{"text_format":"3","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":12,"sheets":["Inh","Adv 2","Adv 3","Solvency","Labor Frame","CASE","Psychoanalysis K","Topicality","Off 4","Off 5","Off 6","Macros"],"not_rendered":{"macros":1,"defined_names":11},"read":"whole","date_system":"1904"}

{"sheet":"Inh","index":0,"n_rows":1,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":1}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]

{"sheet":"Adv 2","index":1,"n_rows":3,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":3}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[]
[null,1]

{"sheet":"Adv 3","index":2,"n_rows":3,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":3}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[]
[null,1]

{"sheet":"Solvency","index":3,"n_rows":1,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":1}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]

{"sheet":"Labor Frame","index":4,"n_rows":10,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":10}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[null,null,"there is violence that is not calss- but libidnial","not going for it, they said violence is libidnal--that is the link","material vs libidinal, owrker can't voice suffering as raitonale","not going for it"]
[null,1,"black is an ontologyical mark, never grautitious violence","their only defense on psycho is wrong because laborers","racheting down of black suffering","just proves psychoaanlyiss"]
[null,null,"impact debate--nonblacks secure agency, junionr partners k",null,"impact turning rational analytics"]
["Ontologizing blackness as the schema for liberal pursuit of slavery, settler colonialism, and indentured labor denies the potential solidarities between those oppressed by liberalism.   ",{"$nulls":3},"their theory is antiblack-aparstic investment, conduit of reason"]
["Alternative:analyze black slavery as labor – otherwise we deny the intimacy and continuity with other forms of racial-colonial capitalism.",null,"coalaitons are bad for libidinal reasosn?"]
[]
[null,null,"ratioanlization da--economic causuality is black violence through rationalizing the irrational"]
[]
[null,null,"we concede links and root cause debate"]

{"sheet":"CASE","index":5,"n_rows":21,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":21}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["This year’s resolution is indexed within an antiblack semantic field. It hinges upon a fundamental question that is revealed once its enthymemic layers are excavated – how should executive powers be curtailed? – becomes – How should our unruly sovereign be corrected? – becomes – How can we restore coherence to our fractured political schema? The structure of this question is not neutral because, as Frank Wilderson writes – “the power to pose the question is the greatest power of all.”  ",null,"1. Afropessimism enables antiblackness by assuming things can’t change. Political movements change the world even when they fail by altering our grammars. ","tripartice archie to preserve game","A. We live in an not the antiblack world. The fight to form a better world is still underway, the world has not yet been historically achieved. Political action is key to change. These are human systems, not scientific ones. Every action has potential to modify the structure, because even structures are constantly chaning. ","delib assumes scope and outcome, yes/no is what masters wants, blacknes redemptive is bad, life granted back","mills and akbar--defense to redemption","rez question redress, can't enter terms of resolutiion"]
["The question captivates us into a theological ritual – answering this question isn’t optional because refusal is blasphemous, rather – it is compulsory as anything else ruptures the competitive guardrails we all hold dear. ",null,null,"executive curtailment equally restorive","B. The aff is not a link turn – fugitive enclaves assume a dominant antiblackness that makes these the exceptions – all examples prove otherwise ","false move that tomorrow is diffefertn",null,"eruptive inhabitation"]
["This query colludes with antiblack violence as it is stabilized by ontological pillars. Centering interrogation upon executive powers and curtailment presume that political purchase is operative – that civic protest or advocacy can redress a violation. It presumes violence can be halted by a legal tinkering that might restore the integrity of consensual political relations. ",null,null,"paeprs over black violence","C. This frames the progress possible arguments. Both sides can introduce examples, but the mere existence of examples on both sides prove that the system CHANGES. It is impossible for you to idneify a coherent pattern when both sides have compelling examples --- that merely proves they are relying on the same positivist tactics they seek to challenge. ","unasks resolutionsl quesiton, disatritucliating hat model",null,"empathetic disclosue-encounter antiblakcness"]
