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

Johnicle has done a good job, however has suffered from the classic loss of the affirmative debate. He undercovered. Let me explain some things about policy debate for the people at home. People who debate policy debate in high school and college speak really FAST. There's is a round for those who are unfamiliar to policy debate at http://www.youtube.com... . Berkeley and Harvard are both pretty slow, most rounds are much faster than the one in the video. In policy, the goal of the negative is to speak so fast that the affirmative cannot keep up. If the negative succeeds, then, eventually, the affirmative will not have enough time to cover his own plan or other critical issues, in which case the affirmative will lose. That is exactly what happened to Johnicle. Though I do not think his responses to the topicality and theory arguments were legitimate, I will not argue them because the debate in that area has become greatly muddled. Instead, I will argue the very last argument I made in my last speech. I said in my last speech "The affirmative also has the burden to re-articulate his plan in his 1st rebuttal. We have timed speeches in debate (and character counter speeches on the internet) which makes procedural issues like that are important. That's why I had to rearticulate my theory and topicality violations. I'd hate to get a rulebook out, but Johnicle does not seem to know the basic burdens of the affirmative debater in policy debate. He does not rearticulate the plan text, inherency, or solvency. None whatsoever. It is as if he did not articulate a plan whatsoever. Again, because he is not allowed to bring up new arguments, since he did not argue the plan in his last speech, he will not be allowed to argue in his next, meaning he loses the debate for another reason because he lost his plan." Johnicle suffered from undercovering in his rebuttal to the point where he did not have enough time to reargue his plan. Johnicle loses his plan because he did not have enough time to rearticulate it. Without a plan there is no proof of the topic. Johnicle tries to salvage out of his error by arguing his way out of it. There are a few things he cannot argue, the rules are one of those things. However, I will respond to them individually. 1. Johnicle says pointing out Johnicle's mistake is a new argument. That's untrue. I'm perfectly allowed to respond to his arguments or lack thereof. If I wasn't allowed to say "woah, Johnicle didn't argue his plan", then there would be no way for me to point out Johnicle's breaking of that rule. His argument is silly. 2. He says its a time suck. That is not true, it's a rule. 3. He says he "indirectly articulated it", but that is totally untrue. He only responded to topicality and theory. There was no clear articulation of his plan anywhere after his very first speech. 4-5. He says I accepted his plan. I clearly did not, I argued it was totally untopical and theoretically illegitimate. Regardless, he still has the burden to rearticulate it. Again, this is a very common way that the affirmative loses in policy debate. Johnicle simply did not have enough time to both respond to my negative arguments and also rearticulate his plan. Without a plan, there is no proof of the topic. Without proof of the topic, the negative debate wins (that's me).