1. This mean they meet our interpretation they still fail to defend a hypothetical doesn’t – implementation of the plan by the United States federal government 2. Their form of thinking is bad regardless of whether is a failure to – “thinking good”, engage in governmental reforms causes a takeover by imperialist elites 3. This interpretation is arbitrary and unlimiting in their view, anything can count as – politics, which justifies all counter interpretations, that is impacted by the 1NC Lutz evidence 4. Switch-Side debate solves this all conceptions of politics can be run on the negative – ***Violation Debate*** 2NC Violation Extension Extend our violation the affirmative defend a hypothetical implementation of the – doesn’t plan/resolution 2NC AT: We Meet We Affirm the Rez as – “X” This does not meet our interpretation 1. You do not defend an implementation by the USfg that is the vital internal link to all of – our offense 2. This is the death of fairness you can affirm the topic as a metaphor, doorknob, dance, – rap, dream, or literally anything you want Lutz impacts this – 3. Our definitions of Resolved and the USfg prove that this argument is false affirming – the resolution is a governmental action they do not do this –
1. This doesn’t mean they meet our interpretation – they still fail to defend a hypothetical implementation of the plan by the United States federal government 2. Their form of thinking is bad – regardless of whether “thinking is good”, a failure to engage in governmental reforms causes a takeover by imperialist elites 3. This interpretation is arbitrary and unlimiting – in their view, anything can count as politics, which justifies all counter interpretations, that is impacted by the 1NC Lutz evidence 4. Switch-Side debate solves this – all conceptions of politics can be run on the negative ***Violation Debate*** 2NC Violation Extension Extend our violation – the affirmative doesn’t defend a hypothetical implementation of the plan/resolution 2NC AT: We Meet – We Affirm the Rez as “X” This does not meet our interpretation 1. You do not defend an implementation by the USfg – that is the vital internal link to all of our offense 2. This is the death of fairness – you can affirm the topic as a metaphor, doorknob, dance, rap, dream, or literally anything you want – Lutz impacts this 3. Our definitions of Resolved and the USfg prove that this argument is false – affirming the resolution is a governmental action – they do not do this
Framework___Gonzaga.docx