{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":15,"sheets":["Inh","Adv 3","Solvency","inherency","prez powers da","concon cp","t-restrict","Congress cp","Emerging Tech","Net Neutrality","gerrymander da","admin state da","t-substantial","nearly all","Macros"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":11,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1904"}

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

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

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

{"sheet":"inherency","index":3,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["interp: the aff must meet attitudinal, existential, and structural inherency – it’s the aff’s burden to prove uniqueness to their advocacy"]
[null,1]
["increase does not imply preexistence"]
[null,null,"no incentive for courts"]
[null,null,"no safe harbor"]
["no neg ground ebcause aff is the squo",null,"no struct inehre"]
[null,null,"brand x law of land"]
[null,null,"increase ci"]
[]
[null,null,"infinitire regressive"]
[null,null,"100% differnet"]
[null,null,"we aren't the squo"]
[null,null,"any small change is neg ground"]

{"sheet":"prez powers da","index":4,"n_rows":8,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":8,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["the president receives total deference\nNelson 17 ",null,"no spillover"]
["the aff crushes discretion – turns oversight\nLugosi 3 ",1]
["extinction\nYoo 17 "]
[null,null,"if spillover--maintsin enough flex"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"link not about the aff-actions congress"]

{"sheet":"concon cp","index":5,"n_rows":27,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":27,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["solves the aff and causes follow on\nGoldstein 88 \n",null,"no circ-case debate"]
[null,1]
[]
[null,null,"pdb"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Perm – do the plan when the counterplan’s amendment is ratified --- this will probably take a few years, meaning that delay solves the net benefit "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"It's not intrinsic --- they introduce the element of time into their CP text by explicitly dividing the amendment process into temporally distinct phases "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Only the plan’s fiat establishes SCOTUS buy-in and consistent application of Chevron --strauss"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Amendment fiat is a voting issue – it’s multi actor and multi level which makes it impossible to generate any offense. We should be able to say states say no and approval takes forever. ","rant"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Perm – do the counterplan. An Amendment is one possible way that the USFG could implement the plan"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Endless enforcement litigation guts solvency and means the amendment links to the NB\nSullivan 96 "]
[]
[]
[null,null,"They destroy the rule of law through excessive politicization "]

{"sheet":"t-restrict","index":6,"n_rows":30,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":30,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["restrict",null,null,"our interp-prohibit, you just do brand x, you have to do all deference","reasonability--predictable lit base"]
["in the area",1,null,"in the area","no contextual evidence"]
[null,null,null,"topic is 5 affs","arbitrary"]
["limits-subsets",null,null,"inidivudal treaties, deference or trade","interp--restrictions on agency intepr and nearly all deference"]
["neg ground--something about power",null,null,"counter interp--something authority","cross apply them--there would still be exceptions"]
[null,null,null,"links to limits da--come from authority could be anything","can't delete all deference"]
[null,null,null,"no ground","exec power--restricts agency interps to am ore strict standard of review"]
[null,null,null,"bidirectionalirty--affirmative, one defernece good, one defreence bad","core ground-chevron bad etc"]
[null,null,null,"deference bad should be core ground","no innovation--no advocate for all trade power "]
[null,null,null,"subsets can have both sides"]
[null,null,null,"neg is more precise--aff inflates ground because coree controversy","Executive power means the “power to execute the law” – we restrict the ability for executive agencies to determine the implementation of law\nPrakash ‘3 "]
[]
[null,null,"wm aff prhobit band x",null,"In means to be enclosed by something – means you have to be within the area"]
[null,null,null,null,"Area means a concept’s whole scope – means we have to be within that "]
[null,null,"restriction legal rule"]
[null,null,null,null,"don't link to bidirectionality--question of flex, not yes/no deference"]
[]
[null,null,"Vote aff for precision – preround prep is guided by literature – artificially limiting the topic causes a moral hazard and distorts our understanding of the controversies",null,"esr and generics, court politicsn and sop"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"reasonability--no race to bottom or inev-better contextal"]
[null,null,"Overlimiting—their interpretation only allows one bad, overly-sweeping Aff per area—that creates a world where Only the neg can innovate, which A. makes the Aff a sitting duck AND B. guarantees that debates don't change from now til the NDT, which is STALE, not fun, and kills research incentives--[PICs mean that ONLY right-sizing the mechanism to the advantage solves]","just a qestion if limits exist, you have advantages, something about cp's"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Functional limits check – ESR, solvency advocates, kritiks\nReasonability – good is good enough, their interp incentivizes continually shifting the goalposts to limit out the aff \n","need link net benefits"]
[null,null,null,"interp doesn't solve these things"]
[null,null,null,"reasonability is bad-arbitrary, intrinsic to rez is reasonable, judge intervention"]
[null,null,null,"ci is good for research"]
[null,null,"no extra T arg – we restrict process of judicial review  \nAgency interpretations are the executive power\nVermeule 17\n","rewards good debating"]

