Consult AU CP

Consult AU-INC
TEXT: The U.S.F.G. should engage in prior, genuine, binding consultation with the
African Union (AU) over the affirmative proposal to [INSERT PLAN TEXT HERE].

Observation One: Competition

A. The permutation severs the immediacy AND guaranteed nature of the affirmative plan.

B. Severance is a voting issue because it makes the affirmative a moving target, which skews the
negative time by wiping out the 1NC strategy and it justifies 2AR re-planning which makes negative
wins impossible

Observation Two: Solvency

1. AU will say yes. AU will view the US consultation as good first step toward
Biden’s promise of viewing them as equal partners in the region.
2. Consultation now is key. The AU needs reassurances from the US that it is ready
to actually move forward with a multilateral approach vs complete
abandonment – Afghanistan empirically proves.
 US-AU Relations DA
US-AU relations in the process of resetting relations after a rough four years with
Trump.
Widakuswara – 2021-(Feb-Patsy is VOA's Senior White House Correspondent where she brings over 25 years of
broadcast experience at leading radio and TV stations in Indonesia, UK and US. Patsy has a bachelor's degree in International
Relations from the University of Indonesia and a master's in Journalism from Goldsmiths College, University of London. )- Biden
Signals New Tone on US-Africa Relations https://www.voanews.com/africa/biden-signals-new-tone-us-africa-relations

In his remarks, Biden outlined what he called a shared vision of a better future with growing trade and investment that advances peace and
security. “A future committed to investing in our democratic institutions and promoting the human rights of all people, women and girls, LGBTQ
individuals, people with disabilities, and people of every ethnic background, religion and heritage,” Biden said. Chairperson
of the
African Union Commission Moussa Faki Mahamat welcomed the message and said the African Union looks forward to “resetting
the strategic AU-USA partnership.” A new tone “President Biden wanted to signal the desire of the
United States to rebuild a strong partnership with the continent, its people, the diaspora, as well as
other AU stakeholders,” a senior administration official told VOA on background, adding that the administration is committed to
“reinvigorating relationships throughout Africa from a position of mutual respect and partnership. ” On his
first day in office, Biden repealed the Trump administration’s ban on travelers from Muslim-majority and African countries, including Libya,
Somalia, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania.

US consulting AU is crucial to strengthening US-AU multilateral ties to prevent conflict

and instability.
Gavin-2021-(May-Michelle is a CFR foreign policy analyst)- The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent,
nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government
officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in
order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries-
Major Power Rivalry in Africa- https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/dpgavinmay21.pdf

As African societies confront their own massive social changes and pressures, the United States can
avoid mis- steps and, over time, develop stronger partnerships by recognizing that stability in Africa also
requires flexibility, including periods of reform that promote inclusion and respond to the sources of social discontent. The Biden
administration’s enthusiasm for bolstering democratic solidarity should provide impetus to this long-
overdue recalibration of promoting stability in Africa to ensure that human rights and inclusion are elevated in the pursuit
of security. In practice, this means that U.S. diplomacy will require a close understanding not just of elite or
official agendas but also of popular and grassroots movements. Consultation will be critical, though
challenging, as neither the AU nor its constituent governments reflect the will of the people in every instance. Therefore, U.S. diplomats
should be enterprising in understanding the aspirations and concerns of African societies, reaching beyond government con- tacts to better
grasp the direction of popular sentiment, identify issues that threaten enduring stability, and work to encourage
reforms and political inclusion as a means of conflict prevention.
 Scen-1-Egypt/Ethiopia War
1. Strong US-AU relations key to preventing- Terrorism / regional conflicts / wars
across North Africa
Yerkes-2021-(Feb-Sarah is a foreign policy analyst for the US Institute of Peace)-A New Strategy for U.S. Engagement in
North Africa: A Report of the North Africa Working Group-https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/02/23/new-strategy-for-u.s.-
engagement-in-north-africa-report-of-north-africa-working-group-pub-83926

 Terrorism that emanates from North Africa is an immediate threat to US partners in the region, US European
partners, and US personnel and facilities. As such, the United States cannot bear the brunt of opposing violent
extremism alone. Multilateral initiatives such as the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) and regional
organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union must lead international
efforts to address terrorist threats and the underlying conditions that facilitate terrorist recruitment and
incitement. The Biden Administration should look for ways to support these multilateral efforts both
directly and in parallel with ongoing United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM) operations.  Violent regional conflict in Libya and
increasingly potential violent conflicts, such as the long-standing disagreement over Western Sahara and opposition to the Grand Ethiopian
Renaissance Dam (GERD), coulddestabilize neighboring countries and prompt humanitarian crises. In the case of
Libya, the conflict threatens to bring several US allies and military partners into direct confrontation. It is
unlikely that the United States could act as a neutral or unbiased arbiter to these conflicts, as recent efforts to intervene in the GERD conflict
have shown. However, the United States should push multilateral institutions such as the African Union, the League of Arab States, and the UN
to play more productive roles in resolving these conflicts.

