SEHS
PICs GOOD
2NC/1NR AT: ``TRIVIALIZES DEBATE''



1.  NO REAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRIVIAL AND IMPORTANT PARTS.

No part of a policy is really trivial.  The goal of a policy maker should
be to adopt the best policy option, regardless of how close other options
come.  Debating minor details is critical to an understanding of the
importance of seemingly minor aspects of any endeavor.


2.  COMPETITION PROVES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PLAN AND THE COUNTERPLAN
IS NONTRIVIAL.

Our net benefit authors obviously think that the difference between the
plan and the counterplan is very significant.  If it were a triviality, it
couldn't generate a reason to reject the plan.


3.  THIS ARGUMENT ENCOURAGES SLOPPY THINKING.

The aff wants us to gloss over the details and just debate the gestalt of
the plan.  This weakens critical thinking skills and is basically an
anti-intellectual plea to avoid defending a shaky aspect of the plan.


4.  TURN-- THE AFF TRIVIALIZES DEBATE.

By arbitrarily excluding competitive options, the aff makes a mockery of
the debate process.  They would allow affirmatives to advocate two page
long plans featuring everything on the topic, so they would always have
something in there to turn the disads that the neg couldn't get to in 1NC.
PICs prevent that from happening.