{"sheet":"Congress cp","index":7,"n_rows":36,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":36,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["the first plank solves the aff but doesn’t link to courts\nSiegel 18 ",null,null,null,"first plank links--statutes are ambiguuous inevitable",null,"permaent doesn't solve--enhance flexibility"]
["same with the third plank\nNickels 8 ",null,null,null,"this is squo-agencies something",null,"don't move justification for flip flop"]
[null,null,null,null,"net neturality plank doesn't solve-they think they are doing common carriers now","no deficit--permanet reglations, wont t be struck down","no stable frameworok investment-floberg "]
[null,null,null,null,"that leads to price out","net neutrality is at risk--brand x, declassiy common carriers, congress makes them common carriers","links to nb--challenges ot permantent regs--courts get involved"]
[null,null,"pdb","links--court ruling","no ai arms control agreeemtns","resolves disparity","obama stuff "]
[null,null,null,null,"about nano","yes IS's but not common carriers now","hard power and leadership"]
[null,null,null,null,"they don't solve china because say no, but follow silicon","unwilling to engage doesn't make  sense--obama policy is like silicon valley, it is sufficient for leadership"]
[null,null,"links to nb",null,"conress can't be detailed enough","creates a mandate of regulations"]
[null,null,null,"1st plank says permament rule making","doesn't solve or links to nb about flex","includes a bunch of stuff"]
[null,null,null,"preserves agency flexibility",null,"kick it for us, space weapons and robots, that checks the impact"]
[null,null,"doesn't solve because doesn't remove legal jsutification","courts can do rollbacks","arms control plank fails--card","brings us in line with international law"]
[null,null,null,"legal justificaiton doesn't matter--making isps common carries solves net neutralit without court action-their card","fcc free to change stadrnds post--cp","sufficiency first"]
[null,null,null,"fcc can't go against congress listed restriction",null,"arms control works-mich ev bad, US in l ine with itnernation law--that's bandwagoning"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"kick the planks that suck"]
[null,null,"other planks about nano not AI"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Litigation battles and counterveiling regulation ensure no solvency – net neutrality is law now, but Brand X means agencies can opt not to enforce it – rinse and repeat with the counterplan, courts key","context of isps to be common carries, the cp fiats"]
[null,null,null,"title 2 is able to restore internet freedom--cp gets rid of"]
[]
[null,null,null,"CP solves US tech leadership – establishes clear guidelines and enhances international credibility by adhering to arms control treates. (WSU = blue) "]
[]
[null,null,null,"cp bans space weapons, bans autonomous robots"]
[null,null,null," "]
[null,null,null,"justifeis all these planks, you read these cards"]
[null,null,null,"we adhere to arms control"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Congress can’t clarify --- statutes inevitably read as ambiguous without the plan \nRipieni 98 ","aff but not cp--congress can interpret statutes is not inev, ambiguousness is inev, congress will write more bad laws for agency flex so they can do what they want"]
[null,null,null,"can't stop ambiguity and preserve flexibility"]
[]
[null,null,"Retaining some authority key --- flexible policy framework is key to innovation\nWatson 18 ","cp increases flexibility--permananet regulations"]
[null,null,null,"we stop impacts of advs"]
[]
[null,null,null,"obama policy solves-we fiat that"]

