A2 CX Checks (Non Shell form)

1. I did CX check the violation [Explain]

2. “CX checks” does not imply that the violation must be established in CX or that you are

allowed to completely change your AC interps to meet. It implies that I must give you a

chance to clarify the AC argument. Allowing debaters to shift, and not just clarify,

incentivizes spewing abusive arguments and then wasting my CX time adopting a new

advocacy. No one thinks it’s OK for the neg to revise a theory interpretation in CX after

the NC—an advocacy shift is an advocacy shift, regardless of whether it happens in CX,

the 1AR, or 2NR. Hold them to what they defend in the AC.

3. CX checks kill neg strat because I lose the ability to prep responses during the AC since they

can change parts of the AC in cx depending on my questions. B. this skews my CX strategy since

I am forced to question them about every part of the ac in order to make sure that there is no

abuse rather than being able to clarify other aspects of the AC. The ability to formulate a strategy

is key to a fair debate because both debaters need equal chance of winning

4. She can use CX to make her arguments fit a potential theoretical objection and clarify her

position so that it fits the style of question, but not the interp itself. Stable ground is key to a fair

debate because it provides both debaters stable advocacies to generate offense against.

5. Cross examination wasn’t flowed. There is no written record of what we said during CX so you can’t vote for something that not’s on you flow. For instance, we both could have different interpretations of what happened during CX but what happened wasn’t flowed therefore CX checks are bad because a) it allows judge intervention and the judge having to think for himself of what happened which may result in the wrong decision because it would be based off his or conception of what happened during CX and also b) he never warrants why you ought to vote on potential abuse.