2. Absent strong AU relations –sparks an Egypt/Ethiopia military conflict enabling

Russian interventionism– threatens US hegemony in North Africa
Yerkes-2021-(Feb-Sarah is a foreign policy analyst for the US Institute of Peace)-A New Strategy for U.S. Engagement in
North Africa: A Report of the North Africa Working Group-https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/02/23/new-strategy-for-u.s.-
engagement-in-north-africa-report-of-north-africa-working-group-pub-83926

Although the opportunity for peacefully resolving the Western Sahara conflict has become more
challenging, it is no less important. Resolving the Western Sahara conflict could unlock decades of stalemate between Morocco and its
neighbors, facilitating more cooperation on terrorism and regional economic integration. The escalating tensions over the GERD
threaten to boil over into direct military conflict. In light of the equities of the US allies involved,
particularly Egypt and Ethiopia, resolving this conflict peacefully should be a priority for the United
States. However, the United States is unlikely to be seen as a neutral third party to any negotiations, and so it should support multilateral
organizations such as the African Union as they seek to create “African solutions to African problems.” The AU has taken the lead in
bringing Ethiopia and Egypt together, and if it is able to demonstrate an effective role as mediator, that
could open up opportunities elsewhere on the continent for locally driven conflict resolution. The
United States should do all it can to support the AU in its efforts in this regard . For too long, these
conflicts have been characterized as distant or indirectly related to US national security interests. In fact, these
conflicts threaten the
stability of several important US partners and perpetuate the cycles of violence that create instability
and have dangerous second-order effects for US national security interests. In addition, these conflicts
create an opening for increased Russian intervention, advancing the Kremlin’s agenda, which seeks to
undermine US and European efforts in northern Africa and the southern Mediterranean region.
 Scen-2-Regional Conflict

1. Good US-AU multilateral relations ensures the US has a seat at the table to help
resolve the instability in Chad.
Hudson – 2021-(April-Cameron was the Former Chief of Staff, Office of the US Special Envoy to
Sudan, US Department of State)-Washington’s role and responsibility in
Chad-https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/africasource/washingtons-role-and-responsibility-in-chad/

Engage the African Union. It should go without saying that in the year 2021, the former colonial power should not be picking winners
and losers nor deciding the fate of the population for another generation of Chadians. There is no greater or more substantial voice that should
be leading the international response to the now-coup and crisis in Chad than the principal regional organization. But while the international
response should have an African face, it has been complicated in Chad by the African Union (AU) Commission’s own Chairperson, Moussa Faki
Mahamat. A Chadian and former prime minister and foreign minister under the late Chadian leader, Faki made a “private visit” to his home
capital, N’Djamena, the day after Déby’s death and the installation of Déby’s son as commander of the extra-constitutional Transitional Military
Council. Even in his private capacity, Faki’s presence signaled to Chadians an acknowledgment and tacit support for the illegal transfer of power
in his country. For this reason, Washington ought to push privately to see him recuse himself from further direct involvement in the crisis.
Fortunately, soon after Faki’s visit, the AU’s Peace and Security Commission stepped in with a roadmap of its own, calling for Chad, “to respect
the constitutional order. . . quickly engage in a process of restoration of the constitutional order and the transfer of political power to civil
authorities.” The statement also alluded to the potential coercive power of AU membership suspension and economic sanctions if the
constitutional order is not promptly restored. Adding to the African-led effort, the presidents of Niger and Mauritania, coalition members of the
G5 Sahel Initiative, have also seemed to step into a mediating role when late last week in consultations with Chad’s political opposition they
cited, “the need for a dialogue to set up transitional institutions that will be responsible for drafting a new constitution and organizing
elections.” At the same time, Niger has also been asked, and agreed, to work with Chad’s new junta to hunt down and arrest fleeing FACT
fighters who may be seeking refuge in Niger, further complicating the regional role to ultimately support a transition to civilian rule. African
mediators have now floated the model of the kind of civil-military power-sharing arrangement seen
most recently in Mali after its latest coup and in Sudan after the popular uprising there, both of which
Washington endorsed previously and worked to ensure were implemented. Endorsing this approach and
committing to its success would give Washington a seat at the table and help position it on the right side
of the history being written in Chad.
 2. Chad is the lynchpin to regional stability
Hudson – 2021-(April-Cameron was the Former Chief of Staff, Office of the US Special Envoy to
Sudan, US Department of State)-Washington’s role and responsibility in
Chad-https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/africasource/washingtons-role-and-responsibility-in-chad/

