Download - Finished T File - Fellows
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
1/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Index
Index........................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Index ........................................................................................................................................................................1
Random Violations .................................................................................................................................................5
1NC ASPEC .........................................................................................................................................................................................6
1NC ASPEC ........................................................................................................................................................6
1NC Incentives Must Be Given By the Government ...........................................................................................................................7
1NC Incentives Must Be Given By the Government ......................................................................................7
1NC Alternative Energy Must Be in the US.........................................................................................................................................8
1NC Alternative Energy Must Be in the US .....................................................................................................8
1NC Should Is the Past Tense of Shall.................................................................................................................................................9
1NC Should Is the Past Tense of Shall ..............................................................................................................9
1NC Substantially Is Without Material Qualifications.......................................................................................................................10
1NC Substantially Is Without Material Qualifications .................................................................................10
1NC Banning Substances Isn't T.........................................................................................................................................................11
1NC Banning Substances Isn't T .....................................................................................................................11
1NC Removing A Barrier Isn't T........................................................................................................................................................12
1NC Removing A Barrier Isn't T .....................................................................................................................12
1NC FX T...........................................................................................................................................................................................13
1NC FX T ...........................................................................................................................................................13
Alternative Energy Violations ............................................................................................................................14
1NC Cant Deplete Resources/Harm the Environment......................................................................................................................15
1NC Cant Deplete Resources/Harm the Environment .................................................................................15
1NC Alternative Energy Is Opposed to Fossil Fuels..........................................................................................................................16
1NC Alternative Energy Is Opposed to Fossil Fuels ......................................................................................16
1NC Cant Harm the Environment.....................................................................................................................................................17
1NC Cant Harm the Environment .................................................................................................................17
Can't Hurt The Environment At: Mixing Burdens.................................................................................................................................18
Can't Hurt The Environment At: Mixing Burdens ..........................................................................................18
Incentives Violations ...........................................................................................................................................19
1NC Incentives Must Be in the US.....................................................................................................................................................20
1NC Incentives Must Be in the US ..................................................................................................................20
1NC Incentives Must Be Throughout.................................................................................................................................................21
1NC Incentives Must Be Throughout ..............................................................................................................21
1NC Incentives Must Cause Action....................................................................................................................................................22
1
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
2/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Cause Action .................................................................................................................22
1NC Incentive Group SPEC...............................................................................................................................................................23
1NC Incentive Group SPEC ............................................................................................................................23
1NC Incentives Must Be Plural..........................................................................................................................................................24
1NC Incentives Must Be Plural .......................................................................................................................241NC Incentives Must Be Voluntary....................................................................................................................................................25
1NC Incentives Must Be Voluntary .................................................................................................................25
1NC Incentives Must Attract Industry Development .........................................................................................................................26
1NC Incentives Must Attract Industry Development ...................................................................................26
1NC Incentives Cant Be Disincentives.............................................................................................................................................27
1NC Incentives Cant Be Disincentives ...........................................................................................................27
1NC Incentives Must Be Financial.....................................................................................................................................................28
1NC Incentives Must Be Financial ..................................................................................................................282AC Counter Interp Modules ............................................................................................................................29
2AC Incentives Can Be Rewards or Punishment...............................................................................................................................30
2AC Incentives Can Be Rewards or Punishment ...........................................................................................30
2AC Alternative Energy Includes Nuclear.........................................................................................................................................31
2AC Alternative Energy Includes Nuclear .....................................................................................................31
2AC Alternative Energy is Renewable...............................................................................................................................................32
2AC Alternative Energy is Renewable ............................................................................................................32
Standards Blocks .................................................................................................................................................33FX T Bad................................................................................................................................................................................................34
FX T Bad ...............................................................................................................................................................34
FX T Good.............................................................................................................................................................................................35
FX T Good ............................................................................................................................................................35
Extra T Bad............................................................................................................................................................................................36
Extra T Bad ..........................................................................................................................................................36
Extra T Good..........................................................................................................................................................................................37
Extra T Good ........................................................................................................................................................37
THEORY O/W T....................................................................................................................................................................................38
THEORY O/W T ..................................................................................................................................................38
T O/W Theory........................................................................................................................................................................................39
T O/W Theory ......................................................................................................................................................39
Breadth Is Better Than Depth................................................................................................................................................................40
Breadth Is Better Than Depth ............................................................................................................................40
2
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
3/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Depth O/W Breadth...............................................................................................................................................................................41
Depth O/W Breadth .............................................................................................................................................41
Education O/W Fairness........................................................................................................................................................................42
Education O/W Fairness .....................................................................................................................................42
Fairness O/W Education........................................................................................................................................................................43
Fairness O/W Education .....................................................................................................................................43
Reasonability Good................................................................................................................................................................................44
Reasonability Good ..............................................................................................................................................44
