Counter-interp: If the aff has an ethical theory that can prohibit action then they may also have

arguments that can trigger all actions as morally permissible.

B is the violation. He runs an interp saying that I cant.

C is the standards.
1. Time Skew - Neg gets a 7 minute NC, they can spread the aff out or overload them with
blippy offs. I need to be able to collapse positions to maximize efficiency in my short
speaking times. Key to fairness because otherwise they win simply because they have
more time to develop and attack arguments.
2. Balanced Ground - The neg can usually pick and choose anything they want to read
against my case - case-specific Ks, CPs, DAs. They can run multiple independent attacks,
like this 30 second theory argument, and win the round on any one of them. Giving the
aff multiple potentially winnable positions balances this power. Cross-apply their
standards and voters to this argument. If they have the ability to run multiple positions,
we should have it too.
3. Breadth - By debating against a wide variety of ethical theories, we learn more about
philosophy. This is key to education because one of the goals of LD is to teach students
about different types of philosophy.

D is the voters.

Fairness - Fairness is a voter because competitive debate mandates equal burdens. The function
of the ballot is to vote for the better debater but thats fundamentally impossible if one side is
skewed.

Education - Debate is an educational activity. The only real impact that we take away is the
education that we gain in the round. If you take away the education of debate, you devalue the
activity itself, and schools and clubs wont participate in the activity and keep it alive if its
educational value decreases.

And, debate is not an issue of competing interpretations. The neg shouldnt be able to dictate the
rules for the round after hearing the 1AC. They can always find something they can argue is
'unfair', which makes no aff 'acceptable'. It also lets them dodge the substance debate and
distracts debaters from real abuse. Reject the negative to disincentivize terrible theory positions
like this.

If not triggered yet

Dont vote on potential abuse - I dont trigger their impacts because theyre just talking about
how skep is bad, and I havent collapsed into skepticism.