While perhaps of little thought to most Americans, Chad, three times the size of the state of California, sits at the crossroads of
most major conflicts in Africa where the United States currently has a security interest, if not an actual
operational presence. To Chad’s east, the United States has invested heavily over the last decade in the political
and humanitarian response in Darfur and more recently as part of the national transition effort in Sudan; to the north, the United
States has played a leading role in ending the Libyan civil war and attempting to return a measure of stability a decade
after Gaddafi’s death plunged the region into conflict; to the south, the fight against Boko Haram is the central
preoccupation; while the United States has been perhaps most involved in responding to manifold
threats from jihadist groups in the Sahel region to Chad‘s west , including through the establishment of a drone base,
support to United Nations peacekeeping, and the deployment of special forces combat troops. From the Mediterranean to the
Gulf of Guinea and from the Red Sea to the Atlantic, all roads on these security axes run through Chad
and for the past decade or more depended in no small part on the military prowess of its fallen leader, Idriss Déby.

3. Chad implosion would put the entire region at risk—US must stay involved
Hudson – 2021-(April-Cameron was the Former Chief of Staff, Office of the US Special Envoy to
Sudan, US Department of State)-Washington’s role and responsibility in
Chad-https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/africasource/washingtons-role-and-responsibility-in-chad/

But unlike in decades past, where Washington was content to view Chad as ‘a French problem,’ Washington’s regional security
interests are today equally as bound to what unfolds in Chad. The massive US political and financial support to neighboring
Sudan’s transition could easily be upended from an implosion in Chad. So too could all US efforts in
rolling back the spread of jihadism from the Sahel to the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Washington’s blood
and treasure extend across the region and it can neither afford to sit out the conversation on what comes next in Chad nor subcontract its
involvement to other powers with presumably more at stake. France’s parachuting in to N’Djamena last week and its early endorsement of the
military transition should not constrain Washington from finding its own voice and using what influence it has to help lay the foundations
for more than just a soft landing. Indeed, in the midst of the fast-moving changes there is an
opportunity to not only ensure that
long-term security interests in the region are met , but to also take immediate steps to begin to address the kinds of massive
democracy and development deficits that have left Chad so enervated today. It is a view that has already been espoused by
the incoming Biden administration.
 Scen-3-Horn Conflict
1. Unchecked regional conflicts in the Greater Horn risks a great power war
between US and China
Anna -2020- (Nov-Cara is an AP reporter)-AP Explains: Why Ethiopia is suddenly on brink of civil
war-https://apnews.com/article/why-ethiopia-on-brink-of-civil-war-ap-011a4fe56971e4871467d363e6c55551

Few regions are more vulnerable than the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia’s neighbors include Somalia — Ethiopian
forces have reportedly begun withdrawing from that country to return home — and Sudan, facing its own huge political
transition. Neighboring Eritrea has shown little sign of opening up after making peace with Ethiopia in 2018, and its government and the
Tigray one don’t get along. A region in which Abiy has played high-profile peacemaker is now at risk. Observers warn that a conflict
could suck in these countries and others not far from the most strategic military outpost in Africa, tiny Djibouti, where several global
powers including the U.S. and China have their only military bases on the continent. The Horn of Africa is also a short
water crossing away from Yemen and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. Ethiopia already was drawing
concern over a dispute with Egypt over a huge dam Ethiopia is completing on the Blue Nile. While there
have been worries about military action, “I would like to think Egypt is a responsible enough actor to
realize that fragmentation of Ethiopia is fundamentally so damaging to regional security,” former U.S.
diplomat Payton Knopf, a senior advisor with the United States Institute of Peace, said this week.

2. Impact: US first strike of strategic China military locations = 10 million deaths &
triggers a US / China nuclear war.
Kulacki 20-( Gregory focuses on cross-cultural communication between the United States and China
on nuclear and space arms control and is the China Project Manager for the Global Security Program at
the Union of Concerned Scientists)-Would China Use Nuclear Weapons First in a War With the United
States? Recent American statements on Chinese nuclear weapons policy merit closer scrutiny-
https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/would-china-use-nuclear-weapons-first-in-a-war-with-the-united-
states/

Given the relatively small size of China’s nuclear force, a U.S. president might be tempted to try to limit
the possible damage from a Chinese nuclear attack by destroying as many of China’s nuclear weapons as
possible before they’re launched, especially if the head of the U.S. Strategic Command told the
president China was preparing to strike first. One study concluded that if the United States used nuclear
weapons to attempt to knock out a small fraction of the Chinese ICBMs that could reach the United
States it may kill tens of millions of Chinese civilians. Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a
month. The authors of the text assume alerting China’s nuclear forces would “create a great shock in the enemy’s psyche.” That’s a fair
assumption. But they also assume this shock could “dissuade the continuation of the strong enemy’s conventional attacks against our major
strategic targets.” That’s highly questionable. There
is a substantial risk the United States would respond to this
implicit Chinese threat to use nuclear weapons by escalating, rather than halting, its conventional
attacks. If China’s nuclear forces were targeted, it would put even greater strain on the operators of
China’s nuclear forces. A Slippery Slope to Nuclear War Chinese military planners are aware that attempting to coerce the United States into
halting conventional bombardment by alerting their nuclear forces could fail. They also know it might trigger a nuclear war.

