Valley Kris Kringle

1
Presume neg since all propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be
forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about,
i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the proposition P and the proposition
~P are true. Prefer substantive reasons to presume to theoretical ones, since if I win that we ought to see the
resolution as false then the debate isnt a tie I did the better debating by showing we should negate.

Epistemological concerns regarding relations between premises are normative because morality assumes they
exist in order to judge actions, i.e. if morality says dont kill the deduction that if killing is bad, then not
killing is immoral doesnt make sense. All theories need for their premises to cohere to work. ALSO, if we
accept contradictory statements, language fails to make sense, making the resolution false.
Lucas J.R. Lucas [Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, University of Oxford]. Reason and Reality. Ria University Press, 2009. Print. *Gendered language modified*
But why should I not contradict myself? It is a free country, and it would b e uncivilised to make me bridle my tongue out of deference to Plato or Aristotle. And
indeed there are no legal penalties for inconsistency. The sanction is quite another one, namely that if
I contradict myself I make myself
unintelligible. A speaker must b e consistent, or communication breaks down. In most systems of formal logic it is easily shown that if both p and not- p
are given, we can prove any other proposition we like; and one de nition of the consistency|the \absolute consistency" of a system|is that not every proposition
can b e proved in it. The same thought is expressed in the colloquial rejoinder \If you would say that, you would say anything". And
this is a rebuke, because if a person is prepared to say anything, then anything he says is no better than anything else. Only if there are some
things she is not prepared to say does the fact of his saying [matter] some other thing signify. Where everything is free, nothing is of
value. Propositions acquire meaning in as much as they have scarcity value. Only if Thrasymachus is not prepared to say absolutely anything, will
people attend to what he actually does say. Else his words cease to have scarcity value or signi cance, and cease to b e words at all, and become just babble.
MOREOVER, if we can accept contradictions debate ceases to function because 1. the judge could vote for
whoever they want to regardless of who wins and 2. both the resolution and its negation could be true. Its
impossible to argue against non-contradiction, which is true a priori and stops infinite regress.
Gottileb Paula Gottileb [Professor of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin Madison]. Aristotle on Non-contradiction. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 26
January 2011.
Aristotle explains that, given its peculiar status as the firmest first principle, PNC is not susceptible to demonstration. A demonstration is a deductive argument. If PNC could be deduced from another premise, then that

if PNC could be demonstrated, then

premise would have to be a firmer and prior principle, so PNC could not have been the firmest first principle. Aristotle also says that

everything would be subject to demonstration, which would lead to an infinite[ly] regress. Therefore demonstration is ruled out,
and one must be wary of reconstructions of Aristotle's discussion in terms of ordinary deductive arguments. Anyone asking for a deductive argument for PNC, as Aristotle

points out, is missing the point, or, rather, is asking for something that is impossible without using PNC. You cannot engage in

argument unless you rel[ies] on PNC. Anyone who claims to reject PNC for the sake of argument is similarly misguided
THUS, the standard is consistency with the epistemological principle of non-contradiction. AND, this is a meta-
epistemological constraint on ethics because it determines limits of knowledge construction within epist
nothing makes sense if contradictions are allowed.

I CONTEND that colleges not restricting constitutionally protected speech terminates in contradiction. FIRST,
Protected speech is by definition subject to restriction in pursuit of vital interests. Kairys:

Speech is first categorized as either protected or unprotected based on its subject matter. Protected speech
cannot be infringed or burdened unless the government is furthering a compelling interest that cannot be
furthered by means less restrictive of speech - called in constitutional law the strict scrutiny standard.
Kairys, David. The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique. ReadHowYouWant.com, November 2010.

Thus, the aff terminates in contradiction because for speech to be immune from restriction by universities, it is
no longer within the realm of constitutionally protected speech but rather becomes something else ie: immune
speech.
SECOND, the aff terminates in contradiction because the aff entails restricting the ability to restrict speech
which is itself a speech act, and thus posits the idea of never restricting speech while also positing a speech act.
 Valley Kris Kringle
2
THIRD, free speech is not constitutionally protected for public colleges. This means that the aff terminates in
contradiction because the 1st amendment is only applicable to Congress. Madison 91:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Madison, James. [Father of constitution, 4th president of the United States of America, Husband to Dolly Madison, bad tenant, let
white house burn to the ground, short, Notable Democratic-Republic]. US Constitution 1st amendment. Constitution. 1791.

This comes first because it is topically necessary to recognize the difference of free speech laws that arises from
case law, those which apply to all law making bodies of the United States but these are not constitutionally
protected because not grounded from Supreme Court constitutional interpretations.

FOURTH, colleges and universities do not accept everyone, which functions as a restriction on the speech of
people because a) they arent able to speak on campus in official functions b) they cant participate in student
activism clubs or student activities and c) they cant participate in discussion on campus facilities such as dorm
rooms or student unions. This means that either colleges have to accept everyone, which means they would
collapse because they couldnt handle the influx of students, which means that the agent of action fails to exist
and you negate or b) colleges must restrict some free speech.This comes before all other impacts because were
people before were debaters and people typically apply to college. If we got rejected we should be able to
recognize that it was a restriction of free speech.

