Topicality – CNDI 2019Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

Negative

Reduce

Distinct from modify

1ncInterpretation—topical affs must mandate the amount of arms be made smaller.Reductions are different from modifications.State v Knutsen 03 [State v. Knutsen, 71 P.3d 1065, 138 Idaho 918 (Ct. App. 2003)., 6-24-03, Accessible Online at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4180324369703559674&q=idaho+v+knutsen&hl=en&as_sdt=2006] DL 6-26-2019

By its plain language, Rule 35 grants a district court the authority within a limited period of time to reduce or modify a defendant's sentence after relinquishing jurisdiction. To "reduce" means to diminish in size, amount, extent or number, or to make smaller, lessen or shrink. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1905 (1993). To "modify" means to make more temperate and less extreme, or to lessen the severity of something. Id. at 1452. Thus, under the plain meaning of its language, Rule 35 authorizes a district court to diminish, lessen the severity of, or make more temperate a defendant's sentence. An order placing a defendant on probation lessens the severity of a defendant's sentence and thus falls within the district court's authority granted by Rule 35. Other state jurisdictions have held likewise in interpreting similar rules for reduction of sentence. See State v. Knapp, 739 P.2d 1229, 1231-32 (Wy.1987) (similar rule of criminal procedure authorizes reduction of a sentence of incarceration to probation); People v. Santana, 961 P.2d 498, 499 (Co.Ct.App.1997) (grant of probation is a "reduction" under Colorado Cr. R. 35(b)).

The state argues for construing Idaho's Rule 35 in accordance with the cases interpreting former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, which was similar in language.[1] See State v. Chapman, 121 Idaho 351, 352, 825 P.2d 74, 75 (1992).[2] However, we conclude that the interpretation of Federal Rule 35 is not controlling in the instant case because the language of Idaho's Rule 35 is distinguishable. The former Federal Rule 35 did not use the term "modify" in describing a reduction of sentence as is currently provided in Idaho Rule 35.

Violation—they only make it harder for the executive/companies/the military/etc. to enter into arms contracts. That’s a modification not a reduction.Effects topicality – independent voting issue, destroys predictability as there is no limit to actions the USfg might take that might lead to a smaller amount of arms sales but not mandate it.Extra topicality – independent voting issue, their interp gives aff advantages to changing which branch of government has authority to determine the amount of US arms sales, ours limits the aff to advantages to the USfg reducing arms sales—only those have resolutional basisGround – the neg loses topic disad links to reasons arms sales provide global stability. Restricting arms sales should also be neg counterplan ground.

2nc distinct from modifyReducing makes smaller in number—anything else is abating, curtailing, or diminishing.Anirudh Rawat, 1-2-2014, Anirudh is a novelist, writer, seo expert and educationist.

"Difference between Reduce, Abate, Curtail and Diminish," No Publication, https://learnodo-newtonic.com/difference-between-reduce-abate-curtail-and-diminish

These words mean to make or to become smaller or less. Reduce is the most general among these words and is used in a variety of situations. It means to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc. It may also suggest lowering in degree or intensity. Further it may mean to bring down to a lower rank, dignity, etc. Abate usually means to reduce something which is widespread or extremely intense. Ex – The storm has abated. In law it means to remove completely – to abate a nuisance. Curtail suggests sudden and abrupt shortening. It may also mean to place a restriction on something . The word is usually used only for nonmaterial things. Ex – Our holiday was curtailed due to an emergency in office. Diminish suggests progressive lessening but not to the point of total disappearance. Ex – My eyesight has diminished with age.

Reduce should follow the ordinary meaning and must result in a smaller number onlyMutual Life v US 99 [Justia Law, Cuna Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States, Defendant-appellee, 169 F.3d 737 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 2-9-1999, Accessible Online at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/169/737/490993/] 7-1-2019

In the case of a mutual life insurance company, the deduction for policyholder dividends for any taxable year shall be reduced by the amount determined under section 809.

" [T]he amount determined" under § 809, by which the policyholder dividend deduction is to be "reduced," is the "excess" specified in § 809(c) (1). Like the word "excess," the word "reduced" is a common, unambiguous, non-technical term that is given its ordinary meaning. See San Joaquin Fruit & Inv. Co., 297 U.S. at 499, 56 S. Ct. 569. "Reduce" means "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number." Webster's Third International Dictionary 1905. Under CUNA's interpretation of "excess" in § 809(c), however, the result of the "amount determin [ation]" under § 809 would be not to reduce the policyholder dividends deduction, but to increase it. This would directly contradict the explicit instruction in § 808(c) (2) that the deduction "be reduced." The word "reduce" cannot be interpreted, as CUNA would treat it, to mean "increase."

The fact that § 808(c) (2) permits only the reduction of the policyholder dividend deduction reinforces the conclusion that § 809(c) (1) does not cover a "negative excess." Since Congress authorized only a "reduction," it is unlikely that it intended to permit a "negative excess," the effect of which would be not to reduce, but to increase the deduction.

Permanent

1ncInterpretation—topical affs must permanently reduce sales from the current number.Reductions are different from suspensions. Suspensions are temporary, reductions are not.Montesani v Levitt 59 [MATTER OF MONTESANI v. Levitt, 9 A.D.2d 51, 189 N.Y.S.2d 695 (App. Div. 1959), 8-13-1959, Accessible Online at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1402552157078234696&q=Montesani+v.+Levitt&hl=en&as_sdt=2006] DL 6-26-2019

Under his retirement contract deceased agreed that in return for a plan that would insure payment of the remainder of his initial fund to his beneficiary after his death he would accept a lower rate of lifetime compensation. Implicit in this agreement were various statutory provisions governing the rights of both parties. One of these provisions was section 83 which provided that if deceased were able to return to a gainful occupation or actually did so his pension would accordingly be reduced. This reduction would be governed by the amount he actually earned or was capable of earning. We now reach one of the major issues in the case, to wit: Is section 83 to be considered as a binding factor in his contract and if so does "reduce" mean "forfeit" or "temporarily suspended"?

It seems obvious that section 83 was in the law to protect the System against disability retirees who might, in truth, be capable of providing for themselves without being on dole (albeit a "contractural" dole). See Matter of Stewart v. O'Dwyer (271 App. Div. 485, 490 [1st Dept., 1946]), where such a purpose is ascribed to section 83's counterpart in the New York City retirement statute. Deceased quit his work here because of his physical defect and elected the plan of retirement he fancied most suitable. He impliedly agreed to all the terms of the contract which included section 83. When he became employed in California at a considerable salary section 83 came into play and cut off his monthly pension payments although his annuity payments were not affected (thus he was not being deprived of anything he had contributed). There is no persuasive 56*56 argument that this was not proper. When the California employment ceased, assuming deceased to be still living, should he then be entitled to the withheld payments?

Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under

section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it must later pay it anyway. The section says "reduced", does not say that monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency.

Aside from the practical aspect indicating permanency other indicia point to the same conclusion.

From 1924 (L. 1924, ch. 619) to 1947 (L. 1947, ch. 841) a provision appeared in the Civil Service Law which read substantially as follows: "If the pension of a beneficiary is reduced for any reason, the amount of such reduction shall be transferred from the pension reserve fund to the pension accumulation fund during that period that such reduction is in effect." (See L. 1924, ch. 619, § 2 [Civil Service Law, § 58, subd. 4]; L. 1947, ch. 841 [Civil Service Law, § 66, subd. e].) This provision reappears in the 1955 Retirement and Social Security Law as subdivision f of section 24. This provision is useful for interpretative purposes. Since it prescribes that moneys not paid because of reduction should be transferred back to the accumulation fund the conclusion is inescapable that such reductions were meant to be permanent. If temporary suspensions were intended this bookkeeping device would result in a false picture of the funds, i.e., the reserve fund would be depleted when it would contain adequate funds to meet eventual payments 57*57 to present pensioners. Likewise, the accumulation fund would be improperly inflated with respect to the present pensioners.

Section 64 of the Retirement and Social Security Law (§ 85 under the 1947 act) provides that any disability pension must be reduced by the amount payable pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Law if applicable. In Matter of Dalton v. City of Yonkers (262 App. Div. 321, 323 [1941]) this court interpreted "reduce" to mean "offset" in holding that under then section 67 (relating to Workmen's Compensation benefits as do its successors sections 85 and 64), pensions were to be offset by compensation benefits. This is merely another indication that "reduce" means a diminishing of the pension pursuant to a given formula rather than a mere recoverable, temporary suspension during the time other benefits or salaries are being received by the pensioner. (Also, cf., Retirement and Social Security Law, § 101 [§ 84 under the 1947 act].)

Violation—they temporarily suspend aid/suspend aid until a condition is met Ground – the aff gets to spike out of topic disads that link to US loss of leverage over target countries. Conditions CPs are also core negative ground supported by topic lit. Vote neg to preserve core topic controversy.

2nc permanentIt’s not a reduction even if it returns to the same baseline at a later dateRitter v Strauss 58 [Justia Law, John C. Ritter, Appellant, v. Lewis L. Strauss, Secretary of Commerce, et al., Appellees, 261 F.2d 767 (D.C. Cir. 1958), 12-4-1958, Accessible Online at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/261/767/159753/] 7-1-2019

In March 1953 Bloom received a reduction in force (R.I.F.) notice from the National Production Authority, and his last day of work in that branch was May 22. In view of the R.I.F., Bloom asked for his old job in the Bureau of the Census, and resumed it immediately after May

22. On May 29, 1953 the appellant was given a R.I.F. notice by the Bureau of the Census, stating that his last day of work would be June 30. By subsequent letters, the appellant's separation was postponed to August 28. On August 30 Bloom was promoted from his GS-11 position to the GS-12 position which the appellant had been holding in

an acting capacity for more than a year. The appellant claims that there was no genuine reduction in force since Bloom was brought in to replace him, leaving the same number of employees after as before the purported reduction. The fact of Bloom's former employment in the Bureau of the Census is immaterial, since the parties agree that Bloom had no reemployment rights. Executive Order No. 10180, U.S.Code Cong. Service 1950, p. 1671, issued November 13, 1950, 15 F.R. 7745, granted authority to the Civil Service Commission to prescribe regulations governing the rights to reemployment of employees transferring from one agency of the Government to another. The Civil Service Commission, by Transmittal Sheet 316, of November 13, 1950, by Departmental Circular No. 643 and a press release, both issued on November 30, 1950, by Departmental Circular No. 653 issued on February 23, 1951, prescribed the procedure by which an employee might obtain reemployment rights. The prescribed procedure was not followed in Bloom's case.1 The defendants rely upon Civil Service Regulations, section 8.108, 17 F.R. 343, which in fact was cited by the Bureau of the Census in its personnel files as the legal basis for Bloom's reemployment. The section says: "The Commission hereby delegates authority to agencies: "(1) To promote, demote, or reassign any permanent employee having a competitive status and serving in a competitive position." The defendants say that Bloom's reemployment was merely a "reassignment" within the same "agency", the Department of Commerce. The plaintiff disputes this, and cites 13 U.S.C. 1, which denominates the Bureau of the Census as an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce. He cites 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001, defining the term agency for the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act, giving it a definition which would apply to the Bureau of the Census. He cites the United States Government Organization Manual, 1951-52, which lists in Appendix C at page 656ff the departments and agencies which have submitted separate statements of organizations pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, and listing the Bureau of the Census and the National Production Authority as two such agencies. His most persuasive citation is that of Commerce Department Order No. 130, which rescinded Order No. 123 and provided that the Civil Service regulations relating to the transfer of employees between agencies should thereafter apply to the transfer of employees of the Department to the National Production Authority. We think that the Department of Commerce itself regarded the Bureau of the Census and the National Production Authority as separate agencies, for the purpose of the application of Civil Service regulations. The defendants, however, argue that one's retention status for the purpose of a reduction in force is not, in any event, an agency status, but a Government-wide status. They point to section 20.2(h) of the Regulations of the Civil Service Commission, 17 F.R. p. 11733 which says: "`Retention credits' are credits given for length of government service and performance ratings." It may well be that if a vacancy occurs in an agency, and an employee with long Government service in an entirely different branch of the Government is hired to fill it, and there later develops the necessity for a reduction in force, the long period of Government service will give that employee a higher retention

status than those who have been in the particular agency longer than he has been. But if an agency, a week before reduction in force notices are to be sent out, can hire such an employee from a different agency, and retain him and discharge another employee who has been longer with the particular agency, there is no real protection for faithful employees of the agency. While it would be hard to spell out in regulations any time limits within which such hiring could not be done, and we are cited to no regulation which attempts to cover such a situation, the instant case presents no real difficulty. The excess of employees making the reduction in force necessary was created by the hiring of Bloom shortly after May 22. On May 29 the plaintiff, whom Bloom was to replace, was given his reduction in force notice. The creation of the surplus of employees and the reduction in force eliminating that surplus were steps in the same transaction, both steps being in contemplation when the first step was taken. In general, Government agency actions adversely affecting Government employees, whether they be demotions or separations, are occasioned for one of two reasons and there are statutes and regulations governing the circumstances under which such adverse actions may be taken and the manner in which they must be carried out. Separations for cause, that is, separations which are necessitated because of the poor performance or undesirable behavior of the employees are covered by the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 652, and by section 14 of the Veterans Preference Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863. Separations or demotions which are required to meet some administrative exigency within an employing agency are known as reductions-in-force and the applicable authority for such action is found in section 12 of the Veterans Preference Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 861 and in the Civil Service regulations issued thereunder. From February 2, 1948 to June 29, 1949 section 20.2(a) of the regulations of the Civil Service Commission contained the following definition of a reduction in

force: "`Reduction in force' means the involuntary separation from the rolls of a department, or furlough in excess of thirty

days, of one or more employees in order to reduce personnel. Reduction in personnel may have to be made because of lack of funds, personnel ceilings, reorganization, decrease of work, to make a position available for a former employee with established reemployment or restoration rights, or for other reasons. * * *" [Italics supplied.] The italicized clause in the above quoted regulation sets forth the circumstances which, in general, justify an agency in initiating a reduction in force. On June 29, 1948 the Civil Service Commission made a minor change in this regulation. On January 30, 1953 the Civil Service Commission issued an extensive revision to Part 20 of its regulations relating to reduction in force in general. For some reason not explained in Transmittal Sheet 414 of the United States Civil Service Commission Federal Personnel Manual, the definition of reduction in force omitted the second clause of the former regulation, the one italicized in the above quotation. The transmittal sheet stated that the revisions in the regulation were intended to simplify and clarify reduction in force regulations. The primary concern of the Commission appears to have been to reduce the 23 possible subgroups of competing

employees which had been set up in the former regulation to 6 subgroups. This revised regulation was the one in effect when the plaintiff was separated from his position. On May 14, 1957 the Commission again revised Part 20 of its regulations relating to reduction in force. At that time the primary concern of the Commission was to reflect in its regulations the holding of the United States Court of Claims in Parks v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 261, 137 C.Cls. 297, which held that a demotion occurring in connection with a reorganization in an employing agency amounted to a reduction in force and that preference eligible employees demoted in the course of such reorganization were entitled to the benefits of the provisions of section 12 of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944 and the Civil Service regulations governing reduction in force. Transmittal sheet No. 567 of the Federal Personnel Manual pointed out that as then written, the reduction in force regulations were applicable only where there was a reduction in the net strength of the employing activity. A demotion, of course, does not necessarily affect such net strength of the agency and the regulations were therefore revised to reflect the court's holding in the Parks case. The substance of the italicized sentence from section 20.2(a) of the 1949 regulations was reinstated in the 1957 version of the regulations which read as follows: "`Reduction in force' is the release of an employee from a competitive level by means of separation from the rolls, furlough for more than thirty (30) days, reassignment involving displacement, or change to lower grade; when such actions are caused by lack of work, shortage of funds, reorganization, or exercise of regulatory reassignment or reemployment rights. * * *" [Italics supplied.] The transmittal sheet did not explain why the above-quoted regulations was revised to once more define the circumstances under which a reduction in force may be initiated. The transmittal sheet did state, however, that there are many situations in which the use of the reduction in force system is the most orderly and equitable means of shifting or separating employees whose skills have become surplus to the activity and that reduction in force applies to situations where adverse actions must be taken as the result of planned management decisions to change or eliminate previously assigned duties for reasons which are impersonal to the employees who are adversely affected. A reading of the reduction in force regulations as they have existed since the enactment of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944 makes it clear that this comment on the part of the Civil Service Commission in 1957 did not represent any change in policy with respect to the circumstances which would give rise to a reduction in force in a particular Government agency. In the circumstances of this case it would seem that the plaintiff's separation was not a "reduction in force" because it was not required by lack of work, shortage of funds, reorganization, exercise of regulatory reassignment or exercise of reemployment rights. It was made necessary by the employment of Bloom — not the regulatory reassignment or the reemployment of Bloom — but the employment of Bloom in a competitive level in which

there was no vacancy. Our conclusion is that the action of the defendants in discharging the appellant was in violation of the law and the applicable regulations.

Excludes future sales

1ncInterpretation—topical affs involve the return of weapons sold/breaking of current contracts.