3. Impact: China’s nuclear response would wipe out all major US cities / killing 50
million people
Goldstein 20- (Lyle, is Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport,
Rhode Island)-https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/how-china-would-destroy-us-cities-nuclear-war-164520
When one reads enough Chinese naval literature, diagrams of multi-axial cruise missile saturation attacks against aircraft carrier
groups may begin to seem normal. However, one particular graphic from the October 2015 issue (p. 32) of the naval journal Naval & Merchant
Ships stands out as both unusual and singularly disturbing. It purports to map the
impact of a Chinese intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM) strike by twenty nuclear-armed rockets against the United States. Targets include
the biggest cities on the East and West Coasts, as well as in the Midwest, as one would expect. Giant
radiation plumes cover much of the country and the estimate in the caption holds that the strike “would
yield perhaps 50 million people killed” The map below that graphic on the same page illustrates the optimal aim point for a hit on
New York City with a “blast wave” that vaporizes all of Manhattan and well beyond. That makes the North Korean “threat” look fairly
insignificant by comparison, doesn’t it? But what’s really disturbing is that the scenario described above envisions a strike by China’s largely
antiquated DF-5 first generation ICBM.
 Impact cards
An unstable Horn of Africa risks power vacuums, proxy wars & puts key maritime
routes in danger
Ahmed-2020-(Sept-Abiy is the Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, received the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2019. )-Africa’s Peace and Prosperity Begin at Home-https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/africa-peace-
prosperity-geopolitical-power-by-abiy-ahmed-2020-09

As Africa integrates, it is increasingly setting its own development agenda and foreign-policy priorities freely and independently of other
powers. This represents a sharp break with Africa’s historical role as a geopolitical plaything of world powers. But dangers
remain, not
least in the Horn of Africa – a historically volatile region that suddenly has become the epicenter of a
global scramble for strategic influence. Powerful adversaries have established military bases in the Horn that are too close to
each other for comfort. Many have invested in the region’s seaports, and some have gone further inland in search of water and arable land to
produce their food abroad. The
heightened interest partly stems from the region’s locational advantages as
both the bridge that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and a vital entry point to the wider
African market. Left unchecked, this unhealthy rivalry and competition in our backyard will likely end up
sucking all of us into yet another fratricidal proxy war. Competing visions and rival loyalties to outside
forces risk creating fragile states and power vacuums, turning us into easy fodder for others.

Nuclear terrorism lead to global nuclear war, economic collapse, and worldwide prolif
Arguello and Buis 18 - (Irma and Emiliano, "The global impacts of a terrorist nuclear attack: What
would happen? What should we do?", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp. 114-119,
A$)

The consequences of a terrorist nuclear attack A small and primitive 1-kiloton fission bomb (with a yield
of about one-fifteenth of the one dropped on Hiroshima, and certainly much less sophisticated ; cf. Figure 1),
detonated in any large capital city of the developed world, would cause an unprecedented catastrophic
scenario. An estimate of direct effects in the attack’s location includes a death toll of 7,300-to-23,000 people and 12,600-to-57,000 people
injured, depending on the target’s geography and population density. Total physical destruction of the city’s infrastructure, due to the blast
(shock wave) and thermal radiation, would cover a radius of about 500 meters from the point of detonation (also known as ground zero), while
ionizing radiation greater than 5 Sieverts – compatible with the deadly acute radiation syndrome – would expand within an 850-meter radius.
From the environmental point of view, such an area would be unusable for years. In addition,
radioactive fallout would expand in an area of about 300 square kilometers, depending on
meteorological conditions (cf. Figure 2). But the consequences would go far beyond the effects in the target
country, however, and promptly propagate worldwide. Global and national security, economy and finance,
international governance and its framework, national political systems, and the behavior of
governments and individuals would all be put under severe trial. The severity of the effects at a national
level, however, would depend on the countries’ level of development, geopolitical location, and
resilience. Global security and regional/national defense schemes would be strongly affected. An
increase in global distrust would spark rising tensions among countries and blocs, that could even lead
to the brink of nuclear weapons use by states (if, for instance, a sponsor country is identified). The consequences of
such a shocking scenario would include a decrease in states’ self-control, an escalation of present
conflicts and the emergence of new ones, accompanied by an increase in military unilateralism and
military expenditures. Regarding the economic and financial impacts, a severe global economic
depression would rise from the attack, likely lasting for years . Its duration would be strongly dependent
on the course of the crisis. The main results of such a crisis would include a 2 percent fall of growth in global Gross Domestic Product,
and a 4 percent decline of international trade in the two years following the attack (cf. Figure 3). In the case of developing and less-developed
countries, the economic impacts would also include a shortage of high-technology products such as
medicines, as well as a fall in foreign direct investment and a severe decline of international
humanitarian aid toward low-income countries . We expect an increase of unemployment and poverty in all
countries. Global poverty would raise about 4 percent after the attack, which implies that at least 30 million more people would be living in
extreme poverty, in addition to the current estimated 767 million. In the area of international relations, we would expect a breakdown of
key doctrines involving politics, security, and relations among states. These international tensions could
lead to a collapse of the nuclear order as we know it today, with a consequent setback of nuclear
disarmament and nonproliferation commitments. In other words, the whole system based on the Nuclear
Non- Proliferation Treaty would be put under severe trial . After the attack, there would be a re-assessment of
existing security doctrines, and a deep review of concepts such as nuclear deterrence, no-first-use,
proportionality, and negative security assurances. Finally, the behavior of governments and individuals
would also change radically. Internal chaos fueled by the media and social networks would threaten
governance at all levels, with greater impact on those countries with weak institutional frameworks .
Social turbulence would emerge in most countries, with consequent attempts by governments to
impose restrictions on personal freedoms to preserve order – possibly by declaring a state of siege or
state of emergency – and legislation would surely become tougher on human rights. There would also be a
significant increase in social fragmentation – with a deepening of antagonistic views, mistrust, and intolerance, both within
countries and towards others – and a resurgence of large-scale social movements fostered by ideological
interests and easily mobilized through social media.
 S-consult solves
US consultation with Allies over counterterrorism operations is critical to strengthen
regional alliances that are key to keeping terrorist cells in check.
Kempe-2021-(Frederick is the president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council)-
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/inflection-points/biden-can-still-salvage-his-legacy-and-us-credibility-it-wont-
be-easy/