{"sheet":"Emerging Tech","index":8,"n_rows":17,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":17,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Extreme deference to agencies established by the Brand X decision ensures oscillating agency interpretation and policy incoherence across myriad areas of regulation ",null,null,null,null,null,"ai is too long term","ai outweighs, define future of combat, bigger nuke war, china is weaponizing them, agenciese hav sufficient flexibility, ossified framework in suo, overreach bad for investor predictability"]
["Specifically, Brand X deference renders agency flexibility too excessive for effective regulation of emerging technology --- returning to previous Chevron standards enables sufficient flexibility ",null,null,null,null,null,"studies--doesn't ramp up, not omnipotent being, humans develop, shit is too far off","framework for regulation is far more important--US gov intervention, hands off bad, "]
["Brand X deference ensures that agencies can no longer credibly commit to long-term regulation mechanism --- only judicial restrictions can solve  ",null,null,null,"impossible-can't become omnipotent, not how it works",null,"circ--brand x is elimianted, other legal justifications, to preserve flex, FCC will mess up internet providers","brand x is goldilocks"]
["Rapid advancements in nanotech and AI are coming and risk global war---a U.S. regulatory lead role is key",null,null,null,"ai and nano too far out",null,"presmption!","agencies do whatever they want--bad for investors"]
["AI development is inevitable and isn’t inherently malicious, but effective regulation of the private sector is essential to counter human bias in AI – otherwise AI transparency is impossible which collapses democracy",null,"agency circumvention crushes solvency – multiple legal avenues and empirics prove",null,"AI predictions are speculative, not supported by the lit base, and it is equally likely the tech goes right",null,"agencies adhere to court rulings but they would circ through technicalities?","AI technologies, not destorying the world, US leadership necessary to solve"]
["US democratic collapse causes extinction",null,null,null,null,null,"geist ev says AI impossible, bostrom is talking about AI, doesn't scale up","FB 2016 election, videos, ai impacts democracy"]
["Restricting Brand X results in a modified Chevron process that solves policy predictability while maintaining deference to agencies’ technical expertise ",null,"ai's impossible geist 15","no defense-ai not nanotech","AI is here to help & it’s just a tool\nMurphy 15 ",null,null,"change opinion before polls"]
["The timeframe for the internal link is immediate – only the plan creates a sustainable mechanism for AI regulation that allows sufficient expertise for adaptation to future tech within a guided framework",null,null,"losing arms race extinction causes china to weapon systems",null,"2018/19-ai escalating, lots of investment",null,"circumvention is generic, not our evidence, aff binds them to net neutrality, always find another way----this takes out the cp, 2ac evidence proves circumvention cp, delegations are ambiguous, can't take out plan, thraet of judicial review solves agency flexibility"]
["Hands-off regulatory strategy destroys AI leadership – cedes our current advantages to China",null,null,"outweighs nke war-npreditable and swarms","circ--agencies adapt to chevro, trump doesn't matter, acting internally","early and often solve weaponization"]
["Collapse of AI leadership causes conflict with China and an AI arms race that outweighs nuke war – guarantees miscalc and multiple crises escalate ",null,"zero impact – consensus\nBaum 15 ","trump complies-giliani won't litigate agianst sc",null,"19--AI uses voter minds--videos and hacking"]
["AI arms race makes autonomous weaponization inevitable and causes extinction ",null,null,"agency will circumvent in squ takes out congress",null,"human bias in the first place"]
[null,null,null,"us china developing tech now--early regs are key",null,"2015 is old"]
[null,null,"tons of alt causes to ai\nBradford 15 ","2016 prove impact--facebook",null,"bostrom book doesn't matter"]
[null,null,null,"manipulate election--early and often regs are key",null,"trump circ--judicail review, no oscilating interps"]
[null,null,null,"something about bias",null,"they are less likely to circmvent"]
[null,null,"fb alt cause to democracy?",null,null,"no challenges--trump or guliani"]

{"sheet":"Net Neutrality","index":9,"n_rows":9,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":9,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Brand X justifies ad hoc shifts in FCC policy --- that decimates net neutrality posture",null,"Food shortages won’t cause war\nAllouche 11","assumes squo-us key, 45% of exports."]
["Only reversing Brand X establishes strong legal justification for net neutrality – no circumvention ",1,null,"hotspots, draw in, central africa"]
["Brand X deference ensures that no stable framework for net neutrality can ever be established",null,"tons of alt causes\nMichaels 11 ","something bad to tech","rural economic growth is a myth--porter 18","proves uq argument--rural econ going down now because broadband","rural collapse inev, econ growth doesn't spillover, people moving alt cause, doesn't provide uq, talking about industrial jobs","collapse ocming in squo--17 vs 18, net neutraliy repealed in 17"]
["Stable net neutrality rules key to rural economic growth ",null,null,"deletes their infrastructure","no food wars-studies","isp price out","no food wars-allouche 11-studies, russia, india and chian will fill in","deletes access overnight"]
["Rural economic strength prevents nuclear escalation in multiple hotspots",null,"internet doesn’t matter – consensus\nKenny 13 ",null,"bunch of different alt causes to conflict","yes food--us exports, defense assumes fill in",null,"45% ofe xports"]
["Violations would be litigated---Trump would comply ",null,null,null,"US key doesn't answer no escalation","central africa or asia, shooting wars-castle",null,"no countries can fill in-no neg ev"]
[null,null,null,null,"internet not key to market access","integrating in farming now-just a question of acesss",null,"draws in great powers--central asia--castle"]
[null,null,null,null,"establishign infra takes too long-dono't solve ag decline now"]

