AT Rithvik

AT Truth Testing ROB:

I concede we ought to compare the trueness and falsity of the resolution.

However, they don’t tell you how to do that. They just say that we ought to truth test.

Extend my ROB stuff.

My ROB/ Standard is the truth testing mechanism. How we prove the trueness or falsity of the
resolution is through who best ___. If they do it better, they are proving the res false better. Means my
framing is the conclusion of theirs.
 AT Ought = Can
There’s a performative contradiction here. They say in the ROB my burden is to prove the res true, but
they also say my burden to prove that the state can instill an absolute prohibition.

They only assume the link between this burden and their ROB. No warrant to this linkage.

Truth testing doesn’t even imply that something needs to be possible. For example, we can say that we
ought to imprison all rapists right now, in this current moment. Nearly any moral theory would say that
this statement is true, that the action is moral, but doesn’t require that it’s possible nor does it say that
the action will happen, which all their arguments for their burden assume.

The burden is only to prove I achieve the standard through which we view offense better than they do
and vice versa.

Prefer b/c

a. Textuality
a. they say textuality is the biggest impact b/c controls internal link. The resolution says
ought which implies moral obligation (dictionary.com) , meaning both of us only have to
prove that res good/bad as a gen principle.
b. In their text arg, the only stuff about ought=can is the synonym of prohibit “make
impossible”, but this is a modifier of the verb ought. The resolution says “ought to
prohibit” not “the actor will prohibit”. Means you conform to my definition of ought and
my burden to prove a moral obligation.
b. Structural Skew
a. Their burden creates an infinity to one structural skew. I have to prove that the
resolution is trivially true in every single instance for an absolute prohibition, meaning
they have to prove only a single instance where NP cannot be banned, and then they
win.

Even if I don’t win the textuality arg, structural skew still outweighs b/c infinity times any non-zero
number is still infinity. (Rikhav will give u a 30 for dis shit)
 AT Offense
None of their offense links back into their ROB because it only talks about actions not being possible
100% of the time, only fitting under their ought = can burden, not truth testing. They assume this link
chain. Means they have no offense.

On Derrida, they say that no rule can ever be absolute. Extend Derrida. They concede in cx a rule is
“something we should follow”, so this entire off is a rule you are introducing. But if we can’t follow it in
every single instance, according to you it means we ought not use it. Derrida takes out all their offense.

Note: (Derrida is also a skep trigger cuz it talks about interps not being stable. A new cross application
can mean there’s no offense for anyone)
 For the win 30
LD IS A VALUES DEBATE. THEY CONCEDE TO THE VALUE OF MORALITY AND DON’T INTRODUCE
ANOTHER VALUE. SO EXTEND MORALITY AS THE VALUE. THEY HAVE NO LINK FROM THEIR ROB TO THIS,
MEANING NONE OF THIS OFF CAN SERVE AS OFFENSE.