["Most of all, the question grounds its footing in the tripartite arch of redemption – stable powers/excessive powers/the prior plenitude of conventional authority – which evidences Wilderson’s 2016 explanation of redemption –  ",null,null,"unask resolutional question ontlogical talisman, only ethical--moten ipidment current, no redemtive eschatology","D. Forthcoming – The assumption nothing can be done assumes a future which has yet to unfold. Historical evidence cant be assessed if history has yet to unfold. Determining the world is constitutively black as such is impossible. Their judgment would be a priori – that is, prior to events actually unfolding. The future, unlike transcendental conditions such as language, signs, and reality, is, however, ex post facto: It is yet to come. Facing the future, the question isn’t what will be or how do we know what will be but instead the realization that whatever is done will be that on which the future will depend","moten--role of the judge investments",null,"attraction that does something game"]
[" “The question is always posed on…an arch of redemption. In other words, the question assumes an instance of plenitude…and then it moves from that assumption to a rupture. So, it moves from equilibrium to disequilibrium… the third move in the tripartite arc of narrative is, of course, the move of redemption, which is to say how can the plenitude… be restored.” ",null,null,"barbery and sexton--passivity","E.  Constructive Failure – the past and present continually shape the conditions for future emergence, i.e. Shirley Chisholm’s candidacy made Obama’s presidency possible. Each action shifts the window forward, and what kind of world we live in thus cannot be known without actions that will shift it. ","how does blackness save you, be skpeticla, what does it bring to community, instead they focus on game",null,"debate is not violent is rationalizing "]
["Though antiblackness saturates the resolution’s question as such, we are collectively urged to relegate said violence to the unthought through the axiom some call “the game” – a construct we supposedly all came here to play – a shrine that must not be defamed. The regulative protocols that structure debate present the resolution’s question as impervious – unasking and refusal become “aberrations” that must be tamed by entering the questions’ rhetorical field because that is where true agonism abides. This emphasizes Wilderson’s statement when he writes – “the rhetorical structure of debate, the demand of debate, the protocols are already ideologically laden…The protocols, themselves, are all ideological [constrictions] which preclude the…investigation of suffering.” ",null,null,"fugitive enclave","debate is not redemtive mills 17","gordon--jim row, trup, not contingent modes, but structural",null,"the more reasonable the game apeaprs the more you should refuse it"]
["We aren’t kindly escorted into the question, it’s more of a shove accompanied with an indifferent “that’s just how it goes”. This constriction both haunts debate’s past and percolates into the present – It’s no coincidence that “no plan, no win” is a credal statement embedded within judge paradigms, forging a theocratic assembly of “traditionalists”. It’s no coincidence that 2Ns drone through overviews crowned with the phrase, “the Aff must answer the resolutional question”. It is no coincidence that the Georgetown tournament created a retreat for debaters to escape the deluge of teams who fucked with the question at the Cal Swings. It’s no coincidence that some teams from schools like Louisville, Rutgers, Kansas, Liberty, and Wake are archived into the “limits DA”, frowned upon for exceeding the question’s domains. It’s not so subtly reinforced when Dallas sends an otherwise reasonable letter to every director including concern phrases suggesting donors are fickle and question donating if we don’t answer the question by focusing on race.",null,null,"not a refereundum x but suspension",null,"feasiblity=/= reliazaiblity, something about fugitivity",null,"antiblack questions-relegates to self serving discussion, embrace it and ignore it--oscialtes in a bad way"]