{"sheet":"gerrymander da","index":10,"n_rows":37,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":37,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["The court will stop gerrymandering now – avoiding political fallout its their primary concern, backlashing will cause a flip \nKirkland 1-11 ",null,null,"controversial sop ruling","after roberts is liberal in gerrymander he strikes down redistricting","gerrymander da crushes demo","redistricting comission--striaght turn to the DA, "]
["Court PC key to Roberts’ decision --- he wants to minimize perceptions of partisan politicization \nBarnes 18 ",1,null,"overrule agency statute","fucks democracy, results in more gerrymandering","your internal link is fb, that sucks","Roberts PC is bad use the power to strike down the commissions"]
["key to democracy\nKlass 17 ",null,null,null,null,"cp solves enough of the aff","sop fights are inevitable dems house"]
[null,null,null,null,"LINK DEBATE","massiv breach on sop","it is old, doesn't assume deference"]
[null,null,"chevron not controversial","just says not liberal or con, could still be controversial","Their ev is about debates over the ACA – not the aff \nJoondeph 11 ","hates doctrinal changes","other ev is about aca"]
[null,null,null,"yes the aff is controversial – forces constant doctrinal readjustment which judges hate","chevron technical--not partisan, until after made","aca example","technical decision on deference, not partisan"]
[null,null,null,"roberts pc high now","xxx","aff ev doesn't assume the nature of ruling","roberts not a swing vote--meta study, 5 of the 800 times, he is a hardcore onservative."]
[null,null,null,"SOP cases uniquely high profile and controversial – drain finite PC\nLevinson 1 ",null,"our ev is consensus"]
[null,null,null,"Ruling on inter-branch SOP controversies drains finite judicial capital \nFriedman ","roeder evidence 3/4 percent of 1 risk-no swing vote","plan flips institiona incentvies"]
[null,null,null,"short term pc loss outweighs\nBalkin 1 ",null,"roberts is a swing vote--study"]
[null,null,null,"justices perceive short term limits over enhanced legitimacy\nYoo 4 (\n",null,"indepdnence commission has no warrant, roberts will balance pc by striking down, link debate answers this"]
[null,null,null,"link alone turns case\nJennings 15 "]
[null,null,null,"negative reactions outweigh \nFriedman "]
[]
[null,null,"plan happens in june","delay"]
[null,null,null,"key to neg ground"]
[null,null,null,"should is immediate – key to stable disad ground – aff is functionally a delay cp which crushes neg flex – fairness"]
[null,null,null,"doesn't specify, not intrinsic"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"roberts is not a swing vote, he doesn't have to vote for the plan, he will balance elsewhere","Roberts is the swing vote – he believes in court politics – disregard old evidence – new developments, expert opinions, and recent statements prove"]
[null,null,null,"roberts believes in capital-card"]
[null,null,null,"gerrymandering is the only block bustter right now"]
[]
[null,null,"studies prove roberts not a swing vote-roeder 18"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"roberts PC is bad--strike down redistricting comissions","redistricting not key"]
[null,null,null,"gerrymander solves"]
[null,null,null,"roberts is obsessed with appearing nonpartisan – the only blockbuster ruling he can make is on gerrymandering, because it has both a Republican and Democrat state redistricted is palatable to him "]
[]
[null,null,null,"gerrymaner key to democracy"]
[null,null,"fb, 2016 election, manipulation, AI can destroy democracy","bigger internal link to democracy"]
[null,null,null,"structural of electoral politics"]
[]
[null,null,null,"their ev is snapshots?"]

{"sheet":"admin state da","index":11,"n_rows":5,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":5,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["the court rules narrowly against the administrative state now – the aff flips deference\nMetzger 17 ",null,"they didn’t read a link argument – “disruptive” – the aff preeserves deference and leads to old Chevron – that obvi didn’t kill the admin state "]
["strong administrative state key to solve inequality \nHLR 18 ",1]
["inequality ensures escalatory war\nSolt 11 "]
[null,null,"Chevron deference faces multiple legal challenges --- only the plan’s refashioning of the doctrine can safeguard effective governance  \nHessick 18 "]

{"sheet":"t-substantial","index":12,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[null,null,"Substantial means considerable in amount – specific numbers are arbitrary, especially when establishing standards!"]
[null,1]
[]
["limits--100 changes by 5 topics",null,"Substantial means 2%"]
["core generic"]
["coherent topic wording"]
["plan in a vaccum",null,"w 10 percent"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"arbitrary"]
[null,null,"not contextual to res"]
[null,null,"moving goal"]

{"sheet":"nearly all","index":13,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[]
[null,1,"we meet – no carve outs – we restrict all brand X deference "]
[]
[]
["2ac shifts--cp's and agency",null,"Solves their offense – plan restricts agency interpretations – includes binding promulgations receiving judicial review. "]
["2. Artifically inflates aff ground – they can read an advantage or add-on based on a specific agency - we're inserting an appendix – there are 115 federal administrative agencies"]
["3. err neg they can shift",null,"overlimits and makes too hard to be aff – they get too much pic ground – makes it impossible to debate and arbitrarily splits literature "]
["4. presumption--card"]
[]
[null,null,"inf regressive"]
[null,null,"pic"]
[null,null,"split ltierature"]
[null,null,"specify every careve out stupid"]

{"sheet":"Macros","index":14,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["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 "]