Reductions are different from preventions. Preventions stop future action.Popattanachai 18 [Popattanachai, Naporn. (3-14-2018). Regional cooperation addressing marine pollution from land-based activities: an interpretation of Article 207 of the Law of the Sea Convention focusing on monitoring, assessment, and surveillance of the pollution (Doctoral dissertation, Nottingham Trent University), Accessible Online at http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/33374/1/Naporn%20Popattanachai%202018.pdf. ] DL 6-26-2019

For the second question, the provision demonstrates that the goal of adoption of such laws and regulations must be to ‘prevent, reduce, and control’ MPLA. In so doing, the 141 LOSC obliges States to ‘taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards, and recommended practices and procedures’.480 Having considered the ordinary meanings of the term ‘prevent, reduce, and control’, ‘prevent’ means ‘to stop something from happening or someone from doing something.’481 The word ‘reduce’ means ‘to make something smaller in size, amount, degree, importance etc.’482 and the word ‘control’ means ‘to order, limit, or rule something or someone's actions or behaviour.’ 483 From the meanings, the term ‘prevent’ suggests an action to stop the future occurrence of something, whereas the terms ‘reduce’ and ‘control’, noting their difference, point to an action dealing with something that has already happened and continues to occur, but needs to be made smaller, limited or regulated. Also, control also applies to future pollution in the sense that it limits the future pollution to be created or emitted not to exceed the specified level. Therefore, the preliminary reading of these terms suggests that laws and regulations adopted to deal with MPLA must yield the result that conforms with these terms. In so doing, the adoption of laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control MPLA can be done by legislating primary or secondary regulations with the use of various legal techniques and procedures and are underpinned by some rules and principles of international law discussed in the previous chapter. These legal techniques and procedures can be used to achieve the prevention, reduction and control of MPLA depending on the design and use of them. Noting that the measures outlined below are not exhaustive and not exclusively limited to implement any specific obligation, these are typical legal techniques and procedures used to prevent, reduce, and control pollution and therefore protect the environment. They can be categorised into two groups, that is, (1) substantive and (2) procedural legal techniques and measures. They can be discussed hereunder.

Violation—they prevent the US from entering into future contracts.Ground – the aff gets to spike out of topic disads by merely limiting the growth of arms sales instead of reducing them. Limits – their interp allows the aff to spec countries to whom we don’t currently sell a substantial amount of arms. Vote neg to protect the small amount of limits you can preserve on a large topic.

2nc excludes future salesPreventing an increase is not the same as a decreaseColorado General Assembly 19 [Colorado General Assembly, First Regular Session, 72nd General Assembly Penalties for Speeding Violations, First Regular Session, 5-21-2019, Accessible Online at https://leg.colorado.gov/content/penalties-speeding-violations] 7-1-2019

Under Colorado law, a violation of driving 1 to 24 mph over the posted speed limit is a Class A traffic infraction. A violation of driving 25 mph or more over the posted limit is a Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense. A violation of driving 25 mph or more over the posted limit in a construction zone is a Class 1 misdemeanor traffic offense. Failure of a driver to reduce vehicle speed to a reasonable and prudent level under hazardous conditions is a Class A traffic infraction.

Substantial

1ncInterpretation—topical affs must reduce arms sales by at least 96.2 billion.

Substantially means at least 50%Michael Novogradac, 2-5-2014, "Close Enough? How to Measure “Substantially Similar” under FASB’s New LIHTC Investment Guidance," No Publication, https://www.novoco.com/notes-from-novogradac/close-enough-how-measure-substantially-similar-under-fasbs-new-lihtc-investment-guidance

Another approach to distilling the meaning of “substantially similar” is to attempt to convert the concept to percentage measurements. Contemplation of the meaning in percentage terms would lead many to view “substantially” as more than 50 percent, but not too much more. Though some could argue that substantial should be viewed as merely large, even perhaps the largest, but not necessarily more than 50 percent. On the other hand, “substantially identical” would likely imply a high correlation, say, more than 90 percent. “Substantially similar” is likely somewhere in between. “Substantially similar” implies less than perfect similarity; if the FASB authors had intended perfect similarity, they would most likely have used a term such as “completely similar.”

Baseline is 192.3 billion.Mehta 18 [Aaron Mehta, The US brought in $192.3 billion from weapon sales last year, up 13 percent, Defense News, 11-8-2018, Accessible Online at https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/11/08/the-us-brought-in-1923-billion-from-weapon-sales-last-year-up-13-percent/] 6-27-2019

Combined weapon sales from American companies for fiscal 2018 were up 13 percent over fiscal 2017 figures, netting American firms $192.3 billion , according to

new numbers released Thursday by the State Department. The department previously announced that FY18 brought in $55.66 billion in foreign military sales , an uptick of 33 percent over FY17’s $41.93 billion. Through the Foreign Military Sales process, the U.S. government serves as a go-between for foreign partners and American industry. What had not been released until now is the total direct commercial sales , the process through which foreign customers can directly buy systems from industry. Those figures topped $136.6 billion for FY18, a 6.6 percent increase from FY17’s $128.1 billion. The Trump administration has made selling American defense goods abroad a key plank of its governance plan, under the guiding principal that “economic security is national security.” Earlier this year, the department rolled out its new Conventional Arms Transfer policy, or CAT, as well as new guidance for selling unmanned systems, with the explicit goal of increasing arms sales. However, tying this year’s figures to the CAT changes may be a stretch. Sales can fluctuate year by year because of the size of certain weapons packages; a pair of large Saudi Arabian purchases in 2012 famously set that year up for a massive $287 billion annual total. And there has already been steady growth each of the last three years, even before the Trump administration’s reforms kicked in, with $148.6 billion in total sales in FY16; $170 billion in FY17; and $192.2 billion in FY18. A State Department official, speaking on background ahead of the official release of these figures, acknowledged to Defense News that these figures can’t be tied directly to changes in policy, noting they represent a “dynamic picture” and that the department is aware there are some factors “we do not control.” Still, the official expressed confidence that as the CAT policy is enacted, it will lead to a natural growth in sales. How much, however, is hard to nail down. “I don’t

want to speculate on a particular goal that we’re looking at” for FY19, the official said. “We think a 13 percent increase is a significant increase year over year. We’d like to maintain that pace, but there are other factors that go into a given set of annual numbers, so I’m hesitant to give a target goal.” Thanks to both the CAT changes and export reform efforts beginning under the Obama administration, there are more options for countries to use direct commercial sales, or DCS, for their procurements. Asked if that meant DCS might grow as FMS cases drop, the official said that is “one dynamic” under review, but noted that “as certain systems start going through DCS, you’ll have new systems backfilling the FMS queue.” “Things may transfer more on DCS direction, but new systems, new capabilities, will be preferred to be kept in the FMS channel,” the official added.

Violation—they only reduce sales by __________.Limits – the US sells arms to 98 countries. Their interp allows any number of affs that only limit arms sales to tiny countries or unpredictable combinations of countries. Our interp limits the aff to countries that receive the bulk of sales.Ground – our interp requires affs to be big enough to ensure links to core topic disads.

2nc substantial____ receives only $____ in DCS. That means it’s not TSecurity Assistance 19 [Security Assistance, Arms Sales, 2019, Accessible Online at http://securityassistance.org/content/arms-sales-downloads (download the first link)] DL 6-30-2019

year country program notifications

2018 Algeria Direct Commercial Sales

624,092,954

2018 Australia Direct Commercial Sales

253,301,278

2018 Bahrain Direct Commercial Sales

6,170,442

2018 Canada Direct Commercial Sales

17,572,726

2018 Chile Direct Commercial Sales

177,915,000

2018 Denmark Direct Commercial Sales

2,579,500

2018 Global Direct Commercial Sales

3,530,393,228

2018 India Direct Commercial Sales

386,029,641

2018 Indonesia Direct Commercial Sales

4,061,721

2018 Israel Direct Commercial Sales

1,969,408,725

2018 Italy Direct Commercial Sales

11,434,262,225

2018 Japan Direct Commercial Sales

3,099,989,999

2018 Jordan Direct Commercial Sales

107,408,032

2018 Latvia Direct Commercial Sales

1,368,801

2018 Malaysia Direct Commercial Sales

51,660,028

2018 Mexico Direct Commercial Sales

140,364,750

2018 Netherlands Direct Commercial Sales

229,205,555

2018 New Zealand Direct Commercial Sales

0

2018 Norway Direct Commercial Sales

1,276,678,845

2018 Oman Direct Commercial Sales

1,224,985

2018 Peru Direct Commercial Sales

2,942,720

2018 Philippines Direct Commercial Sales

99,594,076

2018 Poland Direct Commercial Sales

216,751,842

2018 Qatar Direct Commercial Sales

1,506,352

2018 Saudi Arabia Direct Commercial Sales

1,570,085,964

2018 South Korea Direct Commercial Sales

361,120,000

2018 Sweden Direct Commercial Sales

148,000,000

2018 United Arab Emirates

Direct Commercial Sales

762,397,373

2018 United Kingdom Direct Commercial Sales

2,410,907,843

2018 United States Direct Commercial Sales

194,739,057

___ receives only $____ in FMS.Security Assistance 19 [Security Assistance, Arms Sales, 2019, Accessible Online at http://securityassistance.org/content/arms-sales-downloads (download the first link)] DL 6-30-2019

year

country program notifications

2018

Australia Foreign Military Sales

333,000,000

2018

Bahrain Foreign Military Sales

1,406,400,000

2018

Belgium Foreign Military Sales

6,530,000,000

201 Canada Foreign Military 300,000,000

8 Sales

2018

Denmark Foreign Military Sales

242,000,000

2018

Egypt Foreign Military Sales

1,300,000,000

2018

Finland Foreign Military Sales

804,700,000

2018

Germany Foreign Military Sales

3,900,000,000

2018

India Foreign Military Sales

930,000,000

2018

Iraq Foreign Military Sales

82,500,000

2018

Japan Foreign Military Sales

3,937,300,000

2018

Kuwait Foreign Military Sales

429,800,000

2018

Latvia Foreign Military Sales

200,000,000

2018

Mexico Foreign Military Sales

1,339,400,000

2018

Morocco Foreign Military Sales

1,259,000,000

2018

Netherlands Foreign Military Sales

1,645,000,000

2018

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Foreign Military Sales

325,500,000

2018

Oman Foreign Military Sales

62,000,000

2018

Poland Foreign Military Sales

655,000,000

2018

Qatar Foreign Military Sales

712,000,000

2018

Saudi Arabia Foreign Military Sales

2,886,800,000

2018

Slovakia Foreign Military Sales

2,910,000,000

2018

South Korea Foreign Military Sales

2,601,000,000

2018

Spain Foreign Military Sales

2,160,400,000

2018

Sweden Foreign Military Sales

3,200,000,000

2018

Taiwan Foreign Military Sales

330,000,000

2018

Turkey Foreign Military Sales

3,500,000,000

2018

Ukraine Foreign Military Sales

47,000,000

2018

United Arab Emirates

Foreign Military Sales

270,400,000

201 United Kingdom Foreign Military 4,815,000,0

8 Sales 00

A substantial decrease is at least 50%—more ev.UNEP 2 (United Nations Environmental Program, 10-2, www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/584.htm)

Change in selected pressures on natural ecosystems 2002-32. For the ecosystem quality component, see the explanation of the Natural Capital Index. Values for the cumulative pressures were derived as described under Natural Capital Index. The maps show the relative increase or decrease in pressure between 2002 and 2032. 'No change' means less than 10 per cent change in pressure over the scenario period; small increase or decrease means between 10 and 50 per cent change; substantial increase or decrease means 50 to 100 per cent change; strong increase means more than doubling of pressure. Areas which switch between natural and domesticated land uses are recorded separately.

In context, substantial means 50% of total arms exports.Arad 18 [Shimon Arad, retired Colonel of the Israeli Defense Forces, Trump's Plan for Selling Weapons to the Middle East, National Interest, 5-15-2018, Accessible Online at https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-plan-selling-weapons-the-middle-east-25839] DL 6-27-2019

Arms exports to the Middle East comprise a substantial part of America’s global sales, accounting for 49 percent of total US arms exports between 2013 and 2017. The overall value of U.S. major arms sales to the Middle East is difficult to determine exactly but a moderate estimate would put it at over $150 billion since 2007. This includes hundreds of advanced fighter jets, attack and utility helicopters; advanced munitions; Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) Ships; as well as Patriot and THAAD air defense systems. Many of these arms sales frequently generate follow-on, multiyear paid training, technical and logistical support as well as the building of relevant infrastructure.

Foreign Military Sales

1ncForeign Military Sales require Congressional notification of arms valued at $14 million or more.USNI News . (2019). Report to Congress on Foreign Military Sales - USNI News. [online] Available at: https://news.usni.org/2019/04/03/report-congress-foreign-military-sales-2 [Accessed 27 Jun. 2019].

This report reviews the process and procedures that currently apply to congressional consideration of foreign arms sales proposed by the President. This includes consideration of proposals to sell major defense equipment, defense articles and services, or the retransfer to third-party states of such military items. Under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), Congress must be formally notified 30 calendar days before the Administration can take the final steps to conclude a government-to-government foreign military sale of major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more, defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more, or design and construction services valued at $200 million or more. In the case of such sales to NATO member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Israel, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration can proceed with the sale. However, the prior notice threshold values are higher for sales to NATO members , Japan, Australia, South Korea, Israel, or New Zealand. Commercially licensed arms sales also must be formally notified to Congress 30 calendar days before the export license is issued if they involve the sale of major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more, or defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more (Section 36(c) AECA). In the case of such sales to NATO member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Israel, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration is authorized to proceed with a given sale. As with government-to-government sales, the prior notice threshold values are higher for sales to NATO members, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Israel, or New Zealand.

Furthermore, commercially licensed arms sales cases involving defense articles that are firearms-controlled under category I of the United States Munitions List and valued at $1 million or more must also be formally notified to Congress for review 30 days prior to the license for export being approved. In the case of proposed licenses for such sales to NATO members, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Israel, or New Zealand, 15 days prior notification is required.

In general, the executive branch, after complying with the terms of applicable U.S. law, principally contained in the AECA, is free to proceed with an arms sales proposal unless Congress passes legislation prohibiting or modifying the proposed sale. Under current law Congress faces two fundamental obstacles to block or modify a presidential sale of military equipment: it must pass legislation expressing its will on the sale, and it must be capable of overriding a presumptive presidential veto of such legislation. Congress, however, is free to pass legislation

to block or modify an arms sale at any time up to the point of delivery of the items involved. This report will be updated, if notable changes in these review procedures or applicable law occur.

That excludes any country that doesn’t receive at least 14 million. We’ll insert a chart.Erin Duffin,, 5-13-2019, "U.S. arms exports, by country 2018," Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/248552/us-arms-exports-by-country/

Exports to Export value in TIV in millions constant (1990) U.S. dollar

Saudi Arabia 3,353 Australia 918United Arab Emirates 799Japan 675South Korea 612Israel 480Qatar 423Norway 346Morocco 333Turkey 293Italy 241Afghanistan 206Egypt 197United Kingdom 194 Taiwan 129Canada 121Indonesia 90Lebanon 85Finland 76Poland 72Brazil 60Greece 59Singapore 56Kuwait 55Sri Lanka 54France 50Jordan 50Thailand 49Tunisia 46Chile 44Iraq 40Denmark 32India 25Mexico 18Netherlands 18

Slovakia 18Bahrain 15Montenegro 15Spain 14Jamaica 13Romania 13Pakistan 12Ukraine 12Latvia 11Panama 11Ethiopia 10NATO 8Philippines 8Argentina 7New Zealand 6Portugal 6Georgia 4Nigeria 4Algeria 3Colombia 3Guatemala 3Botswana 2Cameroon 2Croatia 2Czech Republic 2Germany 2Senegal 2Uzbekistan 2Belgium 1Honduras 1

Violation—they only reduce foreign military sales to Jamaica/Romania/Pakistan/Ukraine/Latvia/Panama/Ethiopia/NATO/Philippines/Argentina/New Zealand/Portugal/Georgia/Nigeria/Algeria/Colombia/Guatemala/Botswana/Cameroon/Croatia/Czech Republic/Germany/Senegal/Uzbekistan/Belgium/HondurasLimits –Their interp adds twenty-six affs to an already large topic. That’s twenty-six more case negs we have to cut, plus case negs to unpredictable combinations of those countries. Vote neg so you don’t have to cut a Botswana case neg for your teams.Ground – our interp requires affs to be big enough to ensure links to core topic disads.

Arms

1ncInterpretation—topical affs must only reduce weapons, weapons systems, and support Foreign Military Sales include arms, equipment, services, and trainingGouré 16 [Daniel Gouré, Ph.D., Foreign Military Sales Remain An Important Tool Of U.S. National Security, Lexington Institute, 2-26-2016, Accessible Online at https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/foreign-military-sales-remain-an-important-tool-of-u-s-national-security/7-1-2019

One of the most important of these tools is foreign military sales (FMS). The complex role of FMS is reflected, in part, in the fact that the program is run by the Department of State and not the Department of Defense. One reason for this unusual management approach is that the FMS program involves sales by the U.S. government of U.S. arms, defense equipment, defense services, and military training to foreign governments. As a result, such sales reflect the views of the U.S. government with respect to the recipient country, its relationships with others in the region and the overall approach this country takes to mitigating the threat of regional or global conflict.

Only weapons, weapons systems, and support meet all conditions to classify as “arms”-for a transfer to be a transfer of “arms,” it must:

-involve the defense industry

-would not be a transfer the target would seek if there were no military

-must be related to the lethality of the commodity

-must increase the capabilities of the target military

Brzoska 82 [Brzoska, Michael, Department of Political Science Hamburg University. "Arms transfer data sources." Journal of Conflict Resolution 26.1 (1982): 77-108.] 7-1-2019

DEFINITION OF ARMS TRANSFERS

What is an arms transfer? Let us look at the "arms" part first. What comes to mind here first as a distinguishing criterion between arms and nonarms is the lethality of the transferred commodity. But this criterion does not take us very far. A kitchen knife seems more lethal at first glance than an electronic communication implement does; but the second rather than the first must be classified as a weapon when linked to a sophisticated weapon system. One approach to this problem would be to use something like the category "potentially very lethal" weapons and call only the major weapons "arms." Another approach would be an institutional one: All transfers to the military forces would be seen as arms transfers. We could combine the functional and

the institutional perspectives and name "arms" anything that raises the potential destructive power of the entity within a national boundary that is concerned with the use of force, which could include the military, militia, and

[figure in original]

police. This excludes arms transfers to individuals in a country or to subnational groups. This definition actually boils down to an institutional one as almost all transfers to the armed forces do indeed raise the power potential of an armed force. It should also be considered that there are other factors, e.g., the arms production equipment transferred to a military industry.