First, Biden
must match his “America is back” rhetoric about embracing allies with much deeper and more
meaningful consultation on issues that are most significant to US partners. Though the issues of counterterrorism and Afghanistan
may first come to mind, our allies both in Asia and Europe most of all want us to consult more closely with them on the Biden administration’s
approach to China, which is of far greater concern to almost all of them. In short, they want to be treated like the strategic partners the Biden
administration has told them they are. “America’s alliances are our greatest asset,” Biden said in his first foreign policy speech this February at
the State Department. “And leading
with diplomacy means standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and
key partners yet again.” Those allies, however, complain that the outreach hasn’t matched the rhetoric.
European ambassadors say their governments weren’t consulted ahead of Biden’s April speech on withdrawal from Afghanistan or regarding its
timing and execution, though their citizens and troops were also at risk. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger writes in the Economist this
week that of fundamental concern “is how America found itself moved to withdraw in a decision taken without much warning or consultation
with allies or the people most directly involved in 20 years of sacrifice.” Second, the Biden
administration should begin
intensive counterterrorism consultations with its closest allies. In an interview with CBS, Secretary of State Tony
Blinken rightly argued that terrorist cells have metastasized since the 2001 attacks and are now
scattered all over the world .

AU allies need reassurances US will not bail on them

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-weighs-troop-cuts-in-africa-leaving-allies-to-confront-growing-militant-threat-11584291493

At the closing ceremony of U.S.-led military exercises in this expansive Saharan nation, American
diplomat R. Clarke Cooper stepped to the podium and assured African military commanders that
Washington stands ready to help them in their time of need. “The U.S. has an unwavering and
longstanding commitment to Africa,” Mr. Cooper, the State Department’s assistant secretary for
political-military affairs, said late last month. In fact, U.S. allies are increasingly worried that America’s
commitment may be wavering when wide swaths of Africa face a surging threat from militants affiliated
with al Qaeda and Islamic State.
***PERMS/NBs***
 AT Perm Do Both/Lie Perm
1. The permutation severs immediacy-
a. Should is certain and immediate
Nieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311
(Colo. Ct. App. 2009)

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation , propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary
2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of
authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an imperative, obligatory sense. HN7A number of courts,
confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections
governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a
defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find
the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the
word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud,
257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding
argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d
940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have
also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 261
Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word "should" in an instruction
on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have
been misled by the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's
argument that the court erred by not using the word "should" in an instruction on witness credibility which
used the word "must" because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo.
1958). [*318] In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or
commission's use of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49
P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents'
federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

b. Resolved is in the present tense, not future

AHD ‘3
[The American Heritage Dictionary at Dictionary.com]

