Rnd 4: TH would ensure that "100% fruit juice" actually means 100% fruit juice
That... sounds... uh... interesting? I can see the argument already: "100% fruit juice = 100% fruit juice. Yeah... it actually means itself already. A = A guys."
Yeah. A whole round on truth in advertising. Blech. We were neg, it was our break round, and we lost. Granted, with a res like that try to prep anything decent as neg.
... that's why you always choose opp for outrounds when the rez's start getting goofy. You can win on interp 99% of the time.
Prepping decent neg on this comes at the interp from both angles.
I. Gov Duty to Frame the Debate
A. Standard: Aff must frame a debateable debate
1) It's the nature of parli. Resolutions aren't perfect, it's the case itself that must create the debate. I've seen prostitution being legalized be run as an Eastern medicine and the judge being ok with it. You can defend your interpretation.
2) Don't be afraid if you gave ground. If you turn a tautology into a non-tautology, opp can't claim you did anything but give them ground. "Hey, they kept me from running my DAs on A = A" will never be said.
3) It provides value to parli. blah blah.
B. Violation: Aff's interpretation of the round is tautological. They don't provide a subjective question with arguments on both sides.
C. Impact: Um. No debate. This is stupid. A priori the aff literally cannot be questioned.
II. "Actual Meaning" requires objective evaluator. It's the highest standard of solvency possible.
A. Rez states "actually means" and repeats a phrase twice. This indicates some higher form of validation.
B. "Actually Means" requires absolute truth. You must ABSOLUTELY buy their solvency. Usually you do a decision because it'll likely work (i.e. "if we buy food for poor people, they will not go hungry tonight"). But you would do almost nothing if you had to know beforehand with certainty that it "actually means" people wouldn't go hungry tonight.
C. (Solvency perspective) Gov doesn't "ensure" "actually means" through their plan.
- Topicality impacts
- Can't even justify the resolution because it doesn't "actually mean," it just "probably means"
D. (Philosophical perspective) Without being supernatural, no absolute validation is possible. Since Gov doesn't pick God as "this house", this house can never know the truth of the rez.
Then you debate whatever case they bring up.