Parametrics Bad

A. INTERPRETATION: Affirmative must uphold the Resolution as a general principle.

B. VIOLATION: Case-specific violation.

C. STANDARDS:

1. Ground: Allowing Aff to pick and chose his/her ground inherently skews the round in
his/her direction because he can arbitrarily select the most extreme, biased position for
the advocacy, so his ground his qualitatively better. Ground is key to fairness because it
determines offensive capabilities and therefore unequal ground puts me at a structural
disadvantage.

2. Research Burdens: Allowing Aff to limit the resolution advantages him because he
knows ahead of time what he’s specifying and can go all out on it, but I have to prepare
for infinite specific advocacies. Even if people have been running or discussing this
position, his knowledge of his advocacy ahead of time means he is infinitely more
prepared to debate his case, structurally advantaging him and harming fairness. All we
have going into the round is the resolution, but he functionally changes its meaning.

D is the Voter:

Fairness is a voter because debate is a competitive activity that requires an equal opportunity for
both sides to win the round. Maintaining fair rules is always the first priority of competitions
because fairness is a gateway issue: We must evaluate whether an act was fair before we can
evaluate the substantive impact. Thus, voting on theory always comes before the resolution.
Don’t let my opponent shift his advocacy to get out of this shell because he forced me to use
time running it. The abuse has already occurred.