Full Definition of RESOLVED¶ 1¶ : fixity of purpose : resoluteness¶ 2¶ : something that is resolved¶ 3¶ : a legal or official determination;
especially : a formal resolution
 c. Limits – presume immediate implementation because the alternative is
infinite and abusive- the 2AC can specify the plan is done before or after
crucial disad thresholds mooting not just CP competition but every
offensive argument
d. No offense- if the aff wants to specify timeframe require it in the 1AC-
that solves their offense but prevents 2AC clarification after they’ve
heard our strategy
2. The permutation is Intrinsic- ingenuine/nonbinding consultation is not a
mandate of the plan or the counterplan.
a. Moots negative ground- the US is the world’s most powerful actor and
can resolve most impacts through adding planks to the plan
b. infinite regress- if we read a disad to the intrinsicness argument they can
kick it at no cost or make a new intrinsicness argument to solve the
disad- they get the last speech denying us a chance to respond to their
final advocacy
c. Counter interpretation: the aff gets topical intrinsicness arguemnts-this
solves their offense but still requires the aff to win by justifying the
resolution.
 AT Perm Do the Plan then Rollback
Reject the perm
a. Rollback is intrinsic — rollback the plan if they say no isn’t in the CP or the plan
— makes the aff a moving target because they get to spike out of links
b. Timeframe is intrinsic – sequencing is not part of either advocacy — moots all
neg offense
c. It severs out of certainty—
Nieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009)
"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation, propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002).
Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the
weight of authority appears to
favor interpreting "should" in an imperative, obligatory sense. HN7A number of courts, confronted with the question of
whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard, have
upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt
instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely
rejected the argument. They reasoned that the word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be
misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-
92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477,
504 A.2d 940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have
also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 261 Ark.
859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word "should" in an instruction on

circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must " and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have been misled by

the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's argument that

the court erred by not using the word "should" in an instruction on witness credibility which used the word
"must" because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958). [*318] In applying a child
support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or commission's use of the word

"should" is meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49 P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute
stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents' federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

The impact is real world education and argumentative responsibility — fiating your
way out of opportunity costs doesn’t reflect policymaking and kills our ability to
develop advocacy skills —

Independently, it doesn’t solve and still links — consultation needs to be binding and
prior to solve [x] — if not the link is already triggered before they roll the plan back —
that’s 1NC [author]

Double bind — They’ve read say no ev and also the perm — either they don’t solve the
aff because it gets rolled back OR the say no args are false — [explain why the perm
isn’t just a test of competition]
 AT Perm Do the Plan & Consult Another Issue
Reject the perm —
a. It’s Intrinsic — consulting over a different issue isn’t in the plan OR the CP —
that’s a voting issue — aff becomes a moving target because they can spike out
of our links — kills neg ground
b. Still links — passing the plan anyways means that consulting over something
else doesn’t matter because [explain why the aff is a bigger issue]
IF THEY DIDN’T SPECIFY WHAT THE ISSUE IS

c. Reject it for vagueness — not specifying what the issue is means we can’t make
a solvency deficit to consulting over that issue — don’t reward lazy perms
 AT Perm Do The CP
The CP severs immediacy and certainty because “Should” means the aff has to be
immediate
Summers 94 - Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 11-8-1994, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver s
Food Warehouse of Durant,” online: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?
CiteID=20287#marker3fn14

4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may
be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old
practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the
turgid phraseni, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage
- or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the
entire record.16 ¶5 Nisi prius orders should be so construed as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying
out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17 The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. The actual meaning intended by
the document's signatory should be derived from the context in which the phrase to be interpreted is used.18 When applied to the May 18
memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that the judge doubtless intended his ruling as an in praesenti resolution of Dollarsaver's
quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the
judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand
the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to
medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy
of this State. [Continues – To Footnote] 14 In praesenti meansliterally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th
Ed. 1990). In legal parlance thephrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to
something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27
L.Ed. 201 (1882).

Counterplan does not steal the aff it competes because of the internal net benefit

Their interpretation kills Agenda politics--- that outweighs because it’s key to process
education and is the most real world
Should requires certainty – the CP isn’t definite
Nieto 9. Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311
(Colo. Ct. App. 2009)

“Should” is “used . . . to express duty, obligation, propriety, or expediency.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002).
Courts interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of authority appears to favor
interpreting “should” in an imperative, obligatory sense. A number of courts, confronted with the question of whether using the word “should”
in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld
instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word “should” in the reasonable doubt
instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the
courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the word “conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be
misunderstood by a jury.” See State v. McCloud, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App.
1995) (finding argument that “should” is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 504 A.2d 940,
941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word “should” in other types of jury instructions have also found that the word
conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the
Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word “should” in an instruction on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the
word “must” and rejected the defendant’s argument that the jury may have been misled by the court’s use of the word in the instruction.
Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant’s argument that the court erred by not using the word “should” in an instruction on
witness credibility which used the word “must” because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958).
In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature’s or commission’s use of the word “should” is
meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt, 49 P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support
expenditures “should” be allocated for the purpose of parents’ federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