For the trade statistician, these very limited theoretical suggestions have to be translated into categories of commodities in each case. In Table I, we present a list of commodities that could be meaningfully included in a definition of arms transfers. But it is not only commodities transferred that increases the destructive potential; we also have to include services and know-how that support the ultimate aim of destruction. Finally, some consideration should be given to the "transfer." When is a transfer accomplished? The potential power of a military is usually increased when friendly foreign troops are stationed in the country or a friendly navy establishes naval bases. So the nation-state approach is not sufficient in all cases.

With regard to the problem clusters identified above, various parts of the list in Table I can be usefully included in an arms transfer definition. Cluster 1 (arms industry) can probably best be tackled with an institutional approach. A relevant question here is, what external demand to the industry would vanish if the military sector in all recipient countries were extinct? Would civilian demand fill the gaps in terms of capacity utilization? Obviously, producers of hardware weapons are more affected than industries that produce "dual-purpose equipment." In this respect arms transfers are very similar in scope to "procurement." Cluster 2 (recipient's burden) can be approached with a similar question: What imports would be avoided if there were no military? But here, more items, especially follow-up inputs into the military, are of interest. For analysis of cluster 3 (military use-value) problems, the extended lethality definition seems the most appropriate. Other authors have suggested looking at the "core" weapon systems only as these constitute the power of a military force. But this is only partially true-in particular, training, services, and support equipment determine to a large degree the "use-value" of weapon systems transferred. The scope of cluster 4 (dependence) problems deviates most from the others: Important here is the possibility of changing suppliers and the question of the extent to which arms can be operative without foreign spares, training, and so on.

TIME PERSPECTIVE OF ARMS TRANSFERS

Although arms are transferred at distant points in time, arms transfers as processes stretch over longer periods. Between the demonstration of political cooperation (cluster 4) in the demand or offer for

contract talks to the final obsolescence of the transferred item, many years will pass. In between lie talks about the transfer agreements on various aspects of the transfer, the production of the equipment, the transfer of the system, the payment for the weapon system, and the delivery of services, training, or spare parts to keep the weapon system in operation. We can conclude that which points in time, or rather periods of time, are of interest depends on the question asked. Since production has to occur before delivery, the time-lapse before delivery is most important for exporting countries. Also important is the date of payment.

The economic burden on the recipient's economy (cluster 2) has two facets: the original payment for the weapon system, and the opportunity costs for creating an environment for the weapon system and for keeping it working, which divert resources (manpower, capital) from the civilian to the military sector. The military "use-value" (cluster 3) starts with the transfer of the first weapon system, but depending on deficits in technical skills and so forth this may not be on a high level. Rather, the "use-value" will generally increase as time goes by, because of training, infrastructure creation, and assimilation of military personnel to the weapon system. The political demonstration of "togetherness" (cluster 4) between recipient and supplier may become evident at the announcement of talks, the conclusion of a contract, or the actual delivery. Usually, the dependence of a recipient on the supplier only begins with delivery, the need for spare parts,

munitions, and so on. What is needed then, if all clusters are of interest, is a time schedule of the arms transfer process, including training, support, and infrastructure. For many questions it does not suffice to know the actual dates of delivery.

Violation—they only reduce services/data/support/etc or include nonarms such as PMCs and basingGround – the neg loses topic disad links to reasons arms sales improve the military of the target country since the aff reduces data/services/etc rather than munitionsExtra topicality – independent voting issue—the aff garners extra offense off of PMCs, basing, etc., which are their own topic. Vote neg to prevent a flood of arguments from the college military presence topic

Sales

Has to end a whole marketInterpretation—topical affs must either 1) end all sales to a target country, or 2) end all sales of a type of arm.“Sales” is generic and refers to sales in general and not individual transactions. Byrd “Generic Meaning,” Georgia State University, Transcript of lecture given by Pat Byrd (Department of Applied Linguistics & ESL)

Here are some things that we do know about these generic noun phrase types when they are used in context : 1. The + singular: The computer has changed modern life. ¶ This form is considered more formal than the others--and is not as likely to be used in conversation as the plural noun: Computers have changed modern life. ¶ Master (1987) found in the sample that he analyzed that this form with the was often used to introduce at topic--and came at the beginning of a paragraph and in introductions and conclusions. 2. Zero + plural: Computers are machines. Computers have changed modern life. Probably the most common form for a generalization . It can be used in all contexts--including both conversation (Basketball players make too much money) and academic writing (Organisms as diverse as humans and squid share many biological processes). ¶ Perhaps used more in the hard sciences and social sciences than in the humanities. ¶ 3. A + singular: A computer is a machine. This generic structure is used to refer to individual instances of a whole group and is used to classify whatever is being discussed. The form is often used for definitions of terms. ¶ It is also often used to explain occupations. My sister is a newspaper reporter. I am a teacher. Use is limited to these "classifying" contexts. Notice that this form can't always be subtituted for the other: *Life has been changed by a computer. *A computer has changed modern life. 4. Zero + noncount: Life has been changed by the computer. The most basic meaning and use of noncount nouns is generic --

they are fundamentally about a very abstract level of meaning. Thus, the most common use of

noncount nouns is this use with no article for generic meaning. ¶ Zero Article and Generic

Meaning¶ Most nouns without articles have generic meaning . Two types are involved. 1. Zero + plural: Computers are machines . Computers have changed modern life. 2. Zero + noncount: Life has been changed by the computer.

Ending sales generally requires closing markets.Cambridge Dictionary 15 [Cambridge Dictionary, MARKET, 8-16-15, Accessible Online at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/market] DL 6-26-2019

A market is also an area or particular group that goods can be sold to: the teenage/adult market domestic/foreign markets A market is also the business or trade in a particular type of goods or services:

A market refers to a country as a whole or all of one commodity.Al-Attili 18 [Aghlab Al-Attili, 1.1 What is a market?, No Publication, 10-23-2018, Accessible Online at https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P538_MSA_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_06.htm] DL 6-27-2019

'The term 'market' as used by economists has a different meaning from ordinary usage. It does not mean literally the physical place in which commodities are sold or purchased (as in 'village market'), nor does it mean the stages that a commodity passes through between the producer and the consumer (as in marketing channels). Rather it refers in an abstract way to the purchase and sale transactions of a commodity and the formation of its price. Used in this way, the term refers to the countless decisions made by producers of a commodity (the supply side of the market) and consumers of a commodity (the demand side of the market), which taken together determine the price level of the commodity ... the term is detached from any particular geographical coverage. The geographical scope of the term depends on the context in which it is being used. It may refer to the local situation in some part of the rural economy, for example the market for cassava in southern Tanzania, or it can refer to the country as a whole, the region, or the international economy. Thus the expression 'world market' refers to the process of price formation at an international level for traded agricultural commodities.' Source: Ellis (1990) pp. 6-7. (2) The business perspective Business people tend to use the term 'market' to describe the groups of individuals or organizations that make up the pool of actual and potential customers for their goods and services. These groups fall into one or more of the following categories: geographic, demographic or socioeconomic, psychographic, behavioural or sectoral.

Violation—they only reduce one type of arm to one countryLimits –The US sells arms to 98 countries and there are 20 categories on the US munitions list (if we don’t count subcategories or individual munitions). That means there are 1,960 affs for us to prep under their interpretation plus every unpredictable permutation of countries and categories. That’s 98 factorial times 20 factorial. That’s 2.29347e+172. There’s only 10e+82 atoms in the universe. Under their interp we have to prep more case negs than there are atoms in the universe. Limits key to clash and sanity. Ground – our interp requires affs to be big enough to ensure links to core topic disads.

2nc - MarketsSales are distinct from transactions.Harris 14 [Carla Harris, Vice Chairman Managing Director and Senior Client Advisor at Morgan Stanley, Transaction Sales v. Relationship Sales, Carlaspearls, 11-16-2014, Accessible Online at https://carlaspearls.com/2014/11/16/transaction-sales-v-relationship-sales/] DL 6-29-2019

Transaction Sales v . Relationship Sales Nov 16, 2014 John is a young professional who is in his last semester of getting his MBA. He told me that he was passionate about sales and that he wanted to do something where his evaluation and compensation depended on his sales skills. I asked him did he like Transactional Sales or Relationship Sales, as there was a

difference. He did not know the difference and asked me to explain. In my view, transaction sales is selling a single transaction, product or deal. You are trying to provoke AN ACTION, at this moment in time, getting a customer to buy your product, process, or event. The important competitive parameters are your track record, price, extra amenities, or something else that you can deliver around that single transaction. Your ability and opportunity to compete is based on your product offering

rather than your relationship with the customer. Examples of transaction sales are found in selling cars, clothes, pharmaceutical products, real estate, and even some financial services, especially daily trades, where the key competitive parameter is best price, for the largest volume, or in other words, best execution. Customer satisfaction in transaction sales is all about best execution on that single transaction. If you have the best price, can perform in the most efficient way, then you are competitive and have a high probability of winning in transaction sales. If you want to be successful in this space, you must be quick on your feet, very articulate, able to find the competitive edge, using track record, price, or a special offering and have the resources to deliver the product or process.

Relationship Sales is selling based on the length and strength of a relationship. A customer has to know and trust you as a sales person in order for you to even get an opportunity to compete for the business.

Relationship selling has a long lead time, unlike transaction selling, where you can step up to compete as long as you have the required credentials and ability to deliver. Your ability to be taken seriously as a competitor for the business depends on how well the customer knows you as you enter into the competition. An example of relationship selling is selling asset management products to institutional allocators. In many cases, you have to be invited into the Request For Proposal (RFP), and will only be shortlisted, if the customer has a high degree of confidence that you will be able to deliver the desired services. The only way that they will acquire that degree of confidence is if they have spent time outside of the RFP process getting to know you, your company and the products that you have to offer.

A transaction is only one instance of an exchange.Dictionary.com [Their Assumed, Definition of transaction, dictionary, Accessible Online at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transaction] DL 6-30-2019

transaction[ tran-sak-shuhn, -zak- ]SHOW IPA SYNONYMS|EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGINSEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR transaction ON THESAURUS.COM noun the act of transacting or the fact of being transacted. an instance or process of transacting something.

***AFF Answers***

Reduce

Distinct from modifyModification is synonymous with reduction Umlaut. 16 [Umlaut., Definition of modify, dictionary, 3-13-16, Accessible Online at https://www.dictionary.com/browse/modify] CK 6-28-2019

verb (used with object), mod·i·fied, mod·i·fy·ing. to reduce or lessen in degree or extent; moderate ; soften:to modify one's demands.

Reductions include controls.Dictionary.com 16 [Dictionary.com, the definition of modify, Dictionary, 3-13-16, Accessible Online at https://web.archive.org/web/20160313202751/https://www.dictionary.com/browse/modify]

reduce [ri-doos, -dyoos] Spell Syllables Synonyms Examples Word Origin See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com verb (used with object), reduced, reducing. 1. to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight by 10 pounds. 2. to lower in degree, intensity, etc.: to reduce

the speed of a car. 3. to bring down to a lower rank, dignity, etc.: a sergeant reduced to a corporal. 4. to treat analytically, as a complex idea. 5. to lower in price. 6. to bring to a certain

state, condition, arrangement, etc.: to reduce glass to powder. 7. to bring under control or authority.

PermanentReductions can be temporaryFISHER 09 [J.A.D. Fisher, Superior Court of New Jersey judge, Donnelly v. Donnelly, 963 A.2d 855, 405 N.J. Super. 117 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)., 1-14-2009, Accessible Online at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2252662124732332561&q=%22reduction%22+%22temporary%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2006] DL 6-27-2019

VI. THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANT'S REDUCTION IN INCOME WAS A TEMPORARY CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE REDUCTION HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR 4 YEARS.

Reductions can be temporarySCHNACKENBERG 61 [SCHNACKENBERG, circuit judge, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. FTC, 289 F.2d 835 (7th Cir. 1961)., 1-25-1961, Accessible online at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6632872868159376325&q=%22reductions%22+are+%22temporary%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2006] DL 6-27-2019

AB's two price reductions were parts of an experimental program of sales promotion in the St. Louis market and the reductions were temporary and made necessary by competitive conditions. A primary result of AB's price reductions was that the consumers of beer in St. Louis enjoyed a lower price on Budweiser, since the price reductions were passed on to them by the retailers.

Excludes future salesContextually, reduction includes limitations on growth.Feldman 7 [Harvey Feldman, Former Distinguished Fellow in China Policy, Heritage Foundation. President Reagan's Six Assurances to Taiwan and Their Meaning Today, Heritage Foundation, 10-2-2007, Accessible Online at https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/president-reagans-six-assurances-taiwan-and-their-meaning-today] 6-30-2019

On July 26, 1982, 12 days after their first meeting, Lilley called again on President Chiang. This time he delivered a "non-paper"[6] again stating that the "U.S. side has no intention of setting a date for termination of arms sales. The U.S. does not agree to the PRC's demand to have prior consultations with them on arms sales to Taiwan." It went on to outline the U.S. proposal to the PRC about arms sales reduction over time --language which in fact was included in the communiqué--and twice made the point that this and any other concession to Beijing would be "predicated on one thing: that is, that the PRC will continue to advocate only to use peaceful means to settle the Taiwan issue."[7]

Reductions can be about future spendingCRFB 18 [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, nonpartisan organization about fiscal policy, CBO Shows Faster Growth Is Important for Fixing the Debt, 8-28-2018, Accessible Online at http://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-shows-faster-growth-important-fixing-debt] KL 7-1-2019

Strong, sustained economic growth is an important ingredient in putting the debt on a sustainable course. In addition to increasing incomes and raising standards of living, faster economic growth can increase federal tax revenue and raise the nation's capacity for holding debt. For that reason, any comprehensive agenda to repair the nation's ailing long-term fiscal outlook will likely require reductions in future spending , increases in future taxes, and faster economic growth.

Substantial“Substantial” must be defined contextually—no universal definition of substantialFerrera 7 (6-18, Lucas, LLP @ Finkelstein, Newman, Ferrera, http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/2007/06/what_is_material_made_of_1.html.)

According to established precedent, terms like "material" or "substantial" don't lend themselves to a precise, all-encompassing definition. Our favorite quote on the topic can be found in the case of Park East Land Corporation v. Finkelstein, 299 N.Y. 70 (1949), wherein our state's highest court -- the New York State Court of Appeals -- noted as follows: 'Substantial' is a word of general reference which takes on color and precision from its total context. Having little if any meaning when considered in abstract or in vacuum, it must be defined with reference to the peculiar legal and factual setting in which it occurs .... In other words, what is "substantial" will vary from case to case, depending on the underlying facts and circumstances. However, when the parties to a lease agree that certain conduct will comprise a "substantial obligation," or that misconduct may be deemed a "substantial breach," such private agreements have been honored and enforced by the courts in the absence of some statutory prohibition or affront to some public-policy consideration.

In context, substantial can be 902 million.US GAO 18 [United States Government Accountability Office, FOREIGN MILITARY SALES Controls Should Be Strengthened to Address Substantial Growth in Overhead Account Balances, May 2018 https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692484.pdf] 7-1-2019

The FMS CAS Account Balance Has Grown Substantially ; Management Controls over the Balance Remain Insufficient The CAS account balance grew substantially between fiscal years 2007 and 2015 because CAS collections exceeded expenditures in each year and insufficient controls were in place to manage the balance. The account balances for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 overstate available CAS funds due to a systems issue and limited related oversight. Since fiscal year 2014, DSCA has created some controls to help better manage this account; however, DSCA does not plan to conduct timely comprehensive reviews of the CAS fee rate, has inconsistently implemented internal guidance related to calculating the minimum desired level for the account, and has not established a method to calculate an upper bound of a target range for the account, thus allowing the account to continue to grow. The CAS Account Balance Grew Substantially between Fiscal Years 2007 and 2015; the Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017 Account Balances Overstate Available Funds The CAS account balance grew every fiscal year, from $69 million at the beginning of 2007 to $981 million at the end of 2015, or 1,329 percent over the period (see fig. 8). As annual sales grew during this period, CAS collections and expenditures also grew, but at slower rates

than the account balance growth—at 133 percent and 187 percent, respectively. Figure 8: Foreign Military Sales Contract Administration Services (CAS) Account Collections, Expenditures, and Beginning and End of Year Balance, Fiscal Years (FY) 2007 to 2015 Note: Expenditures from the CAS account equal the amount of funds transferred from the CAS account to implementing agencies to pay for CAS bills submitted. These expenditures do not necessarily equal CAS spending by implementing agencies as some implementing agencies may delay in submitting their bills. CAS account collections exceeded expenditures each fiscal year from 2007 through 2015, contributing to the growing account balance. As shown in figure 9, collections were at least double expenditures in five of these years, with a $49 million difference between collections and expenditures in fiscal year 2015. DSCA reduced the CAS fee rate from 1.5 to 1.2 percent in 2014 due to concerns over growth in the CAS account balance, according to DSCA officials. After the rate reduction, the account balance continued to grow but at a slower rate. The account balance increased 5 percent during fiscal year 2015 compared with an average of 38 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2014. The balance would continue to grow if this trend continues.

