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

I've never done policy. But I debate LD on the national circuit, which is probably the same lol. Before I begin, I'd like to ask a few things. We should have standardized speech lengths compared to regular policy debate. CX will not happen. The 8 minute speeches have a 1100 word limit since that was how long your 1AC was. That's a breathtakingly slow approximately 135 words per minute, so the 5 minute speeches will have a 700 word limit. You can use microsoft word (or probably a google search) to find a word count tool. Also, for people judging the debate, I would prefer you not vote if you have no idea what is going on. Vote if you have done competitive high school or college debate. The 1NC is 5 off. Offcase 1: No instant messenger counterplan Observation 1 is the counterplan text. Do prongs A, C and D of the plan, but do not create the instant messanging system outlined in prong B. Observation 2 is competition. The counterplan competes by not committing to prong B. Observation 3 is the net benefit. Instant messengers pose inherent risks that cannot be avoided – no matter how much security software you have, instant messengers means that there always remains the potential for unsuspecting debate.org members to be abused. www.crimsonsecurity.com/whites/instant%20messaging.pdf page 1-2 Instant messengers often bypass corporate security measures, like firewalls, providing another opening for hackers to the Windows client. These are open doors, and while large corporations are beginning to spend billions of dollars on security, the possibility of this open door makes it a weak link in the security chain. As hackers become more sophisticated, hackers will increasingly enter networks through the client side -- the open front door to the system. Instant messanging will increase the likelihood that younger members with be harmed http://da.lacounty.gov... Besides offering real-time contact with strangers or others who may seek to harm your child, Instant Messaging allows for the immediate dissemination of significant personal information...an unsuspecting child can effectively place himself or herself in a position to receive unsolicited offers of sex, pornography, and other dubious material. The counterplan solves all of the affirmative case except for prong B. It also solves the harms articulated above by not having instant messaging. Offcase 2: Funding Specification Theory Violation A. Interpretation: The affirmative should specify where the money for their plan is coming from B. Violation: The affirmative doesn't specify where the funding for their plan comes from C. Standards: 1. Destroys negative ground – I can't run any arguments linking to their funding mechanism, like spending, enforcement, or economy impacts, because he doesn't tell us what it is. That ground is key to a predictable negative strategy and fair debate. 2. Moving target – if I did claim a link to a certain type of funding, the affirmative could just specify out of it, which makes them a moving target so the negative has nothing to run and I always lose. 3. It means they have no solvency – if he doesn't specify where the funding comes from, there's no way to know if it exists at all. Without funding the plan can't be enforced – because the funding is uncertain their solvency is probabilistic at best. D. Theory is a voting issue. 1. Ground – they robbed us of arguments that are key to our ground. 2. Potential abuse and strategy skew – we had to modify our strategy to prevent them from shifting out of our links, which puts us at a disadvantage for the rest of the round and warrants a negative ballot. Offcase 3: T www.debate.org A. Interpretation – 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 in the 1AC must be for the website itself, not the people within it. B. Violation – The 1AC has not increased the welfare of www.debate.org, but rather the welfare of its members. C. Standards - 1. Field context: My definition is taken from the website itself. Field context is important because it is most precise. In contrast, common usage is too vague for logical analysis 2. Concession – the affirmative did not define terms, so the negative can define however reasonable. 3. Limits – if the affirmative can merely talk about the users of debate.org, then his ground is exploded exponentially. He can propose totally non-debatable plans such as for Webcorp to feed and clothe the members of debate.org. That's ridiculous. Limits are necessary for definitions because otherwise otherwise there would be little negative ground to claim, since the affirmative's gound would be unlimited. D. Voter – Topicality is a voting issue for 2 reasons: 1. 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. 2. Since he created the topic, he'd better be held to defending it. Offcase 4: DA - Increasing the activity of debate harms society Gordon Mitchell in his Fall 1998 article for Argumentation and Advocacy ('Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate'. v35. p43-4.), he explains how the sterile laboratory model of debate desensitizes participants to human suffering and enslaves our activity within a spectator-mentality : "the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing implications...The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case"(1991, p. 8). Offcase 5 No porn CP Observation 1 is the counterplan text. The counterplan is to do prongs A, B and C of the affirmative plan. Additionally, prong D is revised below and the part removed indicated by asterisks: D) Webcorp will create a group feature. This feature will allow people to make comments, add pictures, add ‘news of the group', allow it to be private, allow it to be secret, allow separate forums,* and make events for groups possible. These Events can be started either from the group or by themselves and they will include the same possibilities of a group but will have an expiration date specified by the creator. Observation 2 is competition. The counterplan is competitive by not enacting prong D. Observation 3 is the definition of admin. The only available definition is "A person who has specific controls to a forum/website/(group)." (wiki) Observation 4 is the net benefit: 1. Multiple admins would allow for the proliferation of pornography on debate.org. Minimally, admin means that they control their group. Even if they have agency over just that part, it would be disasterous because they, as stated in the 1AC would have the power to post pictures. If they are administrators, then they would have an unlimited ability to post whatever illicit material they wish, including pornography or illegal and dangerous information. 2. Multiple admins would destroy debate.org. If there were multiple people who controlled the website, ... that would be bad. The counterplan captures all the benefits of the affirmative's plan, but merely removes the phrase "have specific admin's of the group with the power", it also solve