The topic has a universal understanding that is not US centered

This is the Best Block i Have Written in Some time: 1) VALUES AND EXAMPLES ARE UNIVERSAL "The Lincoln Douglas resolution identifies a value dilemma. Therefore, resolutional requirements for the LD debater are very different. The major difference is that the value resolution must be upheld as a whole. Values are considered universal. Therefore, the affirmative is not allowed to focus only on one specific example of the value. Jeffery Wiese and Stan Lewis. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE: VALUES IN CONFLICT, Perfection Learning, 2000. 2) The resolution does specify a country of focus. The framing committee has been writing topics since the Reagan Administration, and if they wanted it to be focused in the United States, they would have added those words to the topic. 3) The framing committee has used a US centered topic before - for the national tournament in 1981, the national tournament in 1985, twice in 1985, twice in 1988, twice in 1989, three times in 1990, once in 1991, twice in 1992, once in 1995, once in 1996, twice in 1997, three times in 1998 if you count the tern "Native American", and twice in 1999 - and the list goes on - this is an example of a topic that does not contain a US focus because obviously they know when the use the term and when they don't. 4) The topic clearly states "A government". As long as the affirmative does use examples of anarchy, mob rule, or commercial relationships it is well within the guise of the topic to discus a government's example. 5) The topic reaffirms the universality of the topic by including the term "its citizens". Not once but twice now, when the framing committee had a chance to make this a US focused topic they chose otherwise. 6) According to the standard rules of grammar within the English language "its" is a pronoun that refers back to the antecedent, "government" thus illustrating that the framing committee could not have made a mistake in their interpretation because this grammatical structure is only used when offering a vague reference to a simple concept. 7) The use of "government" and "its" create a logical method to calculate the rich-poor gap. The rich poor gap can be calculated between countries or a group of citizens from a country to a group of citizens in another country, but it is used in a very specific way in the economic community. 8) According to the rules established for judging by the National Forensic League in the April 1993 ROSTRUM under the heading, "A decision should be based on:" it states, "Debating the resolution in its entirety. Neither the affirmative nor the negative is to debate his or her position from the standpoint of isolated examples. Source, "Judging Rules for Lincoln Douglas Debate from the Conference on Lincoln Douglas Debate Chairman: Frank Sferra; Recorder: Pqam Cady; Rostrum, April 1993. 9) If you, as the judge follow the established rules for judging this event and I don't argue examples outside of the United States, you should vote me down - the rules are simple. 10) If my opponent fails to argue out of the scope of the United States, you should vote him down because the rule for judging also applies to the negative also. If he doesn't mention another country in his negative case, you might want to consider that as grounds for a loss. So . . . if your opponent wants to make that argument start with one and run through them. If he can't argue them all then the round should technically go to you. Don't preempt the argument, let it come and then cram it down his throat.