FIFTH, the aff terminates in a conflation of public goods and private goods because speech acts on campus are
intrinsically private in that individuals communicate ideas to others but not everyone but the restrictions are
intrinsically public because a) theyre imposed by a public institution and b) theyre blanket level restrictions so
they apply to the entire public.

AND, any moral judgment not aligning with non-contradiction faces a double bind. Either a. the moral theory
generates incoherence, so reject their ethic, or b. the aff contention fails to cohere with the ethic, so reject aff
offense. Either way, epistemological obligations preclude. FINALLY, its impossible for both a statement and
its negation to be epistemically invalid because they exhaust all logical possibilities. Either A or not-A must be
true.
 Valley Kris Kringle
3

Presume neg
1. Prefer substantive reasons to presume to theoretical ones, since if I win that we ought to see the resolution as
false then the debate isnt a tie I did the better debating by showing we should negate.
2. Presume neg since all propositions require positive justification before being accepted, otherwise one would be
forced to accept the validity of logically contradictory propositions regarding subjects one knows nothing about,
i.e if one knew nothing about P one would have to presume that both the proposition P and the proposition
~P are true.
3. The aff has the strategic advantages of a) of laying out the terms of the debate in the first speech b) having
almost half of the speech time pre-written, and c) getting the last word in every debate, so the neg needs
presumption to off-set those advantages.
4. The neg needs presumption to check back spikey ACs, as the aff can take out entire swaths of neg speech time
in seconds by extending blippy spikes, one of which the neg is bound to drop.ds
5. Presume neg to counteract the aff ability to change its advocacy in the 1AR by running an expansion or
severing, while the neg has to choose its advocacy in the NC.
6. Since resolved means firmly determined to do something, we would not be able to affirm the resolution unless
there is a pro-active motivation to take that action, meaning we always presume neg.
7. Assuming statements to be true without positive justification is uneducational since in real life that exposes one
to situations where one blindly follows the dictates of authority figures without first considering whether one
has reason to believe them. If more people were instinctively skeptical, there would be far less extremism and
atrocities committed in the world.
8. The Aff gets the last word in every debate, so the burden should be on the aff to ensure that there is still offense
in the round in the 2AR. Dont punish me for my opponents strategic choices.
9. If you have no reason to believe a proposition true, then that proposition is probably false. For example, if you
are thinking of a color and I am trying to guess it, then any one color that I randomly choose is more likely
incorrect than correct.
 Valley Kris Kringle
4

A2 Time Skew
1. Time skews arent important since they can be overcome by more
strategic use of time or efficiency drills.
2. TURN: The aff has the structural advantage of speaking last, thus
being able to decide which arguments are most important.
3. TURN: The aff gets infinite pre-round prep time. This outweighs
the time skew since it allows the aff to employ well-practiced strategies to preclude and nullify neg
speech time.
4. TURN: The aff speaks first, allowing the aff to lay the original
terms of the debate.
5. The time skew is small and not commensurate to the aff getting
presumption ground, which is a huge layer of the debate that can be triggered by all sorts of things like
terminal defense and skepticism.
6. Theres no time skew: we both get 13 minutes.
 Valley Kris Kringle
5

A2 Aff Enters Round Blind

1. TURN: The aff enters less blind than the neg since they frame the round with the AC, and inherently have a
better idea of how all the framework nuances will function than the neg.
2. We debate both sides at tournaments so affs know common negative strategies.
3. TURN: Speaking first allows the aff to utilize a million blippy spikes, which is preferable for the aff because
entire swaths of neg speech time can be precluded in seconds by spikes that the neg will inevitably drop.
 Valley Kris Kringle
6

A2 Presume Things True Until Proven False

1. TURN: propositions require positive justification before being accepted, i.e. the sky is only blue because I see it
is blue. Thus absent a reason to know either way, you would presume neg because there is an absence of truth.
2. TURN: We presume statements false since there are more ways for a statement to be false than true. In a logic
proof, for example, the proof is only true if every step follows in a precise, logical manner, but it is false if any
one of those steps fails in any number of ways.
3. TURN: affirming requires taking an action i.e. you kill someone. In the case of uncertainty default inaction
because one is intuitively less responsible for harms that they didn't cause instead of harms that they proactively
caused, so inaction is the safer bet.
 Valley Kris Kringle
7

A2 Normative risk
1. Assumes a normative risk exists if Im winning presumption there is no risk.
2. Turn: If theres no clear offense, using normative risk to evaluate rounds is terrible
because if both frameworks are false and presumption is terrible, we a) lose philosophical ed by trying to
rescue false frameworks and b) encourage judge intervention because risk in a truth testing debate is
extremely hard to weigh and ambiguous if both frameworks are false. Intervention is the worst harm
because then theres no reason to debate in the first place.
3. Assumes comparative worlds risk doesnt exist in truth testing because truth and
falsity are binaries
Presumption is more educational then normative risk evaluation because no real philosophers argue about risks
in a debate context, so we bastardize philosophy, but presumption debates are educational because they focus on
embedded clash, increasing critical education that can be applied to other parts of debate. Theoretical arguments
preclude other arguments because they determine what is legitimate debate.