Reject severance perms for fairness and education because they create a moving
target and disincentivize counterplan research
***THEORY***
 2NC – Functional Competition Bad
1. Infinitely regressive – people can explain the plan text differently every round
to spike out of DAs
 2NC – Textual Competition bad
1. Incentives vagueness – people will write vague plan text to spike out of neg
ground
2. Not real – world because bills don’t have plan texts
3. Kills ground – Allows grammar counterplans
 2NC – Entirely Plan Inclusive CPs Good
Entirely Plan Inclusive Counterplans are good
a) Topic education – international topics demand evaluating trade-offs between
unilateral and multilateral action as exterior mechanisms to the aff
b) “Should” is immediate
Summers 94 (Justice – Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”,
1994 OK 123, 11-8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?
CiteID=20287#marker3fn13)

"Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of
"shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121
(1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R.
Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the
Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as
more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions
stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory
negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v.
California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or
expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested
segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or
"must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false
testimony"). 14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th
Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective,
as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v.
Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).

c) Key to neg ground – only way negative can generate offense against small affs
in a broad topic, ie racism bad. Without them, the negative would have to
defend problematic impact turns
d) Literature checks – prevents infinitely regressive counterplans that have no
advocates concerning arms sales, meaning affs can put well-researched offense
on predictable net benefits
e) Err neg on theory – the aff picks the focus of the round, speaks first and last and
gets infinite prep
Reject the argument, not the team.
 2NC – Consultation CPs Good
1. The neg’s burden is to prove that multilateral action is best – we will win that
the CP solves better than the aff which proves that consultation is the best
policy option
2. Education – consultation is necessary before taking actions such as pulling arms
out of a country because it has impacts that don’t only affect the US, makes the
CP unique from the plan, other countries care about American arms sales so we
must evaluate consultation as a real option. We only read CPs that consult
actors relevant to the plan, solves their unpredictability argument
3. Strategy – consultation CPs force the 2AC to increase critical strategic thinking
about the aff in terms of international politics
4. Neg flex – consult CPs are key to test affs, the aff gets infinite prep time, the CP
is a key generic against unpredictable or small affs
5. Literature demands – there is evidence that says the consultant says yes –
proves that consultation is a key part of the literature on the topic and it is
crucial that we debate it
6. Impact turning the net benefit checks abuse
7. Uncertainty – the aff is certain and immediate but the CP is competitive in that
it is uncertain
8. Should is certain and immediate
Nieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311
(Colo. Ct. App. 2009)

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation , propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary
2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of
authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an imperative, obligatory sense. HN7A number of courts,
confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections
governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a
defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find
the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the
word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud,
257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding
argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d
940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have
also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 261
Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word "should" in an instruction
on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have
been misled by the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's
argument that the court erred by not using the word "should" in an instruction on witness credibility which
used the word "must" because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo.
1958). [*318] In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or
commission's use of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49
P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents'
federal tax exemption to be mandatory).
 2NC – Aff Must Be Certain
Aff’s must be certain –
1. Should is certain and immediate
Nieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311
(Colo. Ct. App. 2009)

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation , propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary
2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of
authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an imperative, obligatory sense. HN7A number of courts,
confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections
governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a
defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find
the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the
word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud,
257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding
argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d
940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have
also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 261
Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word "should" in an instruction
on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have
been misled by the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's
argument that the court erred by not using the word "should" in an instruction on witness credibility which
used the word "must" because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo.
1958). [*318] In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or
commission's use of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49
P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents'
federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

2. Resolved means certain or fixed

OED 89 Oxford English Dictionary, “Resolved,” Volume 13, p. 725
of the mind, etc.: Freed from doubt or uncertainty, fixed, settled . Obs.

Prefer our definitions –

1. Neg ground – disad links and counterplan competition is predicated off the plan
being certain – allowing uncertainty kills any neg offense
2. Aff ground – guarantees durability and focus on “should” not “would” –
otherwise AFF would always lose on rollback
 2NC – Aff Must Be Immediate
Affs must be immediate –
Should is certain and immediate
Nieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311
(Colo. Ct. App. 2009)

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation , propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary
2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of
authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an imperative, obligatory sense. HN7A number of courts,
confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections
governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a
defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find
the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the
word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud,
257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding
argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d
940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have
also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 261
Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word "should" in an instruction
on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have
been misled by the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's
argument that the court erred by not using the word "should" in an instruction on witness credibility which
used the word "must" because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo.
1958). [*318] In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or
commission's use of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49
P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents'
federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

Resolved is in the present tense, not future

AHD ‘3
[The American Heritage Dictionary at Dictionary.com]

Full Definition of RESOLVED¶ 1¶ : fixity of purpose : resoluteness¶ 2¶ : something that is resolved¶ 3¶ : a legal or official determination;
especially : a formal resolution

