ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT:

TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS

Tuesday, August 5th

Baxter and Steve

Basic Framework of Theoretical Arguments

A. InterpretationB. ViolationC. StandardsD. Voting Issues

Topicality Proper

The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should…

…substantially…

Arbitrary Values “Substantial/substantially” means

Essentially Important In the Main Large To make greater/augment Material/real Excludes material qualifications

…increase…

Does it have to exist already? Can it just get better?

…its…

The object (economic engagement) belongs to the prior subject (The United States federal government).

Can it be an NGO or private entity? (Development!)

Can it be cooperative/consultative?

…non-military…

Coast guard Army Corps of Engineers Non-military role

Icebreakers Search and rescue

…exploration…

“ocean exploration” is discovery through observation and recording

Has to be where no one has gone before Includes data or not

…and/or…

Means and/or Unless it means or…

…development…

Makes use of oceans as a resource Are regulations development? Is commercial in nature Non-sustainable?

…of the Earth’s oceans.

The SOUTHERN Ocean!?! Excludes the sea Excludes the coastal areas Excludes above the surface

Debating T Well

Like almost all theory, revolves around two impacts Fairness Education

You need to focus on three issues Caselists (content and size) Division of ground Types of literature

Good T debating requires an appropriate mix of both offense and defense

Non Topicality Procedurals

Are the Same As T!!!

Plan vagueness Solvency advocate (lack thereof) Specification

Agent Enforcement Funding

Framework

What is this about? The controversy behind almost all framework debates is which types o f impacts “count” when the judge renders a decision A secondary question the involves what

mechanisms the debaters can use to access those impacts

Useful analogs include Legal rules of evidence Criteria debates from old school CEDA or LD Methodological disputes

Framework (2)

What impacts are we competing for? Education Fairness “Good political agents”

What are the approaches negatives take to defending framework against non-traditional affs? “T”: you are not what the resolution says, debate

like a T violation (caveman) Traditional framework: policymaking is good, you’re

not it (old school) Cooptive frameworks: fair play, etc.

Framework (3)

Judges and framework debates Be aware of the judge’s identity and social

location/status Ideologues

K all the way K no way

Centrists (largely incoherent)—both sides get to weigh their impacts

Framework (4)

Meaning of words is arbitrary/predictability is a praxis, not a truth

Counter-definitions of worlds that allow an individualized focus USFG is the people Resolved refers to us, not the USFG

Debates do not leave the room Policymakers do evil things, policymaking

logic does evil things

Framework (5)

Epistemological kritiks (knowledge from policy land is bad/tainted)

Politically-centered kritiks Friere Identity politics Schlag

Ethics kritiks Language kritiks/dirty words General “case outweighs”