T Just Society =/= Unjust Societies – Interpretation: A just society is one that conforms to what is morally right Merriam Webster n.d. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/just or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good” “acting Violation: [They defend X country, which is not morally upright because…] Standards: Underlimiting They get to defend any debates on JanFeb – country. Last year’s prove no one gets into much depth when the aff defends some random small – country like Peru or Malaysia. There are like 200 countries. Neg possibly can’t prepare for all of a limit on only those countries that are them. “Just” puts reasonably morally right, which makes the topic debateable for the neg. is a “Just” predictable cap since in the resolution their counter-interp is arbitrary. it’s – Ground they create bizarre fiat/solvency problems where the unjust country – might not follow through with allowing opt-out or family veto. The best and most real world neg solvency arguments are circumvention claims that the country will pass a law but uphold it properly. They fiat too much by supposing that won’t unjust countries act justly, which has little real world relevance to consider and little neg lit. No one is writing articles that that [X] country is say, “well let’s pretend moral and Ground is key against plans because otherwise the debate will be just.” one-sided.
T – Just Society =/= Unjust Societies Interpretation: A just society is one that conforms to what is morally right Merriam Webster n.d. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/just “acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good” Violation: [They defend X country, which is not morally upright because…] Standards: Underlimiting – They get to defend any country. Last year’s debates on JanFeb prove – no one gets into much depth when the aff defends some random small country like Peru or Malaysia. There are like 200 countries. Neg can’t possibly prepare for all of them. “Just” puts a limit on only those countries that are reasonably morally right, which makes the topic debateable for the neg. “Just” is a predictable cap since it’s in the resolution – their counter-interp is arbitrary. Ground – they create bizarre fiat/solvency problems where the unjust country might not follow through with allowing opt-out or family veto. The best and most real world neg solvency arguments are circumvention claims that the country will pass a law but won’t uphold it properly. They fiat too much by supposing that unjust countries act justly, which has little real world relevance to consider and little neg lit. No one is writing articles that say, “well let’s pretend that [X] country is moral and just.” Ground is key against plans because otherwise the debate will be one-sided.
Premier-Debate-Topicality-SO14.docx