["This is a form of academic valorization – Caping for the question while scripting non-conforming scholarship like the Weekly Standard covers Towson national championships . Resolutional deliberation is against capital-B blackness ab initio even though it may provisionally usher lower-case b blackness into its folds. ",null,null,"ballot emphatic disclosure--you should track emphatic something,,this rquires skepticism",null,"battle fatigue, culminates endearing that gratuitious vioelnce",null,"no means of legal redress can demagnifi it -15th amendment/history"]
["It’s also not a coincidence that this enforcement is perceived as “non-existent” because antiblackness, as Saucier and Woods write, is “the mystical consciousness, the consciousness which is unclear to itself”  ",null,null,"model sequester subjectivity",null,"no counter example"]
["In this sense, the resolution should be thought of less as a locus that we should acquiesce to and more of a snare that coaxes us into accepting its antiblack terms. ",{"$nulls":4},"thomas ev-no warrant something? Barber says passivity is an action"]
["The centering of a fixable political theatre as the fulcrum for debate weds the ballot to a teleological principle of redemptive theory which solders the circuits of transcendental subjectivity, contorting dialogue into to a desire for administrative recuperation. This demands an appositional response that grounds study in the sociopoetics of interruption – this is “Mu”. “If ontology doesn’t work for [black people]—if it’s interdicted, the question of the meaning of being is not [blackness’s] question—then what [does blackness] do in thought is [it] unask[s] that question. [It doesn’t] answer it.” "]
["Every answer to the resolution is pre-figured in service of antiblack violence – the dyadic yes/no structure that pre-determines every response presumes that there is a not-yet-social order that can rejuvenate the polis. The resolutional question places debaters at a forked road with a shining horizon at the end of either path – curtailment/no curtailment – which begs the question of what becomes of those for whom the sun doesn’t rise? What becomes of those for whom transcendence is unavailable. "]
["Blackness is the void that corrodes the resolution’s operative statements – it is the foreign body that is expelled from the resolution’s parameters of realizability. This makes it necessary to re-think our relationship to its very structure. If the resolution is a testament of ontological presence, what happens when, in the words of Frantz Fanon in Black Skin White Masks, writes – “Ontology…does not permit us to understand the being of the black…” "]
["Thus, voting affirmative un-asks the resolution’s relation to executive authority – this refuses to insert the flesh into a field of inquiry that is structured via its occlusion.  "]
["You should read the affirmative’s research praxis as congruent with the experiences of Olaudah Equiano and Mary Pritchard that Wilderson and Moten center as instructive – “Equiano’s…on one ship—here’s some guy who comes he’s never seen before…This guy’s like “do you know who I am?” You don’t answer that question! You don’t answer that question. The answer is the answer, no matter what. Any answer is the answer that he wants. Because knowing who he is is capitulation to the demand that the question imposes” . "]
["“Mary Pritchard’s owner comes up to her and asks… ‘who are you…to think about freedom?’. And Mary Pritchard responds, ‘freedom is very sweet.’ She unasks the question” "]
["For Equiano, a “yes” confirmed the master’s prominence, and likewise, a “no” fell prey to the same structure of domination as the master wouldn’t hesitate to beat his presence into him – so he unasked. For Pritchard, the yes/no presented the same conundrum, so she bypassed the question’s horizon altogether – she unasked. "]
["The rez is poisoned with the same trappings – a “yes” invests in curtailment’s ontological vehicles – civic uplift, proximate relief, and reprieve – denied to blackness and a “no” presumes un-curtailed authority is the remedy to the political terrain which can usher humans into its precincts but never the anti-human. "]
["This refuses questions of political feasibility and liberal choice in favor of changing the coordinates of politics so as to pose a demand in excess of any present imagination – this is the unfathomable itinerary, this is the radicalization of every radical moment. "]
["Non-black arbitrators and academics are inevitably imbricated within an webs of antiblack desires. The role of the judge is to trace and scrutinize these investments as a moment of “empathetic disclosure” that ascends beyond “respectable” gestures of alliance. It’s not about how we “save” black studies, its about how black studies “saves” us!"]