Prefer our definitions –

1. Moving target – the 2AC can specify the plan is done anytime – disad links and
counterplan competition is predicated off the plan happening now – kills any
neg offense
2. Limits – rejecting immediate implementation allows the aff to specify the plan
is done anytime – the neg can never predict and prepare for 2AC clarifications
 2NC – Delay Fiat Good
Delay Fiat is Good
1. Real World – policymakers delay bills through mechanisms likes filibusters-
debating about time of passage helps us develop skills to contend with the real
policy process which is the only impact that spills over out of debate
2. Best Policy Option – debate should be a question of the best choice, not just
what would actually happen
3. Education – it’s key to let us debate time-sensitive politics DAs-those debates
teach us about the political process which is an internal link to the Real-World
standards
4. Neg Flex – they’re key generics to check 2AC add-ons and small or new affs-first
and last speech, infinite prep, and biased literature means you err neg on
theory
5. Not Arbitrary – the should in the aff implies immediacy-anything else lets them
spike out of offense by saying the aff happens in 10 years to overcome
uniqueness
6. Reject The Argument Not The Team – their violation doesn’t rise to the level of
a voter since there’s no in-round abuse and kicking the CP solves
 2NC – Words Determine What the Plan Means
Words should determine the meaning of the plan:
a. Predictability- definitions create a stasis point in the literature- aff clarification
is arbitrary because there’s no basis before the round to predict what they’ll
say- exacerbates aff side bias and creates a huge research burden
b. Moving target- cx doesn’t check because 2AC clarification of plan
implementation can’t be negated by ev and allows them to moot the 1NC
c. Topic education- only definitions access any aff impacts because legal precision
outweighs- only a literature stasis point solves
Words and grammar matter in the real world- small legislative mistakes have huge
consequences and cause rollbacks
Heath 6 (Brad Heath, writer for USA Today, “Small mistakes cause big problems” USA Today,
November 20, 2006, https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-20-typo-problems_x.htm,
LASA-IZP)

If you're reading this in New York, you're probably too drunk to drive. That's because lawmakers accidentally got too tough with a get-tough
drunken-driving law, inserting an error that set the standard for "aggravated driving while intoxicated"
below the amount of alcohol that can occur naturally. The one-word mistake makes the new law
unenforceable, says Lt. Glenn Miner, a New York State Police spokesman. However, drivers with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08% or higher can still be prosecuted under other
state laws. In the legislative world, such small errors , while uncommon, can carry expensive consequences .

In a few cases around the nation this year, typos and other blunders have redirected millions of tax
dollars or threatened to invalidate new laws. In Hawaii, for instance, lawmakers approved a cigarette-tax
increase to raise money for medical care and research. Cancer researchers, however, will get only an
extra 1.5 cents next year — instead of the more than $8 million lawmakers intended. That's because legislators failed to specify that
they should get 1.5 cents from each cigarette sold , says Linda Smith, an adviser to Gov. Linda Lingle. When such mistakes happen, they often come
during the last-minute rush of legislative sessions, says Bruce Feustel, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures. What's important, he says, is that

lawmakers can fix them before they cause any harm. Courts generally intercede only in the most obvious cases, says University of Notre Dame law
professor John Nagle. If judges tried to change every legislative error, Nagle says, "you get the courts trying to figure out what they think is a mistake that might not be a mistake at all." New
York's mistake came in a bill meant to set tougher penalties and curb plea bargains for drivers well above the legal intoxication standard. Instead of specifying blood alcohol as a percentage, as
most drunken-driving laws do, New York set its threshold as 0.18 grams — "so low you can't even measure it," Miner says. Lawmakers plan to fix the mistake the next time they convene, says

The latest
Mark Hansen, a spokesman for the state Senate's Republican majority. He says it's not clear how the mistake happened, or why nobody caught it before legislators voted.

gaffe was in Arizona, where a misplaced period on the state's ballots raised questions about a cigarette
tax voters approved Nov. 7. The law called for an increase of 80 cents per pack, but the ballot had .80
cents per pack. The state plans to start collecting the tax when the vote is final, "but who knows what might happen?" says Arizona Revenue Department spokesman Dan Zemke.
"Somebody might go to court and say that's enough to throw the whole thing out."

Precise grammar is key to legal interpretation and real-world policy skills-anything

else allows misinterpretations
Farrell 8 (Robert C. Farrell, Quinnipiac University School of Law, “Why Grammar Matters: Conjugating
Verbs in Modern Legal Opinions” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Volume 40, Issue 1, Fall 2008,
https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=luclj, LASA-IZP)
Theuse of grammar to decide legal cases is not a novelty . The United States Supreme Court has stated that it "naturally
does not review congressional enactments as a panel of grammarians; but neither [does it] regard ordinary principles of English prose as
irrelevant to a construction of those enactments." Further, the Court has noted that "Congress' use of verb tense is
considered significant in construing statutes ." 13 This article will attempt to demonstrate that a basic familiarity with the
terminology of verb forms is not simply the pretentiousness of a pompous pedant but is rather a very useful tool in the
arsenal of legal argumentation.