Tournament: | Round: | Opponent: | Judge:
topicality
A. Interpretation – The affirmative must affirm the topic instrumentally. The 1AC must include a topical plan that is only justified with a normative defense of federal government adoption of such a policy. The ballot only declares that the resolution is either true or false.
The topic is defined by the phrase following the colon – the USFG is the agent of the resolution, not the individual debaters
Webster’s
United States Federal Government is the central government in Washington D.C.
West’s Legal Thesaurus/Dictionary. 1985
Should denotes an expectation of enacting a plan
American Heritage Dictionary – 2000
B) Violation—the aff does not defend the United States federal government action – they use themselves as the sole actor of their advocacy
C) Vote negative
- Ground – Refusing to defend the implementation of the plan/resolution erases all predictable negative disad and case ground. We’ll never have evidence saying their specific advocacy of the plan is bad. This eliminates all of our offense since testing their method is key.
2. Process impact – this is the only academic forum where we get education based on clash and competition. If we aren’t able to prepare in advance for affirmatives the round becomes a 2 hour conference presentation about whatever books and articles they are reading, This education o/w any content specific education because
A) You can get content specific education in any other forum
B) Without critical thinking skills developed through clash and competition we can’t effectively act on content-specific knowledge
English et al 7
C) Without clash-based education we are likely to come to the wrong conclusions about the content b/c we don’t see both sides
3. Extra Topicality –they skirt discussion of the plan’s merits by arguing the benefits derived from their advocacy outweigh. This is a voting issue because we’re forced to win framework just to get back to equal footing – extra topicality also proves the resolution insufficient and explodes aff ground.
4. Academic debate over energy policy facilitates deliberation and more effective decision-making---otherwise special interests poison neutrality—There is no discussion of the resolution within the 1AC guarantees the movement is co opted by special interest groups
Mitchell 10
D. Voting Issue – If we demonstrate the affirmative does not meet the best interpretation of the topic they have failed to justify the resolution and should be rejected. This is the best way to preserve competitive equity by ensuring predictable ground for the negative.
Data
A. EVALUATE COMPETING PREDICTIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING PROBABILITY CONDITION:
ONLY A CLAIM PLUS WARRANT PLUS STRONG DATA SHOULD BE GIVEN A DEFAULT NEAR 100% PROBABILITY
STRONG DATA REQUIRES (1)LARGE SAMPLE SIZE, (2) EXPLICIT CITATION OF DATA (3) QUANTIFICATION OF RESEARCH METHODS
AFF DOESN'T MEET ANY OF OUR CRITERIA – ITS WEAK DATA
Rosekind 09
B. VOTE NEG ON PRESUMPTION
ASSUME THE AFF HARMS, SOLVENCY, AND OTHER PREDICTIONS HAVE ZERO EFFECT UNLESS PROVEN WITH STRONG DATA
Zellner 07
Case vs towson
Empirical studies have been done to uncover disproportionate exposure -- the results were inconclusive that minorities were overrepresented
Your Author Heiman ’96
The aff cherry picks the data ignoring geography as a factor
Your Author Heiman ’96
Inequality has a lot of proximal causes -- none of which the aff can solve
Your Author Heiman ’96
Environmental justice activism has to challenge pollution in the abstract -- not just how it effects certain communities
Your Author Heiman ’96
the environmental justice movement’s obsession with race is too narrow - short circuits solvency
Your Author Heiman ’96