{"sheet":"Psychoanalysis K","index":6,"n_rows":39,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":39}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Psychoanalysis requires a universal ahistorical psyche indebted to colonialism. Colonized cultures are mined for a glimpse of the so-called primitive psyche, unfettered by the superego of civilization.",null,null,"The affirmative relies on the developmental narrative of psychoanalysis – that the so-called primitive psyche lacks a psychological system that civilization imbues in all people. Freud first theorized this system in civilization and its discontents when writing about the contrasts between the primitive peoples of Africa and the civilized people of Europe. ","wilderson cites lacan but then says captivity is wrong, fannon as correct","no cards it is true"]
["Alternative, reject the developmental account of the psyche found in Freud and Lacan. It’s crucial for a non-authoritarian social analysis. ",1,null,"The impact is eurocentricism and the noble savage motif – both degrade conditions of life for people around the world, and prove the affirmtive’s unmasking of the resolution is foundationally unethical. ","reread wilderon card","1ac is trapped in semantic field then apply it to fw"]
["Alternative, reject the developmental account of the psyche found in Freud and Lacan. It’s crucial for a non-authoritarian social analysis. ",null,null,"And it turns the case – it proves their system does not tackle antiblackness but reinscribes. ","1ac is different grammar","we can change the grammar through commitment"]
[{"$nulls":3},"They have dropped psychoanalysis is not real. That’s the 90 second fraser card we read, ","zero explanation-what is alternative grammar","distinction without difference"]
[{"$nulls":4},"not redemtpio, research interacts with something","not relying on fixed degree of language"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Parole not langue – Their ontology assumes a fixed system of language where blackness is always coded against freedom, human etc. This relies on the synchronic symbolic order that sassuere first theorized, later used by Lacan. That’s only possible if you separate spoken language, parole, from written language, langue. This incorrectly denies agency to the speaken subject. Language, historical practices, and cultural institutons evolve over time, implying language and culture are not separate. A good example is the reappropriation of the word “queer”.  ","have to prove incompatibility","we read a lot of cards"]
[{"$nulls":3},"Takes out the their answers to T, their theory, and their solvency – both rely on an assumption and destabilization of fixed meaning which does not exist. ","even if lacan sucks, spillers says psyche is still important","they paraphrased the toery","libinality--focusing on psycho instead of balckess is bad"]
[{"$nulls":4},"rationalization, tranlsating the n word","language is performative--fraser evidence","alternative grammar they create"]
[{"$nulls":4},"reclaim and appropriate psychoanalysis",null,"no alternative solvency"]
[null,null,"perm do both","1. Permutations are a strategy for redemption,  they attempt to recuperate the flawed 1ac and links to their offense. ","don't penalzie black people",null,"black scholars labor to create that analytic"]
[{"$nulls":3},"A)their unlimited vision for the topic implies the negative must be able to read a countermethod in order to get back in the game ","spillers is an afro-pessimist",null,"permutation"]
[{"$nulls":3},"B) The whole 1AC is a plan text – their project of aesthetic refusal encompasses everything within their first nine minutes. Therefore, we should be allowed to win by disproving the desirability of any one component of that. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. Alt is mutually exclusive – our project is to accept the unknowability of the human psyche, which their unmasking of the resolution seeks to investigate. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"4. All the links are disads – thatll be below "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"we don't have to defend lacan and freud--wilderson said vioelnce outside social","1. Distinction without a difference – these arguments about how wilderson thinks of the role of the mother etc aren’t relevant to wilderson’s debt to the developmental account of psychoanalysis. "]
[null,null,"natal alienation--that doesn't link to parent stuff","2. They have read no cards substantiating this. They don’t get to paraphrase evidence and claim "]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. Wilderson depends on psychoanalysis \nWilderson 11 "]
[{"$nulls":3},"Specifically lacan \nCulp 16 "]
[{"$nulls":3},"The end of the world” this is psychoanalytic. \nWilderson 10 \n"]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"1. Grammar – their argument for the inarticulability of black suffering relies upon a fixed theory of language that constitutes black as dangerous, threat etc. But the reason that this is unchangeable is that it is fixed.  That relies upon a single, synchronic order that fraser critiques. They did this precisely – cross ex proves, the 1ac opened with a discussion of semantic fields"]
[null,null,"there are fluctuations between antiblackness","2. Enculturation – their examples of people being brought in to a grammar that codes blackness proves their wedding to developmental anthropology. It assumes that when born, or in the so called “primitive state”, we lack the antiblack grammar, but civilization produces this system. This relies on the civilization myth and a noble savage motif that our evidence critiques. The noble savage motif causes genocide. "]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"The noble savage motif causes genocide. \nVictor LI English @ Dalhousie ‘2 "]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. Fanon – his politics gets trapped in the reaction-formation of sovereignty and self-mastery.  It assumes a collective subject that can escape the so called modern condition of trauma and return to a state outside of civilization.   Cheah 11"]
[{"$nulls":3},"4. If they’re right proves no aff or answer to topicality. If language can fluctuate, blackness is not trapped within a single symbolic order that always codes it against human, freedom, etc. "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"filtered through rationalistity--performatively proven","1. Not explained – this was a 2 sentence blip that lacked explanation. We are interpreting this as “we reinterpreted their theory” "]
[null,null,"nonblacks continget psyche that's an escape valve","2. They have no reinterpreted it – we read links to their tags, which proves THEY have relied upon this theory, not just their authors. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. No ideas come up indepdentlty – they rely on past scholars, and we can indict them."]
