Paradigms and Principles: Are "I Meets" Always Terminal Defense?
victorybriefs.substack.com
A. Is an “I meet” argument always terminal defense on theory? An “I meet” argument is an answer to theory which claims that there is no violation – the debater has complied with the rule proposed by the interpretation. For example, if the 1NC runs theory arguing that the AC may not employ contingent standards, and the 1AR argues correctly that the AC does not employ contingent standards, there has been no violation and the affirmative debater should not lose on theory.
Paradigms and Principles: Are "I Meets" Always Terminal Defense?
Paradigms and Principles: Are "I Meets…
Paradigms and Principles: Are "I Meets" Always Terminal Defense?
A. Is an “I meet” argument always terminal defense on theory? An “I meet” argument is an answer to theory which claims that there is no violation – the debater has complied with the rule proposed by the interpretation. For example, if the 1NC runs theory arguing that the AC may not employ contingent standards, and the 1AR argues correctly that the AC does not employ contingent standards, there has been no violation and the affirmative debater should not lose on theory.