Topic Lit Author Shell (1:20)

A is the Interpretation: Both debaters must cite in their constructive at least 1 qualified author on each voting issue who explicitly speaks on the attorney-client privilege and advocates a side. B. Violation: my opponent doesnt have one. This is the best bright-line to exclude cases that only marginally address the topic lit. C. Standards: First is topic education. Tangential cases kill topic discussion because theres necessarily a tradeoff. My opponent treats the issues purely as a game instead of confronting the reality of the broken criminal justice system. Topical arguments are key to education because topics change to educate us on the different problems in society. Second is clash. If my opponents case only marginally addresses the topic itself, but mine is fully focused on it, well have terrible clash. Choosing not to focus on topic ground minimizes argument interaction. Kills education because debates adversarial context is the best way to discover truth. Third is preparation Tangential cases disincentivize pre-round preparation because they are universally applicable to general topic areas. Pre-round preparation is a huge part of the learning we gain from debate. D. Impact: Education is a voter because of its unique benefit to debate. 1) Having topical clash teaches debaters how to make decisions and weigh the merits of taking action. This promotes a portable skill. Optimal decision-making is crucial to becoming a good lawyer, interviewing for jobs, or persuading people in general. 2) If debate loses educational value, theres no incentive for students to participate, or for schools to fund debate as an extracurricular. Drop the debater. 1) Precedent - Voting for me sets a precedent that people will emulate because they dont want to lose rounds. Wins and losses determine the direction of the activity. 2) Role of the ballot- the ballot functions as a mechanism to indicate the best advocacy you endorse in the round.

Extrinsic Politics DA Shell (0:30)

A is the Interpretation: All disadvantages must be intrinsic to the advocacy. B. Violation: A rational policymaker could take the action that causes the uniqueness claim and still do the AC at the same time, so the disad is not intrinsic. C. Standard: First is predictability. Tradeoff arguments are impossible for me to predict because a rational policymaker never considers how one decision will affect other decisions. They only consider the impact of passing legislation individually so theres no topic lit on the issue whatsoever. This is key to clash because argument interaction is nil on tangential cases. Second is topic education. Non-intrinsic disads take away from topical debate because theres a time tradeoff. Third, we debate in a vacuum; the main discussion in LD debate should be about the normative implications of democratic procedure, not the way it might affect political parties. Fourth, your evidence is wrong. Compulsory voting empirically has little effect on elections. Peter R. Orszag1 Interestingly, political science literature has historically found more modest effects on election outcomes from compulsory voting than one might think. Recent work by John Sides of George Washington University and colleagues is consistent with previous research by Raymond Wolfinger in finding little evidence that increased turnout would systematically transform partisan competition or policy outcomes. This parrots the conventional wisdom among political scientists. The fact that most nonvoters are in the democratic demographic is balanced out by protest votes, blank ballots, and the use of political advertising. Most political scientists agree: politics is a nonissue.

Peter R. Orszag, vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was President Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, 2012 (Make Voting Mandatory, June 19, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-19/voting-should-be-mandatory.html, accessed 6/25/2012)

T NECESSARY CONFLICT
A is the Interpretation: Precedence can only be evaluated when two things are directly in conflict. Merriam-Webster defines precedence as priority of importance, but priorities depend on the idea of something coming first, or something valued higher, which has no meaning outside of mutual exclusivity. B is the Violation: C is Reasons to Prefer: 1. Ground Skew: The aff takes away literally all neg ground by drawing no distinction between the two worlds, besides a nebulous idea of value. Kills fairness because Im restricted in the arguments I can make and dont have equal access to the ballot. Kills education because our learning doesnt contain all aspects of the topic. 2. Decision-making: When we pretend that we can have everything, were unable to weigh necessary sacrifices. Key to education because the purpose of debate is to help us decide between two mutually exclusive aff and neg positions. D. Fairness is a Voter 1. Levels the playing field. Abusive strategies eliminate an equal ability to win. A fair playing field is necessary to adjudicate the round in terms of which side did the better debating, and not who used the most abusive strategies. 2. Reduces participation (and outweighs education) Further, this will drive competitors from the activity because debaters will simply be subject to the abuse of others. If debaters lose rounds in which they clearly did the better debating, they wont have any incentive to debate, meaning that we cant access the benefits of education or any other standards.

T TERRORISM
Interpretation: The resolution does not concern itself with the trials of suspected terrorists. Violations and Reasons to prefer: The aff argues that waiving ACP is justified in the trials of suspected terrorists. 1. The AC violates criminal justice system. Oxford English Dictionary: The criminal justice system is the set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. How the criminal justice system works in each area depends on the jurisdiction that is in charge: city, county, state, federal and tribal governments. Military tribunals are none of the above. People are pushing for using the criminal justice system to try terrorists, but this is NOT the status quo. Elliot2 2010, The New Yorker story, which had apparently been in the works for months, quoted the Attorney General himself at length laying out arguments for using the criminal justice system to try terrorists instead of military commissions, and framing the national security debate as a battle of politics versus principles. 2. The AC violates truth-seeking. Violating attorney-client privilege for suspected terrorists has nothing to do with finding truth. The goal is national security, not discovering the guilt of the defendant. 3. The AC violates United States. Most terrorists are not tried on US soil. Council on Foreign Relations3 11, Military Commissions: Military commissions or tribunals were created under the Bush administration via the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to try "unlawful enemy combatants," namely individuals who are "part of forces associated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Almost all are detained and tried in Guantanamo Bay. Gitmo is not US territory. Its a naval base leased to us by Cuba. US Navy Base AP Archives4 in 05, 1903: U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt signs a deal with the new government of Cuba to lease 45 square miles at the mouth of Guantanamo Bay for 2,000 gold coins a year now valued at $4,085. The U.S. government continues to pay the lease every year, but the Cuban government refuses to cash the checks.

2 3

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/are-military-tribunals-really-tougher-on-terrorists-than-criminal-courts http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/closing-guantanamo/p18525 4 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4715995