[{"$nulls":3},"4. Logical fallacy – the plural of anecdote isn’t evidence. For every example they give, we can give more examples. "]
[null,null,"A2 Psychoanalysis = colonial. \nHochberg 2018 ","1. Not them – they didn’t reinterpret psychoanalysis like spillers. All the links prove"]
[{"$nulls":3},"2. This card is defending using psychoanalysis as a last ditch effort. We have an alternative to the last resort theory of their system. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. Can’t be reappropriated: its caked in to their theory"]

{"sheet":"Topicality","index":7,"n_rows":75,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":75}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[{"$nulls":3},"1. Debate is a game. We’re both here to win and any other understanding of debate is bad faith. They subscribe to every competitive feature of debate, such as wins and losses, speaker points, speech times, cross examination, awards ceremonies, trophies, etc, but choose not read a topical plan for a competitive advantage. Games fail if both teams don’t have an equal opportunity to win. The only thing different from this weekend and all the others spent writing papers is the competitive aspect of the activity. We have all agreed that this is a valuable use of our time, so vote negative to preserve the procedures that enable this activity to flourish. ","ontology of debate is ab","debate procedural game first--insurmountable aff wins all the time, new aff rves this argument, you can agree but don't vote for them, game integraity","debate is antiblack subject formation"]
[{"$nulls":3},"2. Procedural fairness comes first. The ballot can only cast a provisional judgement on who did the better debating. You can personally agree with everything they have said, but they should NOT be able to reap the benefits of competition e.g winning while violating its core principles. ","it implicates the practie","you can solve by talking about shit elsewhere","predetermines the game"]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. Clash is a positive value of our model that outweighs. Predictable limits foster productive disagreements that teach students to develop the best arguments possible – our model encourages students to understand critically both problems and solutions related to executive power through in depth research and discussion. This develops skills and knowledge that can be used for any topic and advocacy. Whether you want to be a bureaucrat, an anarchist, or anything else, clash operationalizes all values of debate – translating scholarship into action by mastering the “burden of judgement” develops nuanced understandings of languages, relations of power, forms of subjectivity, and practices of freedom. That’s Tully. ","they do activity over community","clash benefit of model--fullest set of argument iterative debate","n word question--why is it so--debate has an ethical operating system"]
[{"$nulls":3},"4. Clash turns all affirmative offense. Revolutionary pedagogy requires preparation and discussion. The complicated struggle to freedom is filled with difficult choices that must be debated. Productive frictions between well-prepared teams gets us towards the most accurate understandings of state violence and how to resist that violence. Our evidence gives the example of the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party and their commitment to dialectical debating, and how that is the ONLY MECHANISM to inform research which is their 1ac argument That’s Griffin. BUT dismissing the law permits the John Yoo’s and conservative reactionaries of the world to do the research for us and invent the legal archive for us. Law affects us constantly, and our scholarship in this place uniquely contributes to understandings of modern violence. Only circulating legal knowledge can create impetus to challenge Trump and abuses of executive power. It outweighs the aff – it’s a critique of their political strategy of withdrawal from engagement, and serves as terminal defense to aff solving anything. That’s Passavant. ","turn prodcuedurlaism, unfairn topic debates, procedures sutrue antiblacknesss, barner and sexton critique trump era, mend the wound of black injury, debate is an arena of ethical commitments","it refines and improves argument, in dpeth reesearch staratgies on antiblacnenss","you should refuse the game if it iab"]
[{"$nulls":4},"unequal footing is good--resolution redemtive frame--refuse it","clash turns offense--revolutional pedaggoy, training ground, alt is dogmatic, you want to challenge redemtpion","counter examples---rob arbitray framing, we homoginze black people, black on black violence claim, you are fox news demonizing blm's, counter model hurts other black people, that is antiblack rationale, 50% in terms of agnoism, you can be white fludiity?"]
