape the perspective, its impossible to make overarching claims about morality.
Extend McGrathmoral disagreement plagues all ethics, like the NCs, since theres no external criterion
to resolve differences between each subjects views. Agents lack the normative capacity to objectively
determine right from wrong, since each agents view will seem correct to themselves.
There are two implications. First, tt triggers permissibility because subjectivity renders each ethic
different from person to person. It doesnt matter if the neg wins their framework, it can be true in a
subjective sense. Second, this is terminal defense on their framework since it prevents it from being
objectively true. If I win terminal defense on their framework and dont win permissibility since I wont
be going for my ethic this triggers presumption since it means theres zero risk of offense on either side.
Next, extend the argument under Christiano that says that the US definitionally has to do what the people
will, so by rejecting that, their ethic triggers presumption because it changes the agent in the resolution
and renders it incoherent.
And, extend that the neg must prove a morally relevant distinctionif we value the rights of our own
citizens, we need a proactive justification to not value the rights of other citizens. The NC doesnt prove a
distinction, and the AC doesnt allow for one, so this is sufficient to affirm independently.
Next, extend that the neg must give an alternative to intervention with a solvency advocate. She doesnt
read a CP, so theres the violation. Key to ground since she could read no-risk DAs forcing me to defend
perfection which links to education as the basis of comparing arguments in a substantive way, and key to
clash to ensure direct comparison instead of non-opposing positions which links to fairness to force the
neg to engage my position. Education is a voter as the fundamental goal of the activity. Game over
thats conceded theory offense with a violation, so no new 2NR responses.

Cypress Woods JD

BIG BELTS BIG BELTS BIG BELTS

AFC + Offense 1AR

Extend the interpretation that the aff gets to choose framework and resolution interps.
The A subpoint means AFC is key to rectifying the 7-4 skew since I only need to win offense instead of a
framework too which precludes their standards since arguments dont matter if you dont have time to
make them. AFC has the strongest risk of solving the bias, and they havent given an alt so you default aff
on theory.
The B subpoint means its best for topic education since we get to actually talk about intervention instead
of the same framework debates weve had every round as key to education to prepare us to critically
engage issues. This is the only tournament on the topicdont reward lazy debate.
The C subpoint increases philosophy education since affs have to research good fair frameworks and negs
have to keep up which links to education to understand the normative reasons why things are good or bad
in life.
Voter for fairness since the ballot creates contextual rules to follow and education as the fundamental goal
of debate. Drop the debater to deter abuse.
This means you accept the democracy framework of the 1AC. This is also true because definitionally US
power lies with the people, so anything they choose is justifiedthis is the argument under Christiano.
So, extend that the United States federal government, in conjunction with United Nations peacekeeping
forces, should intervene using military operations and political condemnation for genocide-supporting
candidates in the Darfur region of Sudan and Southern Sudan.
The first piece of evidence on this question is Stephens, where three-fourths support intervention in
conjunction with UN forces. He cites multiple polls done by PIPA, so this evidence comes first.
The second piece is an indict of the publics lack of knowledgewhen they realize what Darfur is, their
support increases, so counterstudies dont take this into account.