AT: Not Exclusive---AT: Affirms State Legitimacy
Topical action doesn’t commit you to a particular belief---a plan is a provisional statement for the purpose of testing an idea. No one thinks that losing is equivalent to being existentially wrong, which disproves the idea that debaters cannot argue for sides the ideologically oppose
Negative state action that restricts executive power compels the affirmative to criticize the state. This topic builds in aff ground based on Trump and the executive being bad [optional – as well as judicial and legislative failure to check the executive], which solves their offense and provides a meaningful role for the neg.
Debating on the neg solves their offense---half of their debates allow them to challenge the aff’s statist politics which questions the role of the state. Over the course of a year, we could conclude that the state was irredeemable, but we’d come to a more robust conclusion than assuming it from the outset---this proves their interpretation links to our dogmatism offense because it means debaters would never have to give credence to ideas they don’t like.