A2 T Eliminate

We meet, they haven’t showed that any other type of subsidies exist for fossil fuels.

Counterinterpretation I get to spec a type of subsidy. One example can prove the resolution for
example the statement would you like doughnuts does not require asking if you would like a plurality of
doughnuts and even if the aff doesn’t prove the resolution true, if it’s an example of the resolution that
ought to suffice contextually until they justify why we have to prove the resolution.

Elimination strategies can be full or partial.

Marr et al. ’01 Norman E Marr (Professor of Marketing and Head of Department at the University of
Huddersfield Business School) David R Harness (Senior Lecturer in Marketing) and Tina Goy (Lecturer in
Marketing). “A COMPARISON OF ELIMINATION STRATEGIES FOR PHYSICAL GOODS AND FINANCIAL
SERVICES PRODUCTS.” Journal of Product & Brand Management , December 2001,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.200.5867&rep=rep1&type=pdf. [Premier]

Previous work in this field (Harness & Mackay, 1993) identified the fact that product
elimination in the financial services
sector occurs at two different levels. The first level, and akin to the definition of physical goods
elimination, defines elimination as: “Full elimination is the removal of a core product and attributes of
production so that all liability for the product is eliminated” pp464. The second definition takes account of
the practicalities faced by the UK financial services sector in terms of the barriers that exist to
elimination. The definition acknowledges that much of the elimination in this sector is partial and
involves various levels of de-marketing: “Partial elimination is the removal of the product from some or
all new sales of the product, but a liability for servicing existing product holding customers remains”. pp
464

That’s key

A Aff ground, they destroy it because their interpretation allows them to find some PIC that obfuscates
all of our offense and read it every round, which is impossible for the Neg to answer.

B research, their interpretation prevents us from learning about specific subsidies in favor of broad
subsidies.

C Depth, they make there only be one topical aff, which prevents all plan affs and makes every round
the same debate.

Generics solve all of their offense.

Use reasonability, competing interps justifies interpretations that provide only marginal benefits and
good is good enough and defer to aff interpretation, the legal system proves deference is good and
necessary, and convoluted topicality debates are miserable.

Condo
Conditionality is a voter
Skews time by allowing the negative to only defend one of their counterplans and I have to spend time
answering all of the other conditional counterplans.
Hurts clash because it incentivizes the negative to collapse on the least contested counterplan which will
be the one with the least clash.
Makes debates later breaking because I only know definitively what they’ll defend in the 2AR, which
destroys clash in earlier speeches and necessitates semi new arguments in the final speeches.
Wrecks ground because I have to spend the majority of my speech time answering arguments that I have
no way to gain offense off of.
Evaluate Depth over Breadth we can get breadth over a variety of rounds, but condo would prevent depth
in any round.
Dispo solves all of their offense, it allows them to read as many counterplans as they’d like but only be
able to kick counterplans that aren’t straight turned.