[{"$nulls":5},"cede the olitical dominate terms","b vs B blackness"]
[{"$nulls":4},"justifies any 1ac on ssd?","situate laws in our debates","ieepa aff--muslim man example--that kind of patholgization "]
[{"$nulls":5},"conseratviet fill in is worse","fairness is good--distribution da, "]
[{"$nulls":4},"counter model--black scholarhip, you don't get examples but we do?",null,"negative reading of their model of framework"]
[{"$nulls":5},"antiblakcness--we'l win defense but we don't need that, they don't have solvency for structure if they can't either","this answers clash exportability"]
[{"$nulls":4},"xxxx",null,"mobilize antiblakcness way-train to be a cop"]
[{"$nulls":4},"surveillance is antiblack ","clash is a better mechanism","unfairness is for dartmouth is bad for other people"]
[{"$nulls":5},"they don't solve this since you just said don't be redemptive","black on black violence da--fungibility"]
["Topical affirmatives must substantially increase statutory and/or judicial restrictions on the executive power of the President of the United States in the topic areas. ",1,"[1] Circumscription DA – Their vision of the game relegates the capacity to refuse the antiblack question to an unthinkable position i.e. our arguments about academic valorization. This curricular silencing makes it to where blackness must either be expunged altogether to the theoretical graveyard or go through moments of structural adjustment to coincide with the question’s frame. Framework is a bastion for libidinal policing. This filters all 1AC examples as warrants as to why debate is always already more than a game. ",1,null,"ciritque of their method--they have homogonized it","counter model---refusal not repair, ab fucks up debate now, blackness didn't break dbeate."]
["1. Executive power is the power to execute the laws.  ",null,"Saucier and Woods ",2,null,"no singular black scholarship"]
["2. Statutory restrictions must include limits imposed by legislation. ",null,null,"3. they homgooinzed black dbate--that's bad",null,"introduce to some degree"]
["3. A judicial restriction requires a decision by a Court or judge. ",{"$nulls":4},"akbar evidence--not bad includsion--black liberation strategy concrete proposal"]
["Their interpretation explodes predictable limits. Non-topical advocacies encourage the affirmative to dodge negative strategies, which are all based on a predictable reading of the resolution. The negative requires pre-round research in order to stand a chance against the affirmative’s infinite preparation and use of traditional standards of debate such as permutations. Including their affirmative makes negative research an impossibility, even if we have “ground” to debate them. It greenlights any methodology or orientation that is tangentially related to the topic. Negative preparation requires in depth case negatives. ",2,"unfairness is good--blackness impossibiel--direlection inevitble- springboard for ivoelnce-non blacks brought down to that position--moten","1. unlimiting--relation to our impacts, not redemtion, no limiting function",null,"black lives matter movement"]
["1. Procedural fairness. Debate is a game and we are all here to win. Debate is a competitive activity and requires game values to function. This is the largest impact; we have all chosen to spend our weekend here in order to compete. ",null,null,"2. unlimited topics is good for the aff--maximize aff prep",null,"cirtic of something"]
["2. Clash. You should privilege rigorous debate over different political paradigms over endorsing any one political paradigm.  Unflinching commitments ignore the complexity and partiality of any political theory. Promoting clash is key to interrogate complex issues, problematize solutions, and actualize any benefits of debate. ",null,"xxxxx","too many args creates overload",null,"unfairness good--our il is too big, affs shouldn't win all dbeates, things snowball, you can defend the squo on everything, worse corrective, small schools, cuel optimism da, "]
["Clash is the fulcrum of revolutionary pedagogy and social justice advocacy. \nGriffin, 16 ",null,null,"3. The threshold for our internal link is low. Debate is a game of inches not miles, and small advantages snowball into the aff winning every debate. Consider what the Northwesterns of the world can do with their interpretation, or even a wily 2A like Raam. Absent predictable interpretations, teams will always race to the margins in order to win. That means their utopia where debaters engage in new and interesting critical literature completely falls by the wayside – the majority of teams will find tiny modifications with zero negative literature that meet their interpretation! ",null,"you would lose if you said racist stuff"]
["Contributing to a legal archive prevents the law from becoming nothing more than John Yoo’s tool. Legal discourse can activate our critical potential. ",null,null,"4. Limits are the internal link to competition. All competitive activities require procedural rules to function. Eliminating limits creates an insurmountable barrier that eliminates clash and research, both of which are launchpads for success. Both sides are aff and neg throughout the tournament, so you should seek the interpretation that preserves the equality between those two sides. ",null,"mills ev---not redemptive strategies"]
