Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of www.debate.org.

This round is over because Johnicle misunderstood the theory violation. Go to the 2nd offcase. Extend the interpretation and violation, while I said the affirmative should specify where the money for his plan is coming from, he does not do so until the 2AC. He is totally nonresponsive to the standards. Extend the second. It creates a moving target because if I argue a disadvantage to his funding mechanism, he can shift out of it. He also concedes the reason why this is a reason to vote. I had to modify my strategy to prevent him from shifting out of my links, which puts me at a disadvantage for the rest of the round- warranting a negative ballot. Johnicle's only response was that "Funding is by normal means of Webcorp". That is not responsive. Theory debate is debate about the rules of debate. I am saying a rule of debate is that the PRO has to specify where funding is coming from in his first speech. Specifying later does not get him out of the violation. Johnicle will try to mitigate the importance of the theory violation later, however, don't let him do that. Those will all be new arguments, which would violate the rules of policy debate. He's also lost the round outright because he misunderstands the T (Topicality) argument. Topicality debate is when I say what I think the topic means, then why my opponent can't meet that interpretation of the topic - and thus should lose. Group 1-4, they all stem from Johnicle's misunderstanding of T debate. T debate is definitions, not why his plan is bad. He responds to the limits standard by arguing that "benefiting the members and the website are the same". However, that's not responsive to standards, standards are reasons why my interpretation is good- his argument is not disproving that. Even if that's not true, he is totally nonresponsive to the argument above which says that "the affirmative did not define terms, so the negative can define however reasonable". Conceded arguments are given their full weight in policy debate, so regardless of his response to that one standard, I win my definition. At that point, you extend the definition. Debate. org is defined as "a membership-based online debating service designed to provide an easy and free system for our members to intellectually challenge, debate and communicate with each other on the Web". So the increase in welfare Johnicle provides must be for the website itself, not the people within it. Then, extend the violation, the Johnicle has not increased the welfare of www. debate. org, but rather the welfare of its members. He is going to try to cross apply his argument from limits to the violation, however that would be a totally new argument, which is not allowed in policy debate. The voter was the reason why Johnicle violation of topicality is a reason to vote for me. His 1st response to the voter was "The Judge votes on who creates the better debate. org". This is conceding the topicality argument, I am saying that debate. org means the website and not its members, so he can't actually do that. His 2nd response is not a reason why topicality isn't a voter, but rather is why his interpretation is good. (He'll try to crossapply that argument elsewhere, but that would be a new argument, so don't let him do that. ) At that point, the judges vote against Johnicle for having an untopical plan. Extend the first reason T is a voter: the topic defines what the judge is supposed to be judging – ie the judge's jurisdiction, so the judge has no authority to go beyong the topic and vote for my opponent. Johnicles response to the IM counterplan has theoretical illegitimacies, so Offcase 6 is more theory. A is Interpretation: Debaters must stick to what they have already said B is the Violation: My opponent has severed from part B of the plan. This happened when he says the CP is topical and that the rest of his case is enough to affirm. He can't sever out of his original advocacy, which included part B. C is Standards: 1. Debatability. Severance makes all counterplans uncompetitive and justifies the 2ac getting out of any disad links and all negative arguments. Severance makes the debate impossible for the negative to win so it destroys it debatability. Debatability is essential for fairness because all notions of fairness require an ability for all to compete. 2. Predictability. The resolution is the focus of the debate. Allowing the affirmative to sever it destroys all negative predictability and pre round preparation because that is the only thing that I have to predict the round. Predictability is important for fairness because debate requires all parties to prepare before the round and a lack of predictability makes that impossible. D is the voter. Fairness is a voter because debate is based on the adversarial system to discover truth. If one debater has an unfair advantage, that will bias your perception of the truth. More importantly, any game must have fairness otherwise individuals lose the incentive to take part in the activity. Rules which divide ground and establish fairness are essential o the legitimacy of the activity, and when altered, convolute the round, and make the establishment of offense difficult. Therefore, due to the interpretation of the AC which hurts fairness, a presumptive negative ballot is acceptable because conceptions of offense and argumentation has been altered. Go to the instant messenger CP. The theory violation in Offcase 6 responds to answers 1-4, because they are all severance. Answering #3 is especially significant because the counterplan retains competition, which answers the number 5 so he can no longer try to do both the plan and the counterplan. #6 has no impact. Extend the counterplan text and competition. The counterplan is to do the aff plan, but not create an IM system and by doing so it is competitive. Extend the 2nd harm: Because IM allows children to talk about their personal information, they can put themselves into a position to receive unsolicited offers of sex – which could turn into things like molestation and rape. His A response is that "talking faster wont cause harms". However, the harms do not stem from talking faster, but from talking in a different mechanism. His B says that "we can ban them". While that might make victims feel better, it does not refute the harms. Banning someone after someone is raped doesn't mean much. His C says that my evidence is MSN specific. That's not true because people can be tricked and molested regardless of what IM client you use. Even if that's not true, he doesn't warrant that claim and any warrant in his next speech would be a new argument. The extension answers #7 because #7 is non-responsive to the extension. Now, go to the DA. He says "turn the DA", however he doesn't gives reasons why the arguments in the DA are reasons to support the plan. Thus, I'll scap it since I don't need the DA to win the round. He adds a Kritik on my DA. However, he does not provide the framework necessary to justify simply criticizing me as a debater to win instead of arguing the topic. Thus, the K is not a reason to vote. Now, go to the No Porn counterplan. I don't have to win the counterplan to win the round, kick it. In summary, I win because the rules of policy debate say I win. New arguments can only be made in the first two speeches. After that, the rebuttal speeches can only reiterate old arguments, weigh arguments, and respond to new opponent responses. Johnicle has messed up because he didn't make any responsive arguments to the theory and topicality violations. Unfortunately, since he didn't argue them previously, he is not permitted to argue them later. The rest of the round really doesn't matter because the unargued theory and topicality were linked to me winning the round.