Converse of Resolution NiB:

brief

Interp: All neg advocacies must defend the converse of the resolution- Clarification: Converse refers to the polar opposite, thus this means that all negative advocacies must defend the opposite of what the resolution mandates. [ex]#### Violation: If the violation occurs it will be in the #### Standards:- Clash - PMC: NEG advocacies that try to essentially do the aff in a slightly different way destroy clash. This makes the vast majority of the PMC irrelevant to the rest of the debate and skews the aff out of the round by forcing them to read essentially all new material in the MG – this means the aff loses every round because they don’t have as much speech time- Impact Weighing: Without clash, both teams go for the same impacts instead of weighing diverse impacts against each other; Impact calc is key to decision making because in RW decisions there are both pros and cons to each decision and we need to learn how to weigh them- Debate is UQ key to clash: you can get other portable skills from reading books or doing IEs- Predictability - MG Skew: The MG only has 20 minutes to try and write answers to every possible advo the NEG could read – infinite neg options makes predictions in prep impossible- Forces Theory: This makes answers in the MG generic and bad, and encourages MG theory – lack of predictability kills depth of education since we can’t prep as good of answers #### Voters:1. Fairness

  1. Education

  2. Competing interpretations

A. minimizing judge intervention is key because it allows debaters to control the rules of the game they play and stops judges from imposing outside biases.

B. Prefer affirmative interpretations because neg can adapt easily to the AC interpretation, and they are already at a structural advantage due to the 12 to 5 minute block/PMR rebuttal skew

  1. This also means theory is a priori; it is necessary to know the rules of the game first, and debaters should be the ones making them, not judges.