Substantial can be 0.3%US GAO 18 [United States Government Accountability Office, FOREIGN MILITARY SALES Controls Should Be Strengthened to Address Substantial Growth in Overhead Account Balances, May 2018 https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692484.pdf] 7-1-2019

The range of the estimated balance in each scenario gets larger from year to year due to increasing uncertainty for longer-term projections.

Figure 7: Range of Foreign Military Sales Administrative Account Balance Estimates and Balance above the Projected Safety Level Based on GAO Modeling, Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 to 2024

Our modeling shows that, even with a substantially reduced administrative fee rate , the estimated administrative account balance would likely well exceed the account’s projected safety level through at least fiscal year 2024. Even if DSCA reduced the fee rate an additional 0.3 percent lower than it plans to as of June 2018, we project the estimated balance of the administrative account would be over $1 billion above the account’s safety level in fiscal year 2024.

SalesTo reduce is to lessen, it does not mean to eliminate or diminish to nothing.Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases Volume 4 1914 [The Editorial Staff of the National Reporter System St. Paul West Publishing Company, http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=IJMNAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false] CK 6-27-19REDUCE Rev. Laws, c. 203, § 9, provides that, if two or more cases are tried together in the superior court, the presiding judge may "reduce" the witness fees and other costs, but "not less than the ordinary witness fees, and other costs recoverable in one of the cases" which are so tried together shall be allowed. Held that, in reducing the costs, the amount in all the cases together is to be considered and reduced, providing that there must be left in the aggregate an amount not less than the largest sum recoverable In any of the cases. The word "reduce," In its ordinary signification, does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but to diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state. Green v. Sklar, 74 N. E. 595, 596, 188 Mass. 303.

Sales are transactionsTwin 19 [Alexandra Twin, What You May Not Know About Sales, Investopedia, 6-25-2019, Accessible Online at https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sale.asp] 7-1-2019

A sale is a transaction between two or more parties in which the buyer receives goods—either tangible or intangible—services, and/or assets in exchange for money or in some cases, other assets paid to a seller. In the financial markets, a sale can also refer to an agreement that a buyer and seller make regarding the price of a security.

Regardless of the context, a sale is essentially a contract between the buyer and seller of the particular good or service in question.

The terms are used interchangeablyPowell, Amy, et al. "Strategies for reducing third-party transactions of alcohol to underage youth." Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2004).

This document examines youth access to alcohol through third-party sales. It provides an understanding of what constitutes a third-party sale, how and where these transactions happen, and enforcement strategies to deter and reduce the availability of alcohol to underage drinkers through adult providers. State and local enforcement agencies, policy makers, and concerned citizens can use this guide to gain an understanding of the issues related to underage drinking and third-party transactions motivate policy makers,

communities, and law enforcement to place greater emphasis on underage drinking and third-party sales identify barriers to addressing third-party transactions in their communities learn about strategies to overcome these barriers.

Misc

Foreign Military SalesIncludes gifts and loans. DSCA 13 [(DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY, https://www.dsca.mil/resources/faq) 9-21-2013] 7-1-2019Foreign Military Sales (FMS) is the U.S. Government’s program for transferring defense articles, services, and training to our international partners and international organizations. The FMS program is funded by administrative charges to foreign purchasers and is operated at no cost to taxpayers. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency ( DSCA ) administers the FMS program for the Department of Defense ( DoD ).

Under FMS, the U.S . government uses DoD’s acquisition system to procure defense articles and services on behalf of its partners. Eligible countries may purchase defense articles and services with their own funds or with funds provided through U.S. government-sponsored assistance programs.

In certain cases, defense articles may be obtained through grants or leases.

FMS can be any amountDSCA 18 [Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Chapter 6, Security Assistance Management Manual, 5-16-2018, Accessible Online at https://www.samm.dsca.mil/chapter/chapter-6] DL 7-1-2019

C6.2.3. Informing FMS Customers of Negative Impacts. If any situation arises that puts at risk the USG's ability to meet a commitment made to a foreign partner, it is essential that the broader Security Cooperation enterprise be informed in advance so that the USG may provide a unified response. Any written or verbal communication to inform a foreign partner of the USG's inability to deliver defense articles or services in the following situations must be coordinated in advance with DSCA (Integrated Regional Team Country Portfolio Director/Country Financial Manager): For any case that met the Congressional Notification thresholds of Table C5.T13.: an increase in price of 10% of case value or $25M; or a delay in delivery of more than 6 months of a defense article or service critical to the operational requirement. For any case, regardless of value, any delay of delivery of defense articles or services that may: reasonably be expected to create political repercussions damaging to the bilateral relationship; negatively affect the timing of planned operations; or cause significant additional expense to the foreign customer, such as by accrual of unplanned storage charges.

Direct commercial salesDirect commercial sales refers to foreign sales by US companies of items on the U.S. Munitions ListSAM 17 [Security assistance monitor, The Security Assistance Monitor (SAM) is a program of the Center for International Policy focused on enhancing transparency and oversight of U.S. foreign security aid and arms sales. By providing comprehensive U.S. security assistance data and by conducting independent, data-driven research, we seek to inform and elevate the debate among civil society, journalists, scholars, and policy makers in the United States and abroad about the risks and best uses of U.S. security assistance to improve human security. Direct Commercial Sales, 4-6-2017, Accessible Online at https://securityassistance.org/content/direct%20commercial%20sales] 6-27-2019

Direct Commercial Sales:

The Direct Commercial Sales program regulates U.S. companies' sales of U.S. defense articles and defense services on the U.S. Munitions List abroad.

The U.S. munitions list includes nearly everythingWashington Trade Report 16 [Washington Trade Report, 6-26-2016, Accessible Online at http://www.washingtontradereport.com/USML.htm] 6-30-2019

Category I Firearms, Close Assault Weapons and Combat Shotguns Category II Materials, Chemicals, Microorganisms, and Toxins Category III Ammunition/Ordnance Category IV Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs and Mines Category V Explosives and Energetic Materials, Propellants, Incendiary Agents and Their Constituents Category VI Vessels of War and Special Naval Equipment Category VII Tanks and Military Vehicles Category VIII Aircraft and Associated Equipment Category IX Military Training Equipment Category X Protective Personnel Equipment Category XI Military Electronics Category XII Fire Control, Range Finder, Optical and Guidance and Control Equipment Category XIII Auxiliary Military Equipment Category XIV Toxicological Agents, Including Chemical Agents, Biological Agents, and Associated Equipment Category XV Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment Category XVI Nuclear Weapons, Design and Testing Related Items Category XVII Classified Articles, Technical Data and Defense Services Not Otherwise Enumerated Category XVIII Directed Energy Weapons Category XX Submersible Vessels, Oceanographic and Associated Equipment

DCS refers to any sale that is not FMS“LMDefense.” LMDefense, 2013, lmdefense.com/direct-

commercial-sales/. Accessed 27 June 2019.DCS means that the U.S. defense company (the vendor) works directly with the foreign government customer to negotiate, finalize, and deliver a sale. The USG is not involved in the sale (although the vendor is required to comply with U.S. regulations regarding military exports). Basically, DCS is any sale not through the FMS/FMF system.

Includes dronesMehta, Aaron. “Trump Admin Rolls out New Rules for Weapon, Drone Sales Abroad.” Defense News, Defense News, 19 Apr. 2018, www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2018/04/19/trump-admin-rolls-out-new-rules-for-weapon-drone-sales-abroad/. Accessed 28 June 2019.But where the U.S. is seeing a steep rise in competition is in the unmanned vehicle sector, particularly from China, who has made inroads into the traditionally U.S. dominated Middle East with their cheaper UAVs.With today’s announcement, the U.S. has made two tweaks to how it handles drone exports. The first is opening up the opportunity for companies to sell

systems via Direct Commercial Sales process , under which a company and another nation can directly negotiate, rather than requiring a more formal Foreign Military Sales process, where the U.S. government acts as a go-between. DCS sales are seen as faster than FMS sales.

Arms[See FMS/DCS for additional answers to “arms” violation]

Arms include services and dataLord 19 [Nate Lord, 7 years of experience in the information security industry, What is ITAR Compliance? 2019 ITAR Regulations, Fines Certifications & More, 5-15-2019, Accessible Online at https://digitalguardian.com/blog/what-itar-compliance] DL 7-1-2019

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML). According to the U.S. Government, all manufacturers, exporters, and brokers of defense articles, defense services, or related technical data must be ITAR compliant. Therefore, more companies are requiring their supply chain members to be ITAR compliant as well. In General: For a company involved in the manufacture, sale or distribution of goods or services covered under the USML, or a component supplier to goods covered under the United States Munitions List (USML), the stipulation or requirement of being “ITAR certified (compliant)” means that the company must be registered with the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) if required as spelled out on DDTC’s web site and the company must understand and abide by the ITAR as it applies to their USML linked goods or services. The company themselves are certifying that they operate in accordance with the ITAR when they accept being a supplier for the USML prime exporter.

Arms transfers refer to defense articles, which includes training/technical assistance/data.Gultekin 98 [Gultekin, Metin, Foreign Military Sales versus Direct Commercial Sales, No Publication, 09-01-1998, Accessible Online at https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/8421] DL 7-1-2019

Arms transfer refers to the transfer of defense articles and defense services by the U.S. government under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to another country. Defense articles provided includes arms, ammunition, implements of war, including components, training, manufacturing licenses, technical assistance, and related technical data. It plays a major role in the U.S. military history and defense policy. For instance, ‘Conventional Arms Transfer Policy’ refers to an arms transfer. It specifically identified economic concerns as a factor in arms export decision making. The announcement of ‘Conventional Arms Transfer Policy’ was followed by a series of major military sales to longstanding U.S. clients, including Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

Sales of arms include any item on the Munitions List22 USC 5605 12 [22 U.S.C. § 5605 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse § 5605. Sanctions against use of chemical or biological weapons, 2012 Accessible Online at https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-22-foreign-relations-and-intercourse/22-usc-sect-5605.html] DL 7-1-2019

(2)  Arms sales The United States Government shall terminate-- (A)  sales to that country under the Arms Export Control Act [ 22 U.S.C.A. § 2271 et seq. ] of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services, and (B)  licenses for the export to that country of any item on the United States Munitions List.

Includes dronesMike Lillis, 6-14-2019, "Pelosi: Congress will block Trump's arms sales to Saudi Arabia," TheHill,https://thehill.com/homenews/house/448525-pelosi-congress-will-block-trumps-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia

The State Department last month invoked an emergency provision under the Arms Export Control Act to push through 22 arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and other countries. The tactic allows the administration to sidestep Congress in finalizing a deal, worth roughly $8 billion, that includes Patriot missiles, drones, precision-guided bombs and other military support.In the House, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) introduced legislation Wednesday to block the entirety of Trump's wish list

of 22 arms sales. Another slimmer measure, targeting precision-guided bombs, was introduced by Reps. David

Cicilline (D-R.I.), Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.).

Other definitions

Resolved

Resolved – Legal‘Resolved’ means to enact a policy by lawWords and Phrases 64 (Permanent Edition)

Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.

Resolved means a policy Louisiana House 5(http://house.louisiana.gov/house-glossary.htm)

Resolution A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, and making decisions where some other form is not required. A bill includes the constitutionally required enacting clause; a resolution uses the term "resolved". Not subject to a time limit for introduction nor to governor's veto. ( Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4)

Resolved before a colon means legislative forum ACC 13 # Army Career College. 12. Punctuation -- The Colon and Semicolon, United States Army, Warrant Officer Career College, Last Reviewed: December 19, 2013, http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/wocc/ColonSemicolon.asp

The colon introduces the following: A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive: Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael Shaara wrote: (colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle [Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more

paragraphs.) A formal quotation or question: The President declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon) what can we do about it? A second independent clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear Sirs: (colon)Dear Madam: (colon)

The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock A formal resolution, after the word "resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

“Resolved” before a colon reflects a legislative forum.AOS 4 (5-12, “# 12, Punctuation – The Colon and Semicolon”, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)

The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive: Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. b. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael Shaara wrote: (colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle [Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more paragraphs.) c. A formal quotation or question: The President declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon)

what can we do about it? d. A second independent clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. e. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) f. The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock g. A formal resolution, after the word "resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

“Resolved” is legislative Parcher 1 (Jeff Parcher 1, former debate coach at Georgetown, Feb 2001 http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)

Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Firmness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconceivable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desirablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the preliminary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.

Resolved - ActionResolved is to take action to solve a problem The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005 second edition. Ed. Erin McKean. Oxford University Press, Oxford Reference Online http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t183.e65284

"resolution n." , the action of solving a problem, dispute, or contentious matter: the peaceful resolution of all disputes | a successful resolution to the problem

Resolved - VotingResolved means a determination reached by voting Webster’s Revised Unabridged 98 (dictionary.com)

Resolved: 5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be appropriated (or, to appropriate no money).

‘Resolved’ means to settle formally by voting Webster’s Law 96 ("resolved." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 01 Jul. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved>.)

resolve transitive verb 1 : to deal with successfully : clear up <resolve a dispute> 2 a : to declare or decide by formal resolution and vote b : to change by resolution or formal vote <the house resolved itself into a committee> intransitive verb : to form a resolution

Resolved – Plan TextMost predictable—the agent and verb indicate a debate about hypothetical government actionJon M Ericson 3, Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4

The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains certain key elements, although they have slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions. 1. An agent doing the acting ---“The United States” in “The United States should adopt a policy of free trade.” Like the object of evaluation in a proposition of value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb should —the first part of a verb phrase that urges action. 3. An action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put a program or policy into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a limitation of the action desired. The phrase free trade, for example, gives direction and limits to the topic, which would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing diplomatic recognition, or discuscsing interstate commerce. Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The entire debate is about whether something ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative side in such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.

Resolved – Firm DecisionFirm decision AHD 6 (American Heritage Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved)

Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To cause (a person) to reach a decision. See synonyms at decide. 3. To decide or express by formal vote.

Firm DecisionThe New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005, "resolution n,” second edition. oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t183.e65284

a firm decision to do or not to do something: she kept her resolution not to see Anne any more a New Year's resolution

Resolved – ImmediacyResolved implies immediacyRandom House 6 (Unabridged Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolve)

re·solve Audio Help /rɪˈzɒlv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zolv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -solved, -solv·ing, noun

–verb (used with object)

1. to come to a definite or earnest decision about; determine (to do something): I have resolved that I shall live to the full.

Resolved – DeliberateResolved doesn’t require certaintyWebster’s 9 Merriam Webster, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved

# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzolv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzov\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): resolved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a

resolution : determine 3 : consult, deliberate

Resolved – OpeningResolved means opening possibility for emotive or instrumental response. Turner and Avison, ‘92 – Harvie Branscomb Chair and Professor of Sociology, Professor of Psychiatry at Vanderbilt and Professor of Sociology at Western (R. Jay and William R. “Innovations in the Measurement of Life Stress: Crisis Theory and the Significance of Event Resolution,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Mar., 1992), pp. 36-50)Erikson’s (1959) formulation emphasizes the individual’s constant and active inter- course with the environment as crucial for development. Problems are encountered and resolved, with varying degrees of success. Erikson’s use of the term resolved or resolution in describing a successful crisis outcome does not seem to imply that the issue is solved or cleared up. Rather, it refers to a temporary or- enduring positive decision or settling in relation to the personal meanings of the event. For Erikson, a positive balance is achieved between alternative self attitudes that are experienced as senses of how and who one is. The criteria for these senses are “a crisis, beset with fears, or at least a general anxiousness or tension, seems to be resolved, in that the child suddenly seems to ‘grow together’ both psychologically and physi- cally” (Erikson 1959, p. 75). When resolved, the individual may emerge from these engagements with a new skill, confidence, or other enabling self attitude that is added to his or her repertoire of responses or coping mechanisms. This then increases the probabil- ity of success in future encounters. The developmental process thus may involve a synthesizing of new experiences into an evolving self perception and/or the accumulation of skills or strategies for instrumental or emotional response. While Erikson specifically used the term “vulnerability” to characterize the major corollary of crisis experiences, he implies a meaning that might better be described as openness-openness to both harm and enhancement. This is evident from his contention that personality growth occurs through the resolution of normative crises and hence that the disequilibria which characterize these crises offer potential for forward developmental leaps as well as vulnerability.

USFG

USFG – DC The federal government is the central government in DCEncarta Online 5 http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500781_6/United_States_(Government).html#howtocite

United States (Government), the combination of federal, state, and local laws, bodies, and agencies that is responsible for carrying out the operations of the United States. The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington, D.C.

USFG – 3 BranchesUSFG is the three branchesThe Free Dictionary 4 (Thefreedictionary.com, April 6 2004, DA 6/21/11,)

The executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States

USFG is the three branchesUSLegal 9(definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government, September 23 2009, DA 6/21/11,)

The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.

USFG – Not StatesNational gov’t, not the statesBlack’s Law 99 (Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p.703)

A national government that exercises some degree of control over smaller political units that have surrendered some degree of power in exchange for the right to participate in national political matters

USFG – Spec BranchesUSFG is distinct from states & other national & subnational governments; includes any but not necessarily all 3 branches – Including every branch assumes each branch has similar powers, muddying the termWikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States)

The government of the United States of America is the federal government of the constitutional republic of fifty states that constitute the United States, as well as one capital district, and several other territories. The federal government is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, respectively; the powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.¶ The full name of the republic is "The United States of America". No other name appears in the Constitution, and this is the name that appears on money, in treaties, and in legal cases to which it is a party (e.g., Charles T. Schenck v. United States). The terms "Government of the United States of America" or "United States Government" are often used in official documents to represent the federal government as distinct from the states collectively. In casual conversation or writing, the term "Federal Government" is often used, and the term "National Government" is sometimes used. The terms "Federal" and "National" in government agency or program names generally indicates affiliation with the federal government (e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, etc.). Because the seat of government is in Washington, D.C., "Washington" is commonly used as a metonym for the federal government.