[{"$nulls":3},"5. Impact on ov",null,"tva--surveillance or sanctions things"]
[{"$nulls":3},"6. Cruel optimism. The ballot will never resolve structural barriers. Ask yourself how voting for the other team in one debate will resolve the libidinal economy, nothing about not reading a plan resolves the reasons why debate is unfair to some, ie costs, lack of coaching, judges being assholes, etc. They create a false sense of importance, when in reality they are just here to win as much as we are. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"7. Getting rid of procedural fairness is the worst corrective. It makes debate structurally unfair for those who can’t dedicate months of their life preparing a negative to every single affirmative they allow. We should hold onto the resolution because it’s the only thing everyone definitively has access to - no one got a head start with the topic and everyone eventually has to go neg. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"8. You can vote for procedural fairness, and still tackle structural unfairness. The T version and Switch Side prove our interpretation still allows them to access their scholarship on some level. All we said is that they shouldn’t get the ballot because they were untopical. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"9. They are as complicit in these forms as we are. They ARE PARTICIPATING in a competitive activity. All of the factors they have identified are a result of competition, not reading a topical aff! Equality of outcomes is impossible, because competition requires winners and lowers. "]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"role of the ballot is better debating, argument ciritic, anything else is arbitrary"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"breaking new is a way to avoid antiblackness","they are trying to do things for advantage"]
[{"$nulls":3},"1. Switch side mitigates the scope of their offense. Only our interp allows both sides to access their preferred criticism at some poinn. Their affirmative should be a negative strategy. Criticizing XYZ creates a valuable debate that trains debaters to evaluate issues from multiple sides. That’s Tully. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"2. They have to win a unique reason why they HAVE to read their criticism of XYZ on the AFF – their critique doesn’t outweigh, because all sides have to be aff eventually or negate their aff, so they just force others into supposedly problematic positions. The threshold for mitigating their offense is low, because switch side debate proves they can introduce their scholarship into the round.  "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"plan focus and technical shit if we read a plan"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"wilderson--idoelogical constriction--rule breaking--phantas--antiblack reading of the game--stimulus that keeps that thrivign","ou don't have to be redemtive or liberal telos"]
[null,null,"antiblackness outweighs fairness","overview"]
[null,null,"ethical and conversations with ab are better than fairness","clash arguments turn their shit"]
[{"$nulls":3},"1. Argument development and research. Predictable definitions of the topic promote sustainable research throughout the year. Their interpretation forces teams to run to the most radical positions that can disagree with everything, which obscures the vast majority of the literature on executive authority. These are stale debates that obviate new and creative research which informs students of the unique ways that executive authority works in society. These debates are also structurally impossible for the negative, because the majority of positions lose to permutations, shifting affirmatives, or arguments that the aff is simply more prepared on. "]
[null,null,"worse reading of their evidence--don't become good lawyers but become cops","2. In depth debates. Limited topics encourage second and third order argumentation where both sides can anticipate the other sides’ response and prepare an answer. This creates the most interesting debates where both sides are prepared to have an in depth discussion that moves beyond tautologies. Training students how to best develop their arguments refines convictions, and incentivizes new and valuable research on an infinite amount of topics related to executive authority. The iterative process of debate ensures we explore the depths of that research throughout the year. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"we don't create docile liberal subjecitity--lots of creativity"]
[]
[null,null,"antiblackness comes before movements and shit because they can reproduce antiblackness"]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"COUNTER model"]
[{"$nulls":3},"1. This isn’t an interpretation because it doesn’t INTERPRET the words in the resolution, leading to all of our predictability arguments. "]
[null,null,"moten--performative strategies something xxxx","2. There’s no brightline or way for you to determine if a team meets it---in a world of their interp, how can you determine if a team sufficiently provides a descriptive analytic of the libidinal economy??"]
