a and presumed This means there’s distinction between “presumed consent” “soft where the latter is something distinct from the term of art in the res. consent” Violation: They defend a presumed consent system that includes a family “soft” veto. Standards: Ground – Autonomy ground the aff makes it hard for individuals to I can’t argue out if they a choice, want to fill out the form or were still hadn’t made didn’t deciding when they died because the family will just opt-out or that the wishes are ignored. The autonomy NC, which is the stockest position family’s on the topic, is almost unwinnable. That position should be the litmus test for any interp clearly bidirectional unless the neg gets the stock NC. – it’s Organ supply ground they artificially increase solvency by defending a soft – when the family would actually veto or how the process system. It’s unclear would work, so soft is far more likely to induce 1AR shifts in response to CPs or solvency arguments, that kills neg strategy. Predictability modifying presumed consent means that not – “soft” it’s “presumed The res does not say That means their interp is less accurate and consent.” “soft.” more arbitrary because it adds a word to the resolution to make the aff T. On face textual interpretation outweighs: you have to do more work to get to their interp, which makes it far less likely to be prepped. At best T because they defend presumed consent with added they’re extra procedures for a family veto. say a type of presumed consent but I They’ll it’s – predict what type use still harms neg prep. can’t they’ll –
This means there’s a distinction between “presumed consent” and “soft presumed consent” where the latter is something distinct from the term of art in the res. Violation: They defend a “soft” presumed consent system that includes a family veto. Standards: Ground – Autonomy ground I can’t argue the aff makes it hard for individuals to if they hadn’t made a choice, didn’t want to fill out the form or were still deciding when they died because the family will just opt-out or that the family’s wishes are ignored. The autonomy NC, which is the stockest position on the topic, is almost unwinnable. That position should be the litmus test for any interp – it’s clearly bidirectional unless the neg gets the stock NC. Organ supply ground – they artificially increase solvency by defending a soft system. It’s unclear when the family would actually veto or how the process would work, so soft is far more likely to induce 1AR shifts in response to CPs or solvency arguments, that kills neg strategy. Predictability – “soft” modifying presumed consent means that it’s not “presumed consent.” The res does not say “soft.” That means their interp is less accurate and more arbitrary because it adds a word to the resolution to make the aff T. On face textual interpretation outweighs: you have to do more work to get to their interp, which makes it far less likely to be prepped. At best they’re extra T because they defend presumed consent with added procedures for a family veto. They’ll say it’s a type of presumed consent – but I can’t predict what type they’ll use – still harms neg prep. out
Premier-Debate-Topicality-SO14.docx