Must Read Trigger Warnings:

TW: Sexual Assualt#### Interp: When debaters read positions that include discussions of sexual violence and/or rape (and/or whatever else may be triggering), they must read a trigger warning for said content before the start of said position

Vio: They don’t

Standards:

Violence

• Exclusion: Not reading trigger warnings causes particular debaters to be forced out of the round in a multitude of ways. Best case scenario is that debaters have to leave the room as the triggering content is read, and the worst case is that they get actively triggered and are not only subjected to psychic violence but unable to compete. Either way, they are violently pushed out of the round.- Systems of Violence: Because of the way in which systems of violence like patriarchy, cisnormativity, heteronormativity, anti-blackness, and colonialism structuralize entire populations as always already deserving sexual violence, it means that not reading trigger warnings turns debate into even more of a circle jerk of privilege in which marginalized debaters are violently attacked simply for existing.- IVI: Even if we don’t win the theory shell, this is an independent reason to vote for the negative because the 1AC is engaging in, and actively defending, proximal violence against those of us who have to deal with sexual violence as a daily experience. This comes before all other offense, because questions of procedural fairness, education, or substance assume that debaters have the ability to engage in the round in the first place.#### Voters:- Access- Prior question: Cross apply point 1C, access is a prior question to all other impacts. This means that absent access it is quite literally impossible to evaluate questions of fairness, education, or the substance of the 1AC/NC because debaters have already been pushed out of the round. Debate is pointless if debaters can’t fucking debate.CI > Reasonability- Judge intervention: Reasonability justifies judge intervention, this is due to the fact that even if a def of reasonability is provided, every judge is going to interpret the way that operates based on their own pre-conceived notions of what is reasonable and what is not.- Fairness and Education: This is bad for both fairness and education; we can’t understand the topic or procedural education that was discussed in the round if the judge is just goanna vote on their own opinions. This also creates structural unfairness because it’s the definition of un-reciprocal, neither of the teams gets an equal path to the ballot because it is decided regardless of what happened in the round. - Competing Interps solves: CI is able to resolve this because it provides two defined interpretations, which contain within them defined ways to weigh the offense of standards and counter standards which means that there is no way for the judge to intervene because the debaters have already set the weighing mechanisms for them.Theory is a-priori- Know the Game: We have to know the rules of the game before we debate, if we don’t understand the procedural limits that contextualize the way in which substance is deployed then there is no way we can understand what those substance arguments actually mean.- Kills Debate: This abrogates the point of debate, there becomes no substantial difference between debate and expository speech because there is no definition for the specific competitive format for which substantial arguments are deployed on.Misc and Case Blocks: