Shti Dick Head Fart

7/29/2019 Shti Dick Head Fart

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shti-dick-head-fart 1/50

Mr. T and Me

http://www.blog-relations.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/mr-t.gif



Topic Wording

RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATESFEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD

SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITSECONOMIC ENGAGEMENTTOWARD CUBA, MEXICO, OR

VENEZUELA.



Lecture Overview

Five Questions:

1) What?

2) Where?

3) How Much? 4) Who?

5) Advanced Topicality Concepts



Question 1: What?

TERM 1: ECONOMIC

ENGAGEMENT

CONTROVERSY 1: DOES EE

REQUIRE A RESPONSE FROM THE

TARGET COUNTRY?



Quid Pro Quo

1. Economic engagement is designed to change thebehavior of the target state.

Miles Kahler & Scott Kastner, (Prof., International Relations, U. California at

San Diego/Prof., Government, U. Maryland), JOURNAL OF PEACE RESEARCH,Sept. 2006, 524. Economic engagement – a policy of deliberately expandingeconomic ties with an adversary in order to change the behavior of the targetstate and improve bilateral political relations – is a subject of growing interestin international relations.

2. Economic engagement is defined as a policy to shape the behavior of thetarget state.

Richard Haas, (Dir., Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution), SURVIVAL,SUMMER 2000, 114. Certainly it does not preclude the simultaneous use of other foreign policy instruments such as sanctions or military force; inpractice, there is often considerable overlap of strategies, particularly whenthe termination or lifting of sanctions is used as a positive inducement. Thedistinguishing feature of American engagement strategies is their reliance on

the extension or provision of incentives to shape the behavior of countrieswith which the U.S. has important disagreements.



EE Controversy 2

Controversy 2: Economic aid is non-military/non-diplomatic

Economic engagement consists of economicincentives.

Richard Haas, (Dir., Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution), SURVIVAL, SUMMER 2000, 114-115. Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits,investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans or economic aid. Otherequally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade

embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relationsbetween the United States and the target country.

Distinct from political or diplomatic engagement Richard Haas, (Dir., Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution), SURVIVAL, SUMMER

2000, 115. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition,access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between

leaders – or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve theextension of international military-educational training in order both to strengthenres ect for civilian authorit and human ri hts amon a countr ’s armed forces and,



EE Controversy 3

Positive, not negative incentives Michael Mastanduno, (Prof., Government, Dartmouth College),

ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE AND INTERNATIONALCONFLICT, July 2010, 175.

Students of economic statecraft refer to this strategy variouslyas economic engagement, economic inducement, economic

diplomacy, positive sanctions, positive economic linkage, or theuse of economic ―carrots‖ instead of sticks. Critics of thestrategy call it economic appeasement.



Controversy 4: Binding

Commitment ENGAGEMENT IS A BINDING COMMITMENT

Sandra Anderson, (Editor), COLLINS

ENGLISH DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED, 2006,543. Engagement: A promise, obligation, orother condition that binds.

No one-shot deals —no provide fundingonce, but long lasting commitment

Might also mean that conditionedcounterplans are legitimate



Where?

Issue 1: Topic says ―toward‖

Does toward mean ―directly toward?‖

Concern: we have internationalsanctions against Cuba

Concern: policies that engage all of Latin America



Issue 2: OR

The topic does not say and/or only or.

Meaning: cases that act multilaterallyare not topical.

You might catch someone sleeping onthis early in the year.



Question 3: How Much?

SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE

Controversy One: How much is

Substantially?

One measure: quantitative.

Various percentage based definitions…

The problem on this topic is we barely engageCuba and Venezuela at all —almost anychange would be substantial



Non-percentage based

definitions Controversy 2: Is there

a qualitative way to

measure substantially?

Unconditionally: Mean we do it

without any precondition… "Substantially: Essentially; without material

qualification…‖ [Don Blewett, 1976 (Chairperson California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Young v. Laura Scudder’s Pet, Inc.January 29, 1976. www.cuiab.ca.gov/precedent/pb181.doc.)]



Thoughts on Increase

Controversy 3: Can you create a

new program?

Increase can bedistinct from create

Can they create a new

program? Or just an

expansion of what has already been createdThe problem on this topic is we do so little to

Cuba or Venezuela



Controversy 4: Net

Increase Net increase: meaning no

trade-offs…

Increase: Term ―increase…‖ refers to ―net increase…‖

WORDS AND PHRASES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, Vol. 20A, 07, 309.

Net increase in economic engagement

meaning no trade-offs.

This might be relevant for the off-sets

Counterplan



Question 4: Who?

THE UNITED STATES

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT…

ITS ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT.

WHAT DO THESETERMS MEAN?



Controversy 1: Federal

government Three branches of

government

Legislative,

Executive, Judicial

But executive agencies areinvolved…who is the head of USforeign policy



Who? Its Investment

Its economic engagement —

refers to investments of

the United States government

Relevance: Private investments

are not topical International investments

through the World Bank or the IMF

are not topical



Advanced Topicality

Concepts 1) Using topicality as a wedge issue

2) Going for T as a winning issue

3) Going for T against teams that

Kritik T



T as a wedge issue

T as a wedge issue means using T to set upother arguments

CP competition

Disad Links

Kritik Links



Using T to set up

counterplan competition Example 1: Using ―its engagement‖ to

set up competition for privates

counterplan or internationalcounterplans

Topic says ―its economic engagement‖



How would we set up this

T violation? A) Neg Interp:

Its means exclusively belonging to

B) Violation: you include private investment C) Standards

1) Limits: are an infinite number of privatecompanies —multiple by types of transportation

infrastructure 2) Ground: Privates and International

Counterplans

D) Voter: Fairness, Education, Ground



Using T for counterplan

competition 1) Go to the T violation and explicitly

concede their interpretation

2) Set up the argument that thisinterpretation is necessary for your

counterplan competition



T as a wedge issue

Example 2: Using economicengagement to set up non-quid pro

quo counterplans If engagement requires a quid pro

quo, then counterplans that don’t

require a condition compete with the AFF



Investment T violation

How would we set up the T violation to make nonquid pro quo competitive

A) Neg. Interp: Economic engagement requires aqpq

B) Violation: They don’t mandate a qpq

C) Standards

1) Ground: our disad & cp ground comes from theqpq

2) Limits: infinite variety of engagement AFF’sacross three different countries

D) Voting Issue Fairness, Education, Ground



Process CP Set Ups

Example 3: Using the resolution tomake the affirmative defend

immediacy and certainty

Why does the neg want the AFF to

have defend immediacy and certainty?



How can we set up this T

violation? A) Resolved: means with certainty

Should: means immediate

Substantially means without materialqualification/substantial means

immediate



Process CP’s on the AFF

How can we answer the violations theNEG sets up to make the affirmative

defend certainty & immediacy? 1) Resolved: means with fixity of

purpose. Resolved isn’t in the

resolution, it’s a precursor Resolved: come to a decision about

Resolved: precursor to a policy

statement



Cheater CP Answers

2) should: normatively has to be truein this instance/should is different than

shall 3) substantially: significant,

percentage based definition

4) investment: pay for with money 5) increase: to make greater



T as a wedge issue for

disads Use substantially as a wedge issue to

bolster disad links

Helpful against cases that use a lot of link uniqueness thumpers or new

AFF’s.



Setting up T violation

How would we set up the violation tocement our disad links?

A) B)

C)

D)

Other examples of using t as a wedge issuefor disads?



Using T to set up our

kritik links Best place to use T to set up your

kritik link is economic engagement

Some people seem freaked out aboutusing kritik links as a standard for T,but the neg should get some K ground

as well



T as a wedge issue for the

K How would we set up this violation?

A)

B)

C)

D)



Going for T as a winning issue

Three major tips for winning T inmajor debates…

1) Be able to compare standards

2) Argue for a topical version of the AFF

3) Show how there are topical casesunder your interp and cases undertheir interp are unreasonable



Comparing Standards

Issue 1: Overlimiting vs. underlimiting

What is the case for making the topic

small as opposed to making it large? Overlimiting Good Overlimiting Bad

1) Case specific strategies 1) Stale/limited educ

2) Depth of topic specific args 2) AFF innovation good

3) Increase clash —engage the case 3) Breadth 4) Helps small schools —equalizes 4) AFF’s aren’t strategic

the playing field 5) NEG gets states cp

5) Forces hyper-generics 6) Functional limits limit

out bad AFF7 Info overload ood



Comparing Standards

Issue 2: Competing interpretations vs.reasonability

Define the terms Competing interps good Reasonability good

1) Decrease judge intervention 1) judge intervention inevit

2) increases critical thinking 2) forces race to bottom

makes every debate about t 3) Forces judge adaptation

3) Our standards prove you’re

being unreasonable



Comparing Standards

Issue 3: Fairness vs. education

Fairness good Education good

1) if debate isn’t fair 1) portable skills

don’t do a lot of work

2) Fairness key to BPO



Comparing Standards

Issue 4: Precision vs. Ground

Precision Good Ground good

1) Arbitrary interpretation makes itimpossible for AFF predictability



Topical Version of the AFF

Arguing that there is a topical versionof the AFF makes the violation seem a

lot more reasonable How can we argue that the AFF could

be topical under our engagement

violation?



Case Lists

When extending a T violation, youshould include a list of topical aff’s

versus non-topical aff’s in youroverview

How would you create an overview for

our economic engagement violation?



Debating T vs. teams that

critique T A lot of kritik teams will kritik the

idea that topicality should be avoting issue

Series of arguments challengingthe idea that T should be a voting

issue



T is exclusionary

K teams will argue that T excludesthem —either because it excludes

minority viewpoints or is oppressive toa group in some way

How do we answer this argument?



Kritiking the State

Kritik teams will also kritik that theyshouldn’t have to use the state

Agency DA: forcing us to be the statecauses us to lose our agency

Psychological violence of forcing them

to align with the oppressor How do we answer the kritik of the

state



Kritiking Policymaking

Teams will kritik the idea that weshould be in a policy-making

framework Problem-solution framework ensures

violence b/c we go looking for

problems to solve



Kritiking Switch-Side

Debate Switch-side debate divorces us from

our convictions and causes us to be

conservatives

How do we defend switch side

debate?



Defending Switch-Side

Debate 3 major defenses of switch side debate

1) Devil’s advocate: It’s good for you to

have to defend things you don’t believe 2) Siren’s call: We can’t test ideas we are

unprepared to argue against

3) Master’s tools: You have to understandthe master’s tools to tear down the master’shouse



Conclusion

Three major concepts to debating T atan advanced level

1) T can be a wedge issue…T can winyou the debate even if you don’t gofor T

2) Comparing standards to go for T asa winning issue

3) Using T to beat non-topical K AFF’s



1nc Violation Example

We are debating against a case that increases funding to Mexico for one small water project

A) Negative Interpretation: Substantially means at least 20percent

B) Violation: The plan only increases funding by 10 percent C) Standards:

– 1) Ground: We limit out cases that only increase the number of people by a small amount —those cases destroy negative link ground

– 2) Bright Line: Our interpretation makes it clear what cases are

topical and which ones don’t D) Voting Issue:

– Fairness, Education, Ground



Answering Topicality: the2ac

4 ways to answer topicality – 1) WE MEET: Say your plan actually does what

their violation says

– 2) COUNTER-INTERPRETATION: Provide adifferent definition of a word in the topic (thatyour plan meets)

– 3) COUNTER-STANDARDS: Provide reasons why

your interpretation is better than theirinterpretation

– 4) ATTACK THEIR STANDARDS: Show why theirstandards are bad



2ac Answers

1) We meet: we increase the amountof water projects by 20% meeting

your interpretation 2) Counter-interpretation:

Substantially means ―large in amount‖



2ac Answers (Continued)

3) Counter-standards: – A) Our counter-interpretation preserves fair

ground: you can debate whether or not the plan

is a large increase – B) There is no reason why 19% is good and why20% is bad

4) Their interpretation is bad for debate: – A) It overlimits: it limits out cases that increase

by a sizeable amount of money – B) It is arbitrary: definitions for substantially

exist for every percentage conceivable.

Shti Dick Head Fart

Documents

Transcript of Shti Dick Head Fart