USFG – CongressUSFG means CongressMeador 2 (Dan, Prof of Law @ Univ. of Virginia and former Dean @ Univ. of Alabama School of Law, "The Two United States: Why Federal Law Doesn't Apply To You," http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/two_us.htm)

The United States and the Union of several States party to the Constitution of the United States are constitutional republics. The United States, by way of the Congress of the United States, has certain powers delegated to it by the Constitution. So far as the several States party to the Constitution are concerned, the United States may not exercise power not delegated by the Constitution. All power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is reserved to the several States within their respective territorial borders, or to the people. However, Congress is solely responsible for governing territory belonging to the United States. This authority is conferred at Article I, Section 8, clause 17 (Art. I § 8.17) and Art. IV § 3.2 of the Constitution. The responsibility for governing territory belonging to the United States is vested solely in Congress, it is not shared by the other two branches of federal government. Congress has absolute or what is described as plenary power - municipal power, police power, etc. So far as its role as government for the several States party to the Constitution is concerned, the United States is an abstraction - it exists on paper only. It takes on physical reality after Congress positively activates constitutionally delegated powers through statutes enacted in accordance with Art. I § 7 of the Constitution. When statutes are in place authoring administrative or judicial activity, the "power" of the United States becomes manifest through people carrying out duties prescribed by law Congress has enacted.

Should

Should – Enact a planShould denotes an expectation of enacting a planAmerican Heritage Dictionary 2000 (Dictionary.com)

should. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.

Should – Mandatory“Should” is mandatoryNieto 9 – Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009)

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation, propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an imperative, obligatory sense . HN7A number of courts, confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d 940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion . In

Little v. State, 261 Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word " should" in an instruction on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have been misled by the

court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's argument that the court erred by not using the word " should" in an instruction on witness credibility which used the word "must" because the two words have the same meaning . State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958). [*318] In applying a child

support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or commission's use of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation . McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49 P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents' federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

“Should” means must – its mandatoryForesi 32 (Remo Foresi v. Hudson Coal Co., Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 106 Pa. Super. 307; 161 A. 910; 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 239, 7-14, Lexis)

As regards the mandatory character of the rule, the word 'should' is not only an auxiliary verb, it is also the preterite of the verb, 'shall' and has for one of its meanings as defined in the Century Dictionary: "Obliged or compelled (to); would have (to); must; ought (to); used with an infinitive (without to) to express obligation, necessity or duty in connection with some act yet to be carried out." We think it clear that it is in that sense that the word 'should' is used in this rule, not merely advisory. When the judge in charging the jury tells them that, unless they find from all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, they should acquit, the word 'should' is not used in an advisory sense but has the force or meaning of 'must', or 'ought to' and carries [***8] with it the sense of [*313] obligation and duty

equivalent to compulsion . A natural sense of sympathy for a few unfortunate claimants who have been injured while doing something in direct violation of law must not be so indulged as to fritter away, or nullify, provisions which have been enacted to safeguard and protect the welfare of thousands who are engaged in the hazardous occupation of mining.

Should means mustWords & Phrases 6 (Permanent Edition 39, p. 369)

C.D.Cal. 2005. “Should,” as used in the Social Security Administration’s ruling stating that an ALJ should call on the services of a medical advisor when onset must be inferred, means “must.”—Herrera v. Barnhart, 379 F.Supp.2d 1103.—Social S 142.5.

Should – Not mandatory Should isn’t mandatoryWords & Phrases 6 (Permanent Edition 39, p. 369)

C.A.6 (Tenn.) 2001. Word “should,” in most contexts, is precatory, not mandatory . –U.S. v. Rogers, 14 Fed.Appx. 303. –Statut 227.

Strong admonition --- not mandatoryTaylor and Howard 5 (Michael, Resources for the Future and Julie, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, “Investing in Africa's future: U.S. Agricultural development assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa”, 9-12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf)

Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development ($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), women’s leadership capacity ($15 million), the International Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The difference between shall and should may have legal significance — one is clearly mandatory while the other is a strong admonition —but it makes little practical difference in USAID’s need to comply with the congressional directive to the best of its ability.

PermissiveWords and Phrases 2 (Vol. 39, p. 370)

Cal.App. 5 Dist. 1976. Term “should,” as used in statutory provision that motion to suppress search warrant should first be heard by magistrate who issued warrant, is

used in regular, persuasive sense, as recommendation , and is thus not mandatory but permissive . West’s Ann.Pen Code, § 1538.5(b).---Cuevas v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. Rptr. 238, 58 Cal.App.3d 406 ----Searches 191.

Desirable or recommendedWords and Phrases 2 (Vol. 39, p. 372-373)

Or. 1952. Where safety regulation for sawmill industry providing that a two by two inch guard rail should be installed at extreme outer edge of walkways adjacent to sorting tables was immediately preceded by other regulations in which word “shall” instead of “should” was used, and word “should” did not appear to be result of inadvertent use in particular regulation, use of word “should” was intended to convey idea that particular precaution involved was desirable and recommended, but not mandatory. ORS 654.005 et seq.----Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 P.2d 839, 193 Or. 556.---Labor & Emp. 2857

Should – Immediate “Should” means “must” and requires immediate legal effectSummers 94 (Justice – Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, 1994 OK 123, 11-8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn13)

¶4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should"13 in the May 18 order connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti.14 The answer to this query is not to be divined from rules of grammar;15 it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16

[CONTINUES – TO FOOTNOTE]

13 "Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). 14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective , as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).

Should – Not immediateShould doesn’t mean immediate Dictionary.com – Copyright © 2010 – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

should    /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled[shood] Show IPA –auxiliary verb 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. Use should in a Sentence See images of should Search should on the Web Origin: ME sholde, OE sc ( e ) olde; see shall —Can be confused:  could, should, would (see usage note at this entry ). —Synonyms 3. See must1 . —Usage note Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions. Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. ( You should get your flu shot before winter comes ), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would ) have called immediately. I should (American would ) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall. Shall –auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or ( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. 1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.

Should – Desirable“Should” means desirable --- this does not have to be a mandateAC 99 (Atlas Collaboration, “Use of Shall, Should, May Can,” http://rd13doc.cern.ch/Atlas/DaqSoft/sde/inspect/shall.html)

shall

'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be rejected under these circumstances. Examples: # "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory." This is a good example. # "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line." This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too strong.

should

'should' is weaker. It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is desirable enough that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably means that something is not being stated clearly. If a 'should' can be replaced by a 'shall', or can be discarded entirely, so much the better. Examples: # "C++ code should be ANSI compliant." A good example. It may not be possible to be ANSI compliant on all platforms, but we should try. # "Code should be tested thoroughly." Bad example. This 'should' shall be replaced with 'shall' if this requirement is to be stated anywhere (to say nothing of defining what 'thoroughly' means).

“Should” doesn’t require certaintyBlack’s Law 79 (Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition, p. 1237)

Should. The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation; although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from “ought.” It is not normally synonymous with “may,” and although often interchangeable with the word “would,” it does not ordinarily express certainty as “will” sometimes does.

MiscShould refers to what should be NOT what should have beenOED, Oxford English Dictionary, 1989 (2ed. XIX), pg. 344

Should An utterance of the word should. Also, what ‘should be’.

Should means an obligation or dutyAHD 92 – AHD, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992 (4ed); Pg. 1612

Should—1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

Should expresses an expectation of somethingAHD 92 – AHD, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992 (4ed); Pg. 1612

Should—2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.

Should expresses conditionality or contingencyAHD 92 – AHD, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992 (4ed); Pg. 1612

Should—3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

“Should” expresses duty, obligation, or necessityWebster’s 61 – Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1961 p. 2104

Used in auxiliary function to express duty, obligation, necessity, propriety, or expediency

Substantially

PercentageSubstantially must be at least 90%.Words and Phrases ’01 (Cumulative Supplemental Pamphlet, v. 40, p. 946)The word “substantially” as used in provision of Unemployment Compensation Act that experience rating of an employer may be transferred to an employing unit which acquires the organization, trade or business, or “substantially” all of the assets thereof, is an elastic term, which does not include a definite, fixed amount of percentage, and the transfer does not have to be 100 per cent but cannot be less than 90 per cent in the ordinary situation.

LargeSubstantial Means “Large”Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed, 1989

[substantial:] Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or dimensions. More recently also in a somewhat weakened sense, esp. ‘fairly large.’

Substantially – W/O Material QualificationSubstantially is without material qualificationNorth Carolina Court of Appeals 3 (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/1999/980989-1.htm)

For the New York offense of driving while ability impaired to qualify as "substantially equivalent" to the North Carolina offense of driving while under the influence of an impairing substance, the respective statutes need not be identical in each and every respect. Substantially is defined as "[e]ssentially; without material qualification[.]" Black's Law Dictionary 1428 (6th ed. 1990).

Substantially – No Precise PercentagesNo precise percentage standard for a substantial reduction – 20% is a good cut-offSupreme Court of Arkansas 2 (12-18, http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2002b/20021218/e01-293.html)

Unemployment compensation -- statement by Board of Review as to when substantial reduction in pay is good cause for quitting employment -- consistent with previous holding by court of appeals. -- The Board of Review stated that the general rule was that a substantial pay reduction gives an employee good cause for quitting; the Board found that there was no set percentage or bright-line rule that made a reduction in pay "substantial"; however, the weight of authority appeared to be that a reduction of over twenty percent was so substantial as to compel an employee to quit a job and have good cause to do so, but a reduction of less than twenty percent was not; the Board's decision was consistent with the appellate court's earlier holding that there was no talismanic percentage figure that separated a substantial reduction in salary from one that was not.

Substantially is imprecise – 10-20% is sufficientArmy Logistics Management College 98 (12-22, https://akss.dau.mil/askaprof-akss/qdetail2.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=7&cgiQuestionID=2688)

The FAR states that best value procurements can be awarded based upon adequate price competition if the offeror provides the greatest value to the Government and price is a substantial factor in source selection. Has the term "substantial factor" been defined? Since price is only one element to be scored (in addition to technical, management, etc.) could a situation where price represents 10% of the overall best value score be "substantial"? 20%? There is no published guidance on what is "substantial." It can best be defined as whatever the contracting officer or Program Executive decide substantial is. In FAR 15.304 (c) it states "The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance are within the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials......" Rationale: The question asks for a definition that is highly subjective in nature. One of the acquisition improvements that has come about is that the contracting/program personnel are empowered to make determinations within a broader scope of their authority.

Words and Phrases 1971 The term substantial is relative and its meaning is to be gauged by the circumstances.

Substantially is a term that must be used in context.CJS ’83 (Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 83)

Substantially: A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance with the context in which it is used. While it must be employed with care and discrimination, it must, nevertheless, be given effect.

Substantially is context-dependent – Reasonability is critical Commonwealth of Australia 8 (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816379?pageDefinitionItemId=86167)

In various cases ‘substantial’ has been defined as large, weighty, big, real or of substance, or not insubstantial. It is not straightforward. Its meaning depends on the context. It is an important concept in trade practices law because it arises in so many provisions. Many sections of the Act will only be breached where the effect or likely effect of the conduct will be to ‘substantially lessen competition in a market’. The term ‘substantial’ is used elsewhere in the Act, for example: deciding whether a merger would result in a substantial lessening of competition in a substantial market in determining whether a corporation has misused its market power, it must first be established that the corporation has a substantial degree of power in the relevant market in determining whether goods are a product of Australia, whether they have been substantially transformed. Basically, the term must be understood in a relative sense—whether the effect in question is important or weighty in relation to the size of the particular market. In Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; (2000) ATPR 41-752 Justice French said that to work out whether competition is being substantially lessened ‘there [must] be a purpose, effect or likely effect of the impugned conduct on competition which is substantial in the sense of meaningful or relevant to the competitive process’.

Substantially – Quality, Not Quantity Substantially relates to quality, not quantityDesign & Artists Copyright Society 3 (http://www.dacs.org.uk/index.php?c=86&m=5&s=5.)

Copyright is infringed when an individual carries out one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights (see FAQ 5 above) without the permission of the copyright owner in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the artistic work. The test to determine what is substantial is a qualitative test and not a quantitative one. This means that there may be an infringement even if a small but distinctive portion of the original artwork was copied.

More ev… Lands 99 (Robert, 12-1, Finer Stephens Innocent Solicitors, http://www.theaoi.com/Mambo/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=226&Itemid=26)

If you copy the whole of another person’s work, you will probably infringe their copyright. You will probably infringe their copyright if you copy a substantial part of another’s work. What is substantial is determined by the quality of the portion used, not just the quantity. In other words, if you copy the most important part of a work, it will be substantial even if it’s only a small percentage of the whole.

Substantially – Day to DaySubstantially - USFG must participate in day to day actions to be substantialUS Code Online

(Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 3.1—Safeguards, http://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%203_1.html)

(3) “Participating substantially” means that the official’s involvement is of significance to the matter. Substantial participation requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, perfunctory involvement, or involvement on an administrative or peripheral issue. Participation may be substantial even though it is not determinative of the outcome of a particular matter. Sdsd A finding of substantiality should be based not only on the effort devoted to a matter, but on the importance of the effort. While a series of peripheral involvements may be insubstantial, the single act of approving or participating in a critical step may be substantial. However, the review of procurement documents solely to determine compliance with regulatory, administrative, or budgetary procedures, does not constitute substantial participation in a procurement.

OvertSubstantial means overtWords & Phrases ‘64 (40 W&P 759)

The words outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive, in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain; absolute; real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.

Reduce

Reduce – Net DecreaseReduce means a net decreasePublic Law 87-253 (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, 97th US Congress, Sept 8, 1982, Lexis)

E) Prior to approving any application for a refund, the Secretary shall require evidence that such reduction in market- ings has taken place and that such reduction is a net decrease in marketings of milk and has not been offset by expansion of production in other production facilities in which the person has an interest or by transfer of partial interest in the produc- tion facility or by the taking of any other action. which is a scheme or device to qualify for payment.

Reduce means net decrease in the regionOmnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 9-8-82 – (97th US Congress)E) Prior to approving any application for a refund, the Secretary shall require evidence that such reduction in market- ings has taken place and that such reduction is a net decrease in marketings of milk and has not been offset by expansion of production in other production facilities in which the person has an interest or by transfer of partial interest in the produc- tion facility or by the taking of any other action. which is a scheme or device to qualify for payment.

Reduce means to make smaller.Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2008, Twelfth Edition, Oxford Reference Online

Reduce v.

1. make or become smaller or less in amount, degree, or size . • boil (a sauce or other liquid) so that it becomes thicker and more concentrated. • (chiefly N. Amer.) (of a person) lose weight. • (Photography) make (a negative or print) less dense.

2. (reduce someone/thing to) bring someone or something by force or necessity to (an undesirable state or action). • (reduce someone to) make someone helpless with (shock, anguish, or amusement).

3. (reduce something to) change something to (a simpler or more basic form). • convert a fraction to (the form with the lowest terms).

4. (Chemistry) cause to combine chemically with hydrogen. • undergo or cause to undergo a reaction in which electrons are gained from another substance or molecule. The opposite of oxidize.

5. restore (a dislocated body part) to its proper position.

6. (archaic) besiege and capture (a town or fortress).

Reduce – Not transferThis means the plan must explicitly preclude intra-regional transferKentucky Ct of Appeals 84(Paducah v. Moore, 662 S.W.2d 491, Lexis---sex edited)

No one quarrels with the appellants' argument that HN3 the city has the power to transfer or even discharge employees at will. The right to do so, however, is restricted by Statutes of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The language of KRS 90.360(1) above is quite clear in prohibiting reduction in grade of a classified service employee of the City except for cause and after a hearing upon appropriate written charges. In interpreting identical language concerning prohibition against reduction in grade provided for in KRS 95.450(1), our former Court of Appeals stated in Schrichte vs. Bornhorn, Ky., 376 S.W.2d 683 (1964):∂ . . . we are of the opinion that the term 'grade' means rank, whereas it appears that the appellant interprets it more broadly as job classification. Obviously by the use of the word 'reduce,' the Statute envisages a verticle scale. If a [person] is transferred without a loss in pay from one job category to another with comparable authority, his classification is changed, but his grade is not reduced.

Reduce – Not EliminateReduce excludes eliminateWords and Phrases 02 (vol 36B, p. 80)

Mass. 1905. Rev.Laws, c.203, § 9, provides that, if two or more cases are tried together in the superior court, the presiding judge may “reduce” the witness fees and other costs, but “not less than the ordinary witness fees, and other costs recoverable in one of the cases” which are so tried together shall be allowed. Held that, in reducing the costs, the amount in all the cases together is to be considered and reduced, providing that there must be left in the aggregate an amount not less than the largest sum recoverable in any of the cases. The word “reduce,” in its ordinary signification, does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but to diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state.—Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363.

Reduce – Not ReplaceReduce excludes replaceDecker, 84 -- US District Court senior judge

[Bernard Martin, Dean A. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff v. ALLIS-CHALMERS, Defendant, No. 83 C 7843, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9-5-1984, l/n, accessed 8-1-15]

In age discrimination discharge cases, courts have required a plaintiff to show that he is in the protected age group, that he was satisfying the legitimate business expectations of the employer, that he was nevertheless fired, and that he was [they were] replaced by a younger person. The last element has no role in a reduction-in- force case. By definition, when an employer reduces [their ] his work force, he hires [they hire] no one to replace the ones [they let go] he lets go. The question is whether to require plaintiffs to show more than their age, qualifications, and termination.

