plan text checks ground – we defend topical federal government action in our story – meets every textual burden – any other violation is an arbitrary, self-serving spec requirement – most affs presume literalism, we explicitly defend our position – increases negative ground and prevents 2AC sand-bagging b. bidirectional rez checks – built-in energy trade-offs means they should be packing a response to our plan like oil good etc.
at: topic education/policy relevance (0:40/??)
This is a terrible standard – presumes a one to one link between plan text we advocate in round and what occurs in the policy process – voting for SMRs doesn’t mean you get a world of SMRs in 20 years – we’re the only ones impacting what the act of VOTING means for politics
at: Framework – at: extra T (0:15)
No extra-T – all affs take a stance on the debate space – we just do it out loud – guarantees more negative ground and prevents 2AC sand-bagging or shifting Self-reflexivity outweighs – questioning why we’re here and what we’re doing is key to meaning – debate without a context is just coin flipping and repetition