[{"$nulls":3},"3. This double turns a lot of their offense- they’ve attempted to limit the topic in some way- which proves our argument that some limits are inevitable and good"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"blackness dind't fuck up debate, the antiblack parametes did","1. Our interp of the topic encourages the affirmative team to introduce their literature base into the debate space. There are topical ways to access their literature.. "]
[{"$nulls":3},"2. Examples – with the text for bosley \na. Text: the United States federal government should end emergency trade powers. \ni. Discussing the role of emergency sanctions in intenraitonal  racial security and trade policies can infroma  broader critique of sovereignty an dht eUSFG. Can critique separation of powers, can critique liberal legal restraints, can critique sq trump exceptionalism – you can say that none of this is an exception which his what we have done with our International Emergency Economic Powers aff! \n"]
[{"$nulls":3},"b. USFG should end bulk data collection – targets =-= black activist strategies – outside of the liberal form of restraint – enables stuff \ni. It doesn’t require you to say government good, just that some legal action is necessary \n"]
[{"$nulls":3},"flaws don't disprove this"]
[null,null,"they have to win the resolutional question is not antiblack"]
[null,null,"lower case blackness","6. Fiat and legal mechanisms aren’t mutually exclusive with the aff—using fiat as a tool for goal-oriented imagination is necessary for any successful liberation movement--akbar 18"]
[null,null,"capital B blackenss is compatible with the resolution"]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"STATE BAD"]
[null,null,"carve out spaces to not respond","7. No link to state bad.  Topical affs aren’t roleplaying, they’re game playing. Nothing about saying the USFG should means you adopt the epistemic baggage of a USFG actor --- it’s merely a predictable way of identifying the shortcomings of the status quo. "]
[null,null,"they have to go for frameowrk","8. Link turn. Clash creates a mechanism to challenge state power, and the topical versions of the aff as well as switch side debate prove topical debate is the best way to challenge state power. "]
[null,null,"sever libidinal investments","9. Impact turn. Discussing the law is key to challenge state power. If we don’t invent the legal archive of executive power, trigger-happy conservatives like John Yoo who created the torture memos will do it for us. That’s Passavnat. "]
[null,null,"hide and conceal your investments with neutrality","10. Their offense is tiny. You can hate and dismiss the government 99.999 pecent of the time, debate is that one time when you accept certain constraints for the purpose of the activity. Nothing about a single affirmation is key. "]
[]
[]
[{"$nulls":3},"they don't limit out racisti shit and you can vote against that shit for other reasons"]

{"sheet":"Off 4","index":8,"n_rows":3,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":3}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[]
[null,1]

{"sheet":"Off 5","index":9,"n_rows":3,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":3}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[]
[null,1]

{"sheet":"Off 6","index":10,"n_rows":3,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":3}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[]
[null,1]

{"sheet":"Macros","index":11,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":18}
["Command","Function "]
["Control+Shift+N","Auto-Numbers"]
[]
["Control + I ","Add Row "]
[]
["control + b","Group Selection "]
[]
["control + shift + b","Undo Group Selection "]
[]
["Control + S ","New Sheet "]
[]
["Control + L ","5 spaces down "]
[]
["Control + K ","5 spaces up"]
[]
["Control + Pageup","Next Sheet to the left"]
[]
["Control + Pagedown ","Next Sheet to the Right "]