Reduce – ChangeReduce means changeCLEVELAND INDUS. SQUARE, INC. v. BD. OF ZON. APP., 83 Ohio App. 3d 301 - Ohio: Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga 1992

"Incineration" means to incinerate. Webster's New World Dictionary (1983) 306. "Incinerate" means "to burn to ashes; to burn up." Id. "Reduction" means to reduce. Id. at 501. "Reduce" means "to lessen," or "to change to a different form." Id." Here, Paul Beno and former Attorney General Celebrezze testified that "incineration" occurred within the destructive distillation process. Beno testified that the process involves "incineration" of garbage because the gaseous byproducts, of the garbage are burned. Section 345.04, however, contemplates burning of the garbage itself, not its by-products. Former Attorney General Celebrezze testified that "incineration" occurs because heat is applied to reduce the waste. The ordinary meaning of incineration, however, contemplates burning, not merely the application of heat. Accordingly, the city failed to demonstrate that "incineration" occurred in the process. Conversely, Fioritto and Walsh testified that the process does not involve "incineration" because the absence of oxygen from the garbage precludes "burning," only indirect heat is applied, and carbon char rather than ash is created. This testimony constituted a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that the process does not involve "incineration." 308*308 The city did establish, however, through Beno, that the process does reduce both the volume and weight of the garbage which fuels the destructive distillation, and both Fioritto and Walsh admitted on cross-examination that reduction does occur. Accordingly, there is a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that "reduction" does occur within the process, and it is therefore not a permitted use under Section 345.04(c)(2)(I).

Reduce – QuantifiableReduce must be quantifiableWisconsin Department of Natural Resources 8 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/recycle/rgloss.htm

reduce: to lessen in amount, number or other quantity.Reduce must be quantifiableEncarta World Dictionary, 07 – (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861700111)

Reduce Definition: 1. transitive and intransitive verb decrease: to become smaller in size, number, extent, degree, or intensity, or make something smaller in this way

Reduce means to diminish to a smaller numberOxford English Dictionary 89 (online, at Emory)

reduce, v.

26. a. To bring down, diminish to a smaller number, amount, extent, etc., or to a single thing.

Foreign Military SalesFMS is the exclusive program for transferring government defense equipment to foreign countries.DSCA 18 [Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 5-27-2018, Accessible Online at https://www.dsca.mil/resources/faq] DL 7-1-2019

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) is the U.S. Government’s program for transferring defense articles, services, and training to our international partners and international organizations. The FMS program is funded by administrative charges to foreign purchasers and is operated at no cost to taxpayers. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) administers the FMS program for the Department of Defense (DoD). Under FMS, the U.S. government uses DoD’s acquisition system to procure defense articles and services on behalf of its partners. Eligible countries may purchase defense articles and services with their own funds or with funds provided through U.S. government-sponsored assistance programs. In certain cases, defense articles may be obtained through grants or leases. Who can participate in the FMS program? The President designates countries and international organizations eligible to participate in FMS. The Department of State approves individual programs on a case-by-case basis. Currently, some 179 countries and international organizations participate in FMS. Are there other ways to obtain U.S. defense articles and services? Yes. International partners may obtain U.S. defense articles and services through direct commercial sales (DCS). Under DCS rules, U.S. companies obtain commercial export licenses from the Department of State, allowing them to negotiate with, and sell directly to, our partners. As with FMS, DCS are subject to applicable U.S. exports laws and regulations and the approval of the Department of State. Does FMS Compete with DCS? FMS and DCS are not in competition. Unless an item has been designated as “FMS only,” DoD is generally neutral as to whether countries purchase U.S. defense articles or services commercially or through FMS. If a purchaser requests FMS data after soliciting bids from contractors, the purchaser must demonstrate that commercial acquisition efforts have ceased before any FMS data will be provided. If the purchaser obtains FMS data and later determines to request a commercial price quote, the FMS offer may be withdrawn. What are the advantages of FMS and DCS? All sales of defense articles and services are subject to similar technology release approvals, retransfer assurances, and congressional review In general, FMS purchase with U.S. forces; provide contract administrative services that may not be available through the private sector; and may help lower unit costs by consolidating purchases for FMS customers with those of DoD. Major FMS programs also nurture long-term relationships with the U.S. military, including access to joint training and doctrine and increased opportunities for interoperability with U.S. forces. Under FMS, the customer is assured that the acquisition process will be subject to DoD’s standards through every step of the process. Under DCS, our international partners work directly with U.S. companies. This allows our partners more direct involvement during contract negotiation and

may allow firm-fixed pricing. It may also be better suited to fulfilling requirements for non-standard items that are not, or are no longer, in DoD’s inventory. How can I compare costs between FMS and DCS? Cost comparisons between FMS and DCS are often not possible, as the contracts are not identical. FMS uses the total package approach to its contracts. This means that an FMS buy for a major system includes training, spare parts, and other support needed to sustain a system through its first few years. DCS contracts may or may not include this in the initial pricing. Although it includes administrative charges, the FMS sale will always benefit from the economies of scale and experience the U.S. government has with a system. Do FMS Sales require Congressional Notification? The U.S. Arms Export Control Act, Sec 36 requires Congressional notification for FMS or DCS sales expected to meet or exceed: For North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Israel, and New Zealand: major defense equipment (MDE) of $25M or more; any defense articles or services of $100M or more; or design and construction services of $300M or more. For all other countries: MDE of $14M or more; any defense articles and services of $50M or more; or design and construction services of $200M or more. For North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries and organizations, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Israel, and New Zealand there is a 15-day statutory notification period. For all other countries there is a 30-day statutory notification period. What are non-recurring costs? Nonrecurring costs (NCs) are those one-time costs incurred in support of previous research, development, or production of certain major defense equipment. (DoD Directive (DoDD) 2140.2: "Recoupment of Nonrecurring Costs (NCs) on Sales of U.S. Item). They are "sunk costs," in that the U.S. Government pays them in order to develop or produce a given defense article or weapons system specifically for the U.S. armed forces. DoD may waive NCs on FMS cases if: 1) The sale would significantly advance U.S. Government interests in NATO standardization, standardization with the Armed Forces of Japan, Australia, the Republic of Korea, Israel or New Zealand, or foreign production in the United States under coproduction arrangements (waive or reduce); or (2) Imposition of the charge likely would result in the loss of the sale (waive only); or (3) The increase in quantity resulting from the sale would result in a reduced unit cost for the same item being procured by the U.S. Government (waive only).

FMS is the transfer of defense equipment purchased by foreign countries.Department of State 19 [United States Department of State, U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade, 5-21-2019, Accessible Online at https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/] DL 7-1-2019

FOREIGN MILITARY SALES (FMS)

Under FMS, the United States government manages the transfer of approximately $43 billion per year of defense equipment purchased by foreign

allies and partners. The Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers in the Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM/RSAT) manages the FMS process, in close partnership with the Department of Defense’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which implements FMS cases by working through the military services to negotiate with U.S. defense contractors, and by providing the customer with training, sustainment, and contractor logistics support for the lifetime of the sale.

The FMS sales process begins when a country submits a formal Letter of Request (LOR) that specifies a desired military capability and a rough price. Sales are approved following U.S. government review and after Congressional notification, when required. After the sale is approved, the DSCA issues a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) that specifies the exact defense articles, training, and support to be delivered.

Processing time for FMS cases may vary, but they may take months to negotiate, especially for major defense articles that require modifications to standard U.S. systems. Due primarily to the time required to construct sophisticated defense systems such as fighter aircraft, countries often do not take delivery of the full package until years after the LOA is finalized. Major FMS sales that have been formally notified to Congress are publicly announced on the DSCA website.

Direct Commerical SalesDCS is the sale of USML technologies between US companies and foreign countries approved by the DDTCDepartment of State 19 [United States Department of State, U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade, 5-21-2019, Accessible Online at https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/] DL 7-1-2019

DIRECT COMMERCIAL SALES (DCS)

Under DCS, the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (PM/DDTC) provides regulatory approvals for more than $136 billion per year in sales of defense equipment, services, and related manufacturing technologies controlled under the 21 categories of the U.S. Munitions List (USML). These sales are negotiated privately between foreign end-users and U.S. companies.

Under U.S. law, any U.S. company or individual involved in certain activities involving items enumerated on the USML is required to receive an approved export license or other approval before providing any USML regulated item, technical data, or service to a foreign end-user.

As with FMS, export licenses approved under DCS are approved following an intensive U.S. government review, and after Congressional notification, as required. Export licenses are valid up to four years. Authorizations for defense services are also required and may be for longer timeframes. They may be extended or amended as needed.

DCS cases are considered to be proprietary agreements between the foreign governments or companies and the U.S. defense contractor, however certain information about cases notified to Congress is published quarterly in the Federal Register, in fulfillment of requirements in the Arms Export Control Act.

From the United StatesMeans exports from the US and territories to foreign countriesLII 15 [LII / Legal Information Institute, 46 CFR § 515.2, 80 FR 68730, Nov. 5, 2015, Accessible Online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/515.2] 7-1-2019

(i)From the United States means oceanborne export commerce from the United States, its territories, or possessions, to foreign countries.

Means to move by land, water, or air to a foreign place or separate geographical part of the United StatesLII 60 [LII / Legal Information Institute, 22 CFR § 46.1, 22 FR 10827, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 25 FR 7022, July 23, 1960, Accessible Online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/46.1] 7-1-2019

The term depart from the United States means depart by land, water, or air (1) from the United States for any foreign place, or (2) from one geographical part of the United States for a separate geographical part of the United States: Provided, That a trip or journey upon a public ferry, passenger vessel sailing coastwise on a fixed schedule, excursion vessel, or aircraft, having both termini in the continental United States or in any one of the other geographical parts of the United States and not touching any territory or waters under the jurisdiction or control of a foreign power, shall not be deemed a departure from the United States.

The United StatesThe United States is 48 states and DC, bounded by Canada, Mexico, and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, plus the island state of Hawaii and Alaska at the northwestern extreme of the North American continentHassler et al 19 [Bernard A. Weisberger, Writer and historian, Reed C. Rollins, Asa Gray Professor Emeritus of Systematic Botany, Harvard University; Director, Gray Herbarium, 1948–78. Author of The Cruciferae of Continental North America and others. Edgar Eugene Robinson Margaret Byrne Professor of American History, Stanford University, California, 1931–52. Author of Evolution of American Political Parties and others. Peirce F. Lewis Professor Emeritus of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Author of New Orleans: The Making of an Urban Landscape. Frank Freidel Bullit Professor of History, University of Washington, Seattle, 1981–86. Charles Warren Professor of American History, Harvard University, 1972–81. Author of America in the Twentieth Century; Franklin D. Roosevelt. Adam Gopnik Adam Gopnik has been writing for The New Yorker since 1986. He has written fiction and humor pieces, book reviews, Profiles, reporting pieces, and more than a hundred stories for The Talk of the Town and Comment. He became The New Yorker’s art critic in 1987. Paul H. Oehser Editor of Scientific Publications, National Geographic Society, 1966–78. Chief, Editorial and Publications Division, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1950–66. Oscar Handlin Carl M. Loeb University Professor Emeritus, Harvard University. Author of History of Liberty in America; The Americans; and many others. David Herbert Donald Charles Warren Professor of American History and Professor of American Civilization, Harvard University. Author of Lincoln Reconsidered and others. Economist Intelligence Unit Economist Intelligence Unit, The Economist, London. Thea K. Flaum President, Thea Flaum Productions Ltd. (television and film ), Chicago. Former Editor, Urban Research Corporation, Chicago. William L. O'Neill Professor of History, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Author of Coming Apart: An Informal History of America in the 1960's and others. Willard M. Wallace Emeritus Professor of History, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut. Author of Appeal to Arms: A Military History of the American Revolution. John Naisbitt Social forecaster, lecturer, and writer. Author of Megatrends and others. Oscar O. Winther University Professor of History, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1965–70. Author of The Great Northwest. Wilfred Owen Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1946–78. Author of The Accessible City and others. Karl Patterson Schmidt Chief Curator of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, 1941–55. Edward Pessen Distinguished Professor of History, Baruch College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, 1972–92. Author of Jacksonian America and others. J.R. Pole Rhodes Professor Emeritus of American History and Institutions, University of Oxford. Author of Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic. Richard R. Beeman Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Author of The Old Dominion and the New Nation, 1788–1801 and

others. Arthur S. Link George H. Davis '86 Professor of American History, Princeton University, 1976–91; Editor, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, 1958–92. Author of The Growth of American Democracy: An Interpretive History and many others. James T. Harris Former Regional Representative for West Africa (Lagos, Nigeria) for the African-American Institute, New York City. Warren W. Hassler Emeritus Professor of American History, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Author of Commanders of the Army of the Potomac and others. Harold Whitman Bradley Professor of History, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 1954–72. Member, Tennessee House of Representatives, 1964–72. Author of The United States, 1492–1877 and others. Wilbur Zelinsky Emeritus Professor of Geography, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Author of The Cultural Geography of the United States and others., United States, Encyclopedia Britannica, 6-23-2019, Accessible Online at https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States] DL 7-1-2019

United States, officially United States of America, abbreviated U.S. or U.S.A., byname America, country in North America, a federal republic of 50 states. Besides the 48 conterminous states that occupy the middle latitudes of the continent, the United States includes the state of Alaska, at the northwestern extreme of North America, and the island state of Hawaii, in the mid-Pacific Ocean. The conterminous states are bounded on the north by Canada, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of Mexico and Mexico, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The United States is the fourth largest country in the world in area (after Russia, Canada, and China). The national capital is Washington, which is coextensive with the District of Columbia, the federal capital region created in 1790.

Topicality ImpactsTopic education—arms sales determine US foreign policy and public knowledge and mobilization is necessary to challenge itCutter 19 [Jane Cutter, Los Angeles high school students lead rally for Yemen, Liberation News, 4-24-2019, Accessible Online at https://www.liberationnews.org/los-angeles-high-school-students-lead-rally-for-yemen/] 7-1-2019

On the afternoon of April 20, Malibu High School’s Relief for Yemen club led a demonstration at the LA Federal Building, protesting President Donald Trump’s veto of a congressional resolution to withdraw US Armed forces from hostilities in Yemen. The bill, with bipartisan support would go a long way towards ending the horrifying Saudi-led coalition war in Yemen, which has already taken over 70,000 lives, and pushed over half of its population – a staggering fourteen million – into what the UN calls deadly “pre-famine conditions,” the “world’s worst famine in over 100 years.” Liberation News spoke to Relief for Yemen presidents Theo Detweiler and Luke Lindstrom about the development of the club. They told us that the organization started out as a group of concerned friends, but grew after activities such as flyering, social media promotion, and a fundraising effort for humanitarian aid to Yemen. Relief for Yemen plans to continue with anti-war grassroots organizations in future protests. The event, named the LA Rally Against U.S. Intervention in Yemen, was co-sponsored by Relief for Yemen, Code Pink and ANSWER Coalition. The rally was also endorsed by United for Peace and Justice, the Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice, March and Rally LA, Courage to Resist, the Los Angeles Green Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, Abby Martin of the Empire Files, the Socialist Unity Party and International Action Center. Representatives from the different organizations displayed signs to busy

Wilshire traffic, bearing messages that included “How many lives per gallon?” and “80,000 children’s dreams destroyed.” Theo Detweiler, one of the co-presidents of Relief for Yemen at Malibu High School, was the first to

take the megaphone at the rally, and began by condemning the almost non-existent reporting carried by corporate media outlets during Yemen’s U.S.-caused famine. “This is the everyday reality in Yemen, but it was the only story mainstream media outlet MSNBC ran on the crisis for nearly two years, all the while reporting on Stormy Daniels 455 times over the same period. That’s

shameful! “And what does it say about American values that we’re supplying arms to such an oppressive regime [in Saudi Arabia], while underfunding education, green energy and healthcare? This is not what the people want. We demand an end to the blockade and the disregard for human life, and we demand an end to the arms sales. We, the people, demand an end to this genocide.” Carley Towne, a member of the anti-war organization Code Pink spoke about the role of major U.S. defense companies, such as Boeing,

Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, and Raytheon in the war. These gigantic monopolies – otherwise known as the military-industrial complex – rake in tens of billions of dollars a year in profits producing the machinery of death, and comprise a huge lobbying group pushing wars like those in Yemen. “The reason why we go to war is for profit. The reason why the U.S. is interested in maintaining the war on Yemen is simple but important. U.S. weapons manufacturers sell millions in weapons to Saudi Arabia, and as long as there’s money to make, there will be war. Even though it leads to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, even though both the House and the Senate has voted to invoke the War Powers Act and end U.S. aid to Saudi

Arabia, Donald Trump used his second veto to block legislation and make sure that his powerful friends continue to make money from war around the world.” Nicholas Avedisian-Cohen, an activist from the ANSWER Coalition, detailed what we know about the effects of the U.S. war. “The Saudi/American/UK/UAE/Qatari war coalition has bombed funerals, hospitals, water treatment facilities, and food storage sites – leading in 2016 to a pre-modern cholera epidemic spreading at a rate of 5,000 new cases each day, all while the U.S. Navy has been enforcing an inhuman blockade of a country that, pre-war, imported 80 percent of its food supplies … this depravity, using starvation and disease as weapons of war, is an attempt to devastate Yemenis into submission … this is because at the end of day, this war is being waged against Yemen to further U.S. dominance in the Middle

East.” He connected the struggle against U.S. military aggression in Yemen to the anti-imperialist movements around the world. “The Yemeni struggle to live in dignity, is for us, the most inspiring act of resistance, part of an ongoing global struggle against imperialism that we are determined to be on the right side of – in whatever small way. This is the least we owe to Yemenis and everyone else in the world who is existentially threatened by

American militarism.” In her speech, Abby Martin of teleSUR’s documentary series The Empire Files pointed out the necessity for maintaining the grassroots anti-war movement rather than relying on the good intentions of U.S. administrators. “Trump has already said that nothing will stop the cash flow to his friends in Saudi Arabia. They [Congress] can’t stop that $100 billion weapons deal! They can’t stop the blood money flowing to Boeing and Lockheed Martin. That’s what the basis of U.S. capitalism is about: US empire. It’s predicated on blood money, on oil money.

