Gulakov,+Alex

Alex Gulakov, St. Mark's Policy Debate 2009 and debate software

1. On impact calculus, timeframe resolves whether the isolated impact to the counterplan solvency deficit turns the net-benefit or the other way around, since intervening actors might avert distant impacts. 2. "Disad turns case" should have status quo solves uniqueness. 3. Impact defense on "yes or no" impacts and analytic takeouts of an internal link's uniqueness win rounds, and war outweighs lowered quality of some lives. 4. Qualifications matter if the field requires experts to distinguish true warrants from rhetoric. 5. Specific links and case versus counterplan or alternative solvency determine who wins what scenarios, and the ballot endorses the best achievable vision. 6. On theory, neg gets multiple conditional advocacies with no cross-applying across contradictory worlds. 7. Word PICs need functional net-benefits. 8. Aff defends only explicit cross-x concessions and functional plan mandates, so if the aff doesn't say "immediately without consultation" or "all three USFG branches" then the counterplan isn't competitive. 9. Limits win topicality since we can't know the literature base before deciding the resolution's limit, but evidence that aff is heart of the topic might win reasonability. 10. I don't vote on non-round-specific theory or dropped cheapshot voters if the subpoints merit rejecting only the argument.