They’re not going to stop until we demand an end to this system. An end to this war and so many others waged by the US empire must come from actions like these. Mobilizations from the masses, occupying space, demanding it: U.S. out of Yemen!”

Switching Sides GoodSwitch Side Debate builds critical thinking skills which are key to foster democratic values and prevent extinction. Harrigan 08 [(Casey, Master of Arts in the Department of Communications at Wake Forest University) “A Defense of Switch Side Debate”, 2008, http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf] While such pragmatic justifications for SSD are persuasive, they are admittedly secondary to the greater consideration of pedagogy. Although it is certainly true that debate is a game and that its competitive elements are indispensable sources of

motivation for students who are otherwise apathetic about academic endeavors, the overwhelming benefits of contest debating are the knowledge and skills taught through participation. The wins and losses (and marginally-cheesy trophies), by and

large, are quickly forgotten with the passage of time. However, the educational values of debate are so fundamental that they eventually become ingrained in the decision-making and thought processes of debaters, giving them a uniquely valuable durability. To this end, SSD is essential. The benef its of debating both sides have

been noted by many authors over the past fifty years. To name but a few, SSD has been lauded for fostering tolerance and undermining bigotry and dogmatism (M uir, 1993),

creating stronger and more knowledgeable advocates (Dybvig and Iversion, 2000) , and fortifying the social forces of democracy by guaranteeing the expression of minority viewpoints (Day, 1966). Switching sides is a crucial element of debate’s pedagogical benefit; it forms the gears that drive debate’s intellectual motor. Additionally, there are social benefits to the practice of requiring students to debate both sides of controversial issues. Dating back to th e Greek rhetorical

tradition, great value has been placed on the benefit of testing each argument relative to all others in the marketplace of ideas. Like those who argue on behalf of the

efficiency-maximizing benefits of free market competition, it is believed that arguments are most rigorously tested (and conceivably refined and improved) when compared to all available alternatives. Even for beliefs that have seem ingly been ingrained in consensus opinion or 7 in cases where the public at-large is unlikely to accept a particular position, it has been argued that they should remain open for public discussion and deliberation (Mill, 1975). Along these lines, the greatest benefit of switching sides, which goes to the heart of contemporary debate, is its inducement of critical thinking. Defined as “reasonable

reflective thinking that is focused on decidi ng what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1987, p. 10), critical thinking learned through debate teaches students not just how to advocate and argue, but how to decide as well. Each and every student, whether in debate or (more likely) at some later point in life, will be placed in the position of the decision-maker. Faced with competing options whose costs and benefits are initially unclear, critical thinking is necessary to assess all the possible outcomes of each choice, compare their relative merits, and arrive at some final decision about which is preferable. In some instances, such as choosing whether to eat Chinese or Indian food for dinner, the im portance of making the correct decision is minor. For many other de cisions, however, the implications of choosing an imprudent course of action are pot entially grave. As Robert Crawford notes, there are “issues of unsurpassed importance in the daily lives of millions upon millions of people...being decided to a considerable extent by the power of pub lic speaking” (2003). Although the days of the Cold War are over, and the risk that “the

next Pearl Harbor could be ‘compounded by hydrogen’” (Ehninger and Brockriede, 1978, p. 3) is greatly reduced, the

manipulation of public support before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 points to the continuing necessity of training a well-in formed and critically-aware public (Zarefsky, 2007). In the absence of debate-trained critical thinking, ignorant but ambitious politicians and persuasive but nefarious leaders would be much more likely to draw the country, and possibly the world, in to conflicts with incalculable losses in terms of human 8 well-being. Given the myriad threats of global proportions th at will require incisive solutions, including global warming, the spread of pandemic diseases, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cultivating a robust and effective society of critical decision-makers is essential. As Louis Rene Beres writes, “with such learning, we Americans could prepare...not as immobilized objects of false contentment, but as authentic citizens of an endangered planet” (2003 ). Thus, it is not surprising that critical thinking has been called “the highest edu cational goal of the ac

tivity” (Parcher, 1998). While arguing from conviction can foster limited critical thinking skills, the element of switching sides is necessary to sharpen debate’s critical edge and ensure that decisions are made in a reasoned manner instead of being driven by ideology. Debaters trained in SSD are more likely to evaluate both sides of an argument before arriving at a conclusion and are less likely to dismiss potential arguments based on his or her prior beliefs (Muir 1993). In addition, debating both sides teaches “conceptual flexibility,” where decision-makers are more likely to refl ect upon the beliefs that are held before coming to a final opinion (Muir, 1993, p. 290) . Exposed to many arguments on each side of an issue, debaters learn that public policy is characteri zed by extraordinary complexity that

requires careful consideration before action. Finally, these arguments are confirmed by the preponderance of empirical research demonstrating a link between competitive SSD and critical thinking (Allen, Berkow itz, Hunt and Louden, 1999; Colbert, 2002, p. 82). The theory and practice of SSD has value beyond the limited realm of competitive debate as well. For the practitioners a nd students of rhetoric, understanding how individuals come to form opini ons about subjects and then a ttempt to persuade others is 9 of utmost importance. Although the field of communication has established models that attempt to explain human decision-making, such as the Rational Argumentation Theory and others (Cragen and Shields, 1998, p. 66) , the practice of SSD within competitive debate rounds is a real-world laboratory wh ere argumentative experiments are carried out thousands of times over

during the course of a single year-long season. The theory of SSD has profound implications for those who study how individuals are persuaded, as well as how advocates should go about the process of forming their own personal beliefs and attempting to persuade others.

Reasonability/Competing Interps Use reasonability it ensures access to the 1AC and prevents teams from arbitrarily going for T to exclude Affs solidly grounded in lit. Ryan ‘4(Andrew B. Ryan, college debater, Wake Forest University, 2004, Reviving Reasonability. The Debaters’ Research Guide, 2004. groups.wfu.edu/debate)

How should the affirmative initiate a discussion about the quality of debate? First, start by defending your own ground. The resolution gives both teams a reasonable expectation of what is topical and affirmatives choose their plan accordingly. The affirmative has a qualified right to their reasonable expectation of the topic: how can affirmatives choose plans if they cannot rely on definitions they have researched that support its topicality? This right isn’t unlimited, however, because the negative is encouraged to debate the affirmative on whether their interpretation of words is supported by grammar, common

usage, field context, etc. But, the negative’s right to re-interpret the topic should be limited to consistent and predictable interpretations. Resorting to arbitrary interpretations based on illogical catchphrases unfairly allows the negative to pull the rug out from under the affirmative. Second, affirmatives should talk about what makes a good definition. Are dictionary definitions best? Possibly, as long as you are not dealing with a term of art, such as peacekeeping. What about field context? Shouldn’t a definition of peacekeeping by the head of U.N.

Peacekeeping Operations be given more weight than a dictionary definition? Lastly, defining a word in a certain way may be the only way to maintain the grammatical integrity of the resolution. Take the discussion of definitions to another level: move past superficial quantitative discussions of limits and speak directly to the educational benefits and disadvantages of each side’s definition. Third, don’t be

afraid to talk about debate’s purpose. It is a competitive game, but one that should always be based on reason and logic. If what a team does enables illogical arguments to determine the outcome of the debate, then regardless of what unlimited topic the affirmative may allow, it is still better to vote affirmative than eschew reason. Reasonability is important because strict adherence to comparing competing interpretations based on offense/defense types of theories allows the negative to the make the perfect the enemy of the good. Fourth, a reasonability

paradigm would help affirmatives to redefine the role of the judge. One of the central negative objections to reasonability interpretations is that they encourage judge intervention because the judge is left without a coherent standard to determine which interpretations are best. Affirmatives can flip this argument on the negative, however, by arguing that the offense/defense and competing interpretations paradigm exceeds the jurisdictional role of the judge. Traditionally, negatives argued that jurisdiction was a voting issue because judges could not vote to endorse a non-topical affirmative. The negative age calls for a judge to act as an arbiter of competing interpretations. That exceeds the role of the judge, however, because the negative is no longer demonstrating the affirmative is non-topical; rather they are only demonstrating that an interpretation that excludes the affirmative is comparatively better for debate. Topicality is a gateway issue which is meant to ensure that both sides have adequate ground for debate: if both interpretations provide similar quantity and quality of ground, then judges should dispense with topicality and allow the policy debate to begin.

Reject the argument, not the team Solt ‘2

(Roger E. Solt, Debate Coach at the University of Kentucky, “Theory as a Voting Issue: The Crime of Punishment”, 2002 - Mental Health Policies: Escape from Bedlam?, 2002, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/

DRGArticles/DRGArtiarticlesIndex.htm)

First, the attempt to achieve favorable time tradeoffs is a ubiquitous practice in current debate. It is behind the practice of making multiple answers to a given argument. It strongly influences the number of positions the negative team will advance in the 1NC. It is behind the decision to start all of the major negative positions in the 1NC. It dictates how many positions will be extended through the block. It generally controls the decision about whether or not the affirmative should “straight turn” one or more disadvantages. Even the employment of punishment arguments is generally based on the desire to secure a favorable time exchange. It seems silly to single out a few particular instances of this universal practices and say that they are voting issues, when the whole of debate is saturated with strategic time considerations. Second, forcing teams to make strategic choices does have educational value. Debaters are forced to judge which their best arguments are and be selective about what they will extend. Third, punishment arguments constitute a self-inflicted coverage injury. It takes time, sometimes considerable time, to argue that a certain approach has distorted your time allocation. If debaters didn’t defend punishment, they would have more time to answer other arguments. Fourth, time skews are often minimal. It is quite common for an issue which occupied literally seconds of the debate to still be tagged as a voting issue. In cases like this, the overall integrity of the round would certainly be maximized by simply rejecting the particular argument rather than the team that made it. Fifth, teams defending a problematic theory almost always invest some time in advancing that position and in extending it. Time spent answering the time skew argument serves to redress the injury. Sixth, there are other means of redress rather than the ballot. If some other issue was radically undercovered due to the alleged time skew, the judge could allow new answers on that issue. Finally, seventh, time skew arguments directed against the affirmative seem especially dubious. The structure of the debate places particular time pressures on the affirmative. The luxury of the negative block should give the negative ample time to answer pretty much whatever the 2AC says. (New 1AR answers do pose a different and more legitimate concern from the standpoint of time allocation issues.)

Default to reasonability competing interpretations compromises substantive discussion – 6 warrants Solt ‘2

(Roger E. Solt, Debate Coach at the University of Kentucky, “Theory as a Voting Issue: The Crime of Punishment”, 2002 - Mental Health Policies: Escape from Bedlam?, 2002, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/

DRGArticles/DRGArtiarticlesIndex.htm)

The first main argument I would make against punishment is that it exaggerates theory. One view of debate is that it is just a game and that theory is as worthwhile to debate as anything else. In contrast is the view that I would defend: that debate has a substantive intellectual content which it is far more worthwhile to learn about than it is to learn about debate theory. Debate teaches us a great deal about current events and principles of policy analysis, about political theory, political philosophy, and practical politics, about medicine and law, ethics and epistemology. It teaches both problem solving and the criticism of underlying assumptions. And it teaches many other things as well. People disagree about which of these areas of inquiry is most important, but any and all of these subjects are of more intrinsic significance than debate theory. I write this as someone who finds debate theory interesting. Nor do I think that we can get along without debate theory. Nor should we. Theory is basically a set of meta-arguments, arguments about arguments and about the standards for argument. We could set these standards by authoritative edict (a rulebook) or by convention. But on many theory questions there is widespread disagreement and hence no dominant convention. And in the absence of a prevailing convention there is unlikely to be an authoritative rulebook which could be adopted or accepted. We have come, over the past quarter of a century, to think that these are things which debaters can and should argue about. And I accept this general outlook. But even if we neither want to nor can entirely avoid theory argument, it should not be a central focus of the activity. Yet this is precisely what punishment argument make it. Rather than the criteria for the evaluation of arguments, theories come to be ends in themselves, the pivotal issues on which the debate centrally turns. This seems misguided. The knowledge gained in debate has many uses in later life, but surely the least useful body of knowledge which debate teaches is debate theory. For those of us who stay in the activity for a long time, it is interesting. We want to sort out in a consistent and satisfying way the principles of our activity. But that still does not make it a very intrinsically important body of knowledge. I think that we sometimes confuse debate theory with argument theory. I am not arguing that argumentation is not a valid and useful field of thought. And argument theory may intersect with what we commonly think of as “debate theory” at a variety of points. But the vast bulk of debate theory, as argued in competitive debate rounds, really just involves what are appropriate conventions for this particular activity—a contest, sponsored by educational institutions, with a certain format and certain conventions. Are conditional counterplans legitimate? Are plan inclusive counterplans legitimate? Are international counterplans legitimate? Should we assume that the “fiat” of the affirmative plan comes immediately or only after a normal implementation process? Must the affirmative specify an agent? These are the staples of debate theory argument. Especially they are the kinds of issues which most invoke punishment claims. And none of them has particular

salience outside the framework and format of contest debate. Of course, it is possible to relate some of these arguments to intellectual controversies beyond competitive debate. For example, a focus on international institutions distinguishes liberalism from realism as foreign policy paradigms. But the debate over international fiat does not draw very heavily on this paradigmatic controversy. And our arguments within competitive debate over the propriety of international fiat does next to nothing to illuminate the liberalism/realism debate within international relations. Arguments over debate theory are reminiscent of the debates of the medieval scholastic philosophers. Rather than arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of pin, we argue about how many intrinsicness arguments can dance on the head of a conditional counterplan. To Aquinas and company, the relationship of pins and angels was interesting and meaningful. Questions of fiat and conditionality matter to us. But only within the narrower confines of the academic debate activity. Once you leave debate, these issues won’t matter to you. So if the focus on punishment serves to make these kinds of arguments more central and other, more exportable forms of knowledge more marginal, then punishment does an intellectual disservice to the students debate is intended to teach. My second main argument is that, empirically, punishment arguments produce bad, anti-educational debate. Punishment arguments are almost always made badly. They are simply tag lines, especially at the impact level. (“This is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and education.”) There are two dominant incentives for labeling an objection to a given theory or practice a voting issue. The first is the “cheap shot” motive. The “independent voter” may get lost in the shuffle, and you may come out with an easy win. I doubt that anyone really thinks that this process of learning to “out tech” your opponent is an important part of debate’s educational mission. Second, by labeling an argument a voting issue, debaters hope of secure a favorable time tradeoff. If an argument is a voting issue, it has to be taken more seriously, even if it is not intrinsically of much substantive importance. Again, in this instance, the punishment argument serves as an element in the tactics of time tradeoff. This is part of the debate game, but it is not a very important part of what debate should teach. As extended, punishment arguments again tend to be a series of tag lines. This is generally true in the negative block, and it is almost always true (because of intense time pressures) in the 1AR and 2NR. If the 2AR chooses to go for a punishment argument, s/he may be more articulate and explanatory. But this generally means that a lot of new arguments are being made, or at least being given flesh from the bare skeleton of assertion, and this raises fairness concerns of its own. Of course, some theory debates are better than others. And I can imagine a world in which theory is debated more clearly and coherently than it generally is in the world of contemporary debate. But the experience of a quarter century of theory debates does not encourage me to think that we will enter that Promised Land any time soon. And “better” theory debates would have to occur in a more thorough and time-consuming fashion than those which occur today. And this would exaggerate the problem of diverting time from more substantive intellectual concerns. My third argument is that the punishment of voting on theory is almost always disproportionate. To me this seems almost true by definition.

Someone advances a “bad” argument. They lose that argument. It is not a decisive argument in terms of the substantive logic of the debate, be that a policy logic, a discursive logic, or a critical logic. But instead of just losing that argument, with whatever logical, limited impact that may have in the round, the team which advanced the “bad” argument suddenly is supposed to lose the whole debate. In other words, every other issue in the round, all of the policy arguments, all of the critical arguments, all of the discursive arguments become moot. They no longer matter and they need not be resolved because one theory argument has been lost. Beyond my intuitive sense that this is disproportionate, I have two other arguments for why voting on theory is excessive. First, the theories debaters most want to punish are not really that egregious. Punishment claims are most commonly raised against the following practices: conditional counterplans, partially plan inclusive counterplans, permutations against kritiks, extra-topical plan planks, non-specification of agent by the affirmative, and a range of affirmative and negative fiat issues. I personally favor some of these positions, and I oppose others. But I recognize that there are “pretty good” arguments in favor of both sides with regard to all of these issues. In other words, they are all, relatively speaking, “close calls.” Or, to put it still another way, there are thoughtful members of the competitive debate activity for whom each of these practices makes sense and others for which they do not. On none of these issues is there a theoretical consensus. And all have been widely employed without “destroying debate.” This is not to say that these practices are not fair game for argument. They are. But none is so abusive within the context and conventions of debate as we know it that it needs to be an automatic voting issue. Losing the argument ought to be punishment enough. Nor do we need punishment to deal with theories which the consensus of the activity rejects. The difficulty of winning on counterwarrants or alternative justifications or plan/plan has easily been enough to discourage these practices. Second, the debate over a given theory issue is, by the end of the round, generally close. Each team has its list of brief, blippy reasons to prefer one theory stance or another. Typically, the two lists are opposed to each other, via a process of grouping, and without clear, on-point clash. Usually both sides drop one or more arguments made by their opponents. So again, typically speaking, judges can almost always find grounds to resolve a given theory debate either way, and they generally do so based on their own biases. In this situation, it once again seems to be enough that one side is penalized by losing the particular theory position. A slight edge to one team over the other shouldn’t translate into the critical issue in the round. This is especially true when, as is often the case, the particular theory issue at stake has occupied a fairly small percentage of the total time which the debate occupied. My fourth major argument against punishment is that it is intolerant. All judges have biases which they are only partially successful at screening out. And perhaps oddly, judges often seem less able to set aside their theory biases than their biases on substantive issues. As I noted above, judges can generally justify voting either way on a given theory argument in most rounds. At least if both sides are putting up a decent fight, this is the case. If a position is conceded, most judges will behave accordingly, though

even here there are exceptions. And sometimes there will be such a clear preponderance of argument that judges are unable to find their way back to their own theory predispositions. But with two reasonably skilled teams, it is generally possible to resolve a given theory issue either way, so most judges, most of the time, end up endorsing the theory position which they prefer. This may be an unfortunate fact about judges, and it certainly applies to some judges more than to others, but it is a real tendency. It is hardly controversial to say that judges have biases. But the problem with punishment, in light of this fact, is that voting on theory empowers those biases. Instead of creating a strategic slant, the bias becomes all-decisive. What we should recognize, I think, is that different people can and do legitimately hold different concepts of what debate should be about. If one side appeals to our theory preferences and the other side does not, it is not unreasonable to expect that the side whose views we embrace will win the debate over a particular issue more often. But it is intolerant to rule the other side completely out of order, to decide the whole debate based on this one issue, just because they have gotten on the wrong side of one of our theoretical predispositions. A fifth problem with punishment is its arbitrariness. Punishment aims at abusive practices. But abuse clearly falls on a continuum. And the line at which sufficient abuse exists to justify a ballot is inevitably arbitrary. Is a ten second time distortion enough to vote on? A ten-minute time distortion? Or where in between? This situation is further complicated by the fact that one never knows just how the team invoking punishment would have allocated its time absent the problematic practice. Claims that they had wonderful arguments which time constraints prevented them from running should be viewed with a good deal of skepticism. Sometimes arbitrary lines must be drawn. But especially when debate’s equivalent of the death penalty is involved, that arbitrariness should occasion concern. My final argument is that punishment snowballs. Once the punishment paradigm is embraced, a likely consequence is what Ross Smith has called “voting issue proliferation.” Anything can be labeled as a voting issue. And, indeed, the use of theory as a voting issue has helped to create a class of debate “cheap shot artists” who systematically employ punishment strategies. Losing on cheap shots is infuriating for debaters and coaches, and it is frustrating for many judges to vote on them. They certainly don’t make debate a more educational activity. And the teams and debaters who rely on them the most are probably the biggest losers in educational terms.

Competing interpretations is key to deterring future abuse and rectify in round unfairness. Solt ‘2(Roger E. Solt, Debate Coach at the University of Kentucky, “Theory as a Voting Issue: The Crime of Punishment”, 2002 - Mental Health Policies: Escape from Bedlam?, 2002, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/

DRGArticles/DRGArtiarticlesIndex.htm)

In Sigel 1, there are four major arguments presented in favor of punishment. The first argument was fairness. Certain theories and practices were said to be unfair to opposing debaters. And it is not enough just to reject these practices; they may so skew the round that only voting against the team which employed them can redress competitive equity. The second argument was education. Sigel invoked the view that the judge should serve as an educator. Part of his or her role as an educator is to discourage bad arguments. Unfair theories and tactics may also serve to undercut the educational quality of the debate experience. The third argument was deterrence. Losing debates, Sigel argued, is a powerful inducement for people to change their ways. Debaters are, for the most part, rational animals, and they will respond to strong competitive incentives. Sigel’s fourth rationale for punishment was argument responsibility. Punishment with the ballot makes debaters highly responsible for their arguments. And debate, he claimed, should teach debaters to argue responsibly.

Reasonability collapses into competing interpretations, if we win our interp creates a better topic than theirs should be considered unreasonable. Mancuso ‘82(Steve Manusco, Debater for University of Kentucky, Wake Forest University, 1982, Topicality: In Search of Reason. The Debaters’ Research Guide, groups.wfu.edu/debate)In recognition of the many possible definitions of a word, the debate community has adopted (original mother and father unknown) the convention that the affirmative definition only needs to be "reasonable." This burden traditionally stands opposed to the notion that the affirmative must have the best definition of a word, or even necessarily a better definition than the negative. While the initial theoretical underpinnings for such a convention are far from clear, it must certainly he justified on the grounds that it promotes the objective of quality debating. Such a convention recognizes that a definition is not right or wrong, but merely acceptable or unacceptable in a given situation. In situations where broad interpretations of a topic are desirable, a broader-than usual definition may be reasonable, and where a narrow interpretation is desirable, narrow definitions may be

reasonable. Such a simplified view of reasonability is not justified in the face of the recent uses and abuses of such a convention. The relevant question is: What does it mean to be reasonable? Again, courts and legislators may have their own definitions of "reasonable," but they may not be at all useful for the functioning of the term in debate. To state that a court has been unable to define the word "reasonable" only means that in that particular context it was difficult, not that such a finding should be accepted as proof that we cannot come up with a workable concept of reasonability for our purposes. Of course, someone who has listened to a few debates concerning "reasonability" may find great sympathy with such a court the concept has taken on very diverse forms, to say the least, in its varied uses. On one extreme, teams have argued that as long as they were not "absurd" in defining their terms, they were reasonable, and some teams have argued that because their definition exists they are some how reasonable. On the other end of the definitional continuum, some interpretations of reasonability have been very restrictive. Some teams have argued that only the best definition is reasonable--that it shows little reason to accept an inferior definition. Clearly there has been quite a bit of disagreement as to what is entailed by a "reasonable" definition. Some debate critics have responded to this dispute by throwing up their arms and calling for the abandonment of the concept of reasonability as a topicality convention altogether. While it is very easy to respect and have empathy with such sentiment, it seems prudent to attempt a less radical solution by constructing a more useful and practical convention of reasonability without ""piffing" the concept in its entirety. I would suggest two steps in construction of a workable reasonability convention. First, we must agree upon what makes a definition acceptable.

Keeping in mind the goal of high quality debating, two criteria necessary for an acceptable definition should be (1) Does it tend toward focusing debates on timely and relevant policy advocacy? and (2) does it allow the negative sufficient ability to be prepared in both analysis and research? A definition which failed to meet either of these goals would not seem to he

an acceptable approach to interpretation. Secondly, the actual debate over topicality should center

on the question of whether or not the affirmative interpretation actually did meet both of these criteria. In this sense, the "threshold" for when a definition became "reasonable" would be raised well above the currently less rigorous approaches, yet not overly restrict the affirmative initial and presumptive right to define its terms. The burden would be on the affirmative to explain, wren challenged, the implications of its definition, thus reviving the concept of an affirmative burden on topicality, without making the burden prohibitively heavy by making them refute any conceivable negative alternative definition. In an effort to supplement the convention of "reasonability," "standards" of definition have been offered which the affirmative should meet in order to be considered reasonable. These standards could potentially be used to discern whether or not the affirmative approach met the above two criteria.

Depth/Breadth/Limits Depth outweighs breadth. Tai et al ‘8Tai et al 08 [(Robert) Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education Department, Curry School of Education) “Depth Versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High School Science Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Course work” 2008]

The baseline model reveals a direct and compelling outcome: teaching for depth is associated with improvements in later performance. Of course, there is much to consider in evaluating the implications of such an analysis. There are a number of questions about this simple conclusion that naturally emerge. For example, ho w much depth works best? What is the optimal manner to operationalize the impact of depth-based learning? Do specific contexts (such as type of student, teacher, or school) moderate the impact of depth? The answers to these questions certainly suggest that a more nuanced view should be sought. Nonetheless, this analysis appears to indicate that a robust positive association exists between high school science teaching that pro v ides depth in at least one topic and better

performances in introductory postsecondary science courses. Our results also clearly suggest that breadth-based learning, as commonly applied in high school classrooms, does not appear to offer students any advantage when they enroll in introductory college science courses, although it may contribute to higher scores on standardized tests. However, the intuitive appeal of broadly surveying a discipline in an introductory high school course cannot be overlooked. There might be benefits to such a pedagogy that become apparent when using measures that we did not explore. The results regarding breadth were less compelling because in only one of the three disciplines were the results significant in our full model. On the other

hand, we observed no positive effects at all. As it stands, our findings at least suggest that aiming for breadth in content coverage should be avoided, as we found no evidence to support such an approach.

Limits are k2 clash and in depth discussion.Hardy 10(Aaron T. Hardy, Coach at Whitman College, “CONDITIONALITY, CHEATING COUNTERPLANS, AND CRITIQUES: TOPIC CONSTRUCTION AND THE RISE OF THE “NEGATIVE CASE””, Contemporary Argumentation & Debate, 2010, pg. 44-45, http://www.cedadebate.org/cad/index.php/CAD/article/view File/271/243)

First, narrow topics are more likely to encourage substantive clash. One of the primary motivations for negative teams running away from engagement with the specifics of the affirmative is fear of “falling behind” in the necessary research effort. On a topic with 200 topical affirmative plan mechanisms, it is extremely unlikely that all but the most precocious of negative teams will be prepared to debate each one, and much more likely that they will turn instead to as generic of an approach as possible. Despite sentiments from some corners that the topic writing process is already too narrow and specialized, I would submit that the debate community has not yet truly experimented with what a radically narrower topic might entail. Even the smallest topics in recent memory have afforded the affirmative an incredible amount of flexibility, usually as a compromise to the “broad topics good” camp. A quick perusal of any of the archived case lists from the past decade reveals that even the narrowest topics the community has debated have entailed dozens (if not hundreds) of discrete affirmatives. Instead, envision as a potentially hyperbolic

example, a topic with truly only to prepare a truly in-depth take on each one. Chosen in concert with the right literature base, perhaps the word “stale” could be replaced with “nuanced,” even if debates superficially resemble each other as the year progresses. Limits means your case needs to be predictableKupferberg ‘87Eric Kupferbreg, University of Kentucky 1987 “Limits - The Essence of Topicality”

http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Kupferberg1987LatAmer.htm

If one considers the purpose of topicality--to initiate a meaningful discussion with sufficient prior notice and adequate ground for both sides--then the questions of delimitation become the focus of topicality standards. Both 'reasonability' and 'best definition' claim to enhance the debate process--the former by providing adequate ground for affirmative case areas and the latter by preventing an unreasonable run-a-way topic.¶ I am not suggesting that limits should be the only test for topicality. If this were sole criteria, teams could argue that inherently limited topics are superior, hence, negatives win because their definition excludes the affirmative (there's always a competitive incentive to limit the affirmative out of the round). Obviously, limits for limits sake is arbitrary as well as abusive. However, debatable limits are clearly desirable. What are these 'debatable limits'? Here are some relevant questions that if answered carefully might help to create criteria for debatable limits:¶ 1) Are there fair number of cases that would be topical? An interpretation that overlimited the resolution would be as inappropriate as one which unlimited the topic. An entire year of debating a single case or 300 cases would be neither educational or enjoyable. An interpretation that allowed somewhere between 20 and 40 cases might be acceptable to most participants in the activity. ¶ 2) Is the interpretation open to innovation? Part of the intrigue of debating the same topic year round is the competitive incentive for affirmatives to seek new slants. A debatable interpretation should allow for new cases--although they would be chosen from a predictable range of areas. A debatable limit should not force an overly static topic.¶ 3) Does the interpretation fit within some scope of the field context? While not suggesting that we should rely on field contextual definitions alone, an interpretation of the topic should bear some resemblance to the topic area. It would be almost axiomatic to suggest that a definition of 'agricultural' last year should lend itself to cases that are relevant to real world agricultural issues.¶ 4) Does the interpretation allow for some degree of prior notice? A debatable limit is one where a large number of topical cases are to be anticipated by the general debate community. This is not to imply that surprise 'squirrels' should be prohibited, only that definitions should encompass what a large portion of the debate circuit is running.

Limits destroy creative thinking – innovation results from breaking rules and challenging dominate modes of thought. Clark 07

[(Brian, CEO and founder of Coppyblogger Media) “Do You Recognize These 10 Mental Blocks to Creative Thinking?”, Coppyblogger, 9/18/07]

Whether you’re trying to solve a tough problem, start a business, get attention for that business or write an interesting article, creative thinking is crucial. The process boils down to changing your perspective and seeing things differently than you currently do. People like to call this “thinking outside of the box,” which is the wrong way to look at it. Just like Neo needed to understand that “there is no spoon” in the film The Matrix, you need to realize “there is no box” to step outside of. You create your own imaginary boxes simply by living life and accepting certain things as “real” when they are just as illusory as the beliefs of a paranoid delusional. The difference is, enough people agree that certain man-made concepts are “real,” so you’re viewed as “normal.” This is good for society overall, but it’s that sort of unquestioning consensus that inhibits your natural creative abilities. So, rather than looking for ways to inspire creativity, you should just realize the truth. You’re already capable of creative thinking at all times, but you have to strip away the imaginary mental blocks (or boxes) that you’ve picked up along the way to wherever you are today. I like to keep this list of 10 common ways we suppress our natural creative abilities nearby when I get stuck. It helps me realize that the barriers to a good idea are truly all in my head. 1. Trying to Find the “Right” Answer One of the worst aspects of formal education is the focus on the correct answer to a particular question or problem. While this approach helps us function in society, it hurts creative thinking because real-life issues are ambiguous. There’s often more than one “correct” answer, and the second one you come up with might be better than the first. Many of the following mental blocks can be turned around to reveal ways to find more than one answer to any given problem. Try reframing the issue in several different ways in order to prompt different answers, and embrace answering inherently ambiguous questions in several different ways. 2. Logical Thinking Not only is real life ambiguous, it’s often illogical to the point of madness. While critical thinking skills based on logic are one of our main strengths in evaluating the feasibility of a creative idea, it’s often the enemy of truly innovative thoughts in the first place. One of the best ways to escape the constraints of your own logical mind is to think metaphorically . One of the reasons why metaphors work so well in communications is that we accept them as true without thinking about it. When you realize that “truth” is often symbolic, you’ll often find that you are actually free to come up with alternatives. 3. Following Rules One way to view creative thinking is to look at it as a destructive force. You’re tearing away the often arbitrary rules that others have set for you, and asking either “why” or “why not” whenever confronted with the way “everyone” does things. This is easier said than done, since people will often defend the rules they follow even in the face of evidence that the rule doesn’t work. People love to celebrate rebels like Richard Branson, but few seem brave enough to emulate him. Quit worshipping rule breakers and start breaking some rules. 4. Being Practical Like logic, practicality is hugely important when it comes to

execution, but often stifles innovative ideas before they can properly blossom. Don’t allow the editor into the same room with your inner artist. Try not to evaluate the actual feasibility of an approach until you’ve allowed it to exist on its own for a bit. Spend time asking “what if” as often as possible, and simply allow your imagination to go where it wants. You might just find yourself discovering a crazy idea that’s so insanely practical that no one’s thought of it before. 5. Play is Not Work Allowing your mind to be at play is perhaps the most effective way to stimulate creative thinking, and yet many people disassociate play from work. These days, the people who can come up with great ideas and solutions are the most economically rewarded, while worker bees are often employed for the benefit of the creative thinkers. You’ve heard the expression “work hard and play hard.” All you have to realize is that they’re the same thing to a creative thinker. 6. That’s Not My Job In an era of hyper-specialization, it’s those who happily explore completely unrelated areas of life and knowledge who best see that everything is related. This goes back to what ad man Carl Ally said about creative persons—they want to be know-it-alls. Sure, you’ve got to know the specialized stuff in your field, but if you view yourself as an explorer rather than a highly-specialized cog in the machine, you’ll run circles around the technical master in the success department. 7. Being a “Serious” Person Most of what keeps us civilized boils down to conformity, consistency, shared values, and yes, thinking about things the same way everyone else does. There’s nothing wrong with that necessarily, but if you can mentally accept that it’s actually nothing more than groupthink that helps a society function, you can then give yourself permission to turn everything that’s accepted upside down and shake out the illusions. Leaders from Egyptian pharaohs to Chinese emperors and European royalty have consulted with fools, or court jesters, when faced with tough problems. The persona of the fool allowed the truth to be told, without the usual ramifications that might come with speaking blasphemy or challenging ingrained social conventions. Give yourself permission to be a fool and see things for what they really are. 8. Avoiding Ambiguity We rationally realize that most every situation is ambiguous to some degree. And although dividing complex situations into black and white boxes can lead to disaster, we still do it. It’s an innate characteristic of human psychology to desire certainty, but it’s the creative thinker who rejects the false comfort of clarity when it’s not really appropriate. Ambiguity is your friend if you’re looking to innovate. The fact that most people are uncomfortable exploring uncertainty gives you an advantage, as long as you can embrace ambiguity rather than run from it.