A2 Reasonability Is Vague.....................................................................................................................................................................45
A2 Reasonability Is Vague ...................................................................................................................................45
A2 Reasonability=Judge Intervention...................................................................................................................................................46
A2 Reasonability=Judge Intervention ...............................................................................................................46
Competing Interpretations Good............................................................................................................................................................47Competing Interpretations Good .......................................................................................................................47
A2 Race to The Bottom.........................................................................................................................................................................48
A2 Race to The Bottom ........................................................................................................................................48
A2 Competing Interpretations=Arbitrary Definitions...........................................................................................................................49
A2 Competing Interpretations=Arbitrary Definitions .....................................................................................49
A2 Clash Checks....................................................................................................................................................................................50
A2 Clash Checks ..................................................................................................................................................50
A2 Lit Checks........................................................................................................................................................................................51
A2 Lit Checks .......................................................................................................................................................51
A2 Reasonability Checks.......................................................................................................................................................................52
A2 Reasonability Checks .....................................................................................................................................52
A2 Competing Interpretations Bad........................................................................................................................................................53
A2 Competing Interpretations Bad ....................................................................................................................53
A2 Potential Abuse Not a Voter.............................................................................................................................................................54
A2 Potential Abuse Not a Voter ..........................................................................................................................54
A2 Our Aff Is the Only T Aff.................................................................................................................................................................55
A2 Our Aff Is the Only T Aff ..............................................................................................................................55
A2 Reverse Voting Issue........................................................................................................................................................................56
A2 Reverse Voting Issue ......................................................................................................................................56
A2 Kritik of Topicality...........................................................................................................................................................................57
A2 Kritik of Topicality .........................................................................................................................................57
Definitions .............................................................................................................................................................58
3
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
4/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Resolved.................................................................................................................................................................................................59
Resolved ................................................................................................................................................................59
Federal Government...............................................................................................................................................................................60
Federal Government ............................................................................................................................................60
Federal....................................................................................................................................................................................................61
Federal ..................................................................................................................................................................61
Government............................................................................................................................................................................................62
Government ..........................................................................................................................................................62
Should....................................................................................................................................................................................................63
Should ...................................................................................................................................................................63
Substantially...........................................................................................................................................................................................64
Substantially .........................................................................................................................................................64
Substantially ..........................................................................................................................................................................................65Substantially ........................................................................................................................................................65
Increase..................................................................................................................................................................................................66
Increase .................................................................................................................................................................66
Increase..................................................................................................................................................................................................67
Increase .................................................................................................................................................................67
Alternative Energy.................................................................................................................................................................................68
Alternative Energy ...............................................................................................................................................68
Incentives...............................................................................................................................................................................................69
Incentives ..............................................................................................................................................................69
4
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
5/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Random Violations
5
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
6/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC ASPEC
A. Interpretation:Government includes all three branches of government.
Political Science Dictionary 73 1973 (Dryden Press, Illinois, p. 174)
Government is the political and administrative hierarchy of an organized state. Governments exercise legislative, executive, andjudicial functions; the nature of the governmental system is determined by the distribution of these powers. Government may take
many forms, but it must be sufficiently powerful and stable to command obedience and maintain order. A governments position also
depends on its acceptance by the community of nations through its diplomatic recognition by other states.
B. Violation the Affirmative doesn't specify which branch of the government they use to pass their plan
C. Standards
1. Limits: forcing the affirmative to specify narrows the focus of the debate and prevents aff
condtionality
2. Ground: the neg loses alternate actor cp's, specific agent d/a's, and specific politics links, which
outweighs predictability
3. CX not check: the damage was done pre-round, the 1nc is already set you pull the trigger on T.D. T is a voter for reasons above
6
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
7/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Be Given By the Government
a) interpretation:
1. the USFG is the legislative, judicial, and executive branches
USA.gov, last updated June 27, 2008
U.S. Federal Government
Official information and services from the U.S. government
The three branches of U.S. governmentlegislative, judicial, and executivecarry out governmental power and functions.
2. The USFG is the subject and "should increase" is a transitive verb of which "alternative energy
incentive" is the object; the subject of a sentence performs the action and thus the USFG is the one who
increases incentives.
b) violation: another actor gives the incentives, replacing the USFG as the subject.
c) standards:1. limits: our interpretation limits the actor to one entity, whereas the neg allows for an infinite
number of unpredictable actors not mandated by the resolution.
2. topic-specific education: we lose crucial education about politics and alternative energy and their
interactions when we only discuss other actors
3. ground: they spike out of politics links by choosing and non-governmental actor and rob the neg
of agent CPs.
d) T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction.
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
7
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
8/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Alternative Energy Must Be in the US
a) interpretation:
1. The United States is 48 states in North America, Alaska, and Hawaii
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006
United States
a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North
America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 267,954,767; conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq. mi. (7,827,982 sq. km); withAlaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi. (9,363,166 sq. km). Capital: Washington, D.C.Abbreviation: U.S., US
2. in means included within
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2006
in
(used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits): walking in the park
3. Increase means to progressively become greater-this means the incentives must progressively increase
in the United States for some period of time
Merriam Webster's Dictionary Online, 2007.
Increase: 1 : to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)
b) violation: the affirmative increases alternative energy outside of the US
c) standards:1. Limits: limiting the affirmative to defending an increase of alternative energy within the United
States, prevents increasing alternative energies in foreign, countries, which isn't predictable or
germaine to the topic
2. Ground: international actor, world economy, and international arugments are clearly negative
ground, removing them kills the advantage counterplans and alternative solvency mechanism
which are key to check side bias
3. Resolutional field context: the framers of the resolution wanted this years topic to revolve around
alternative energy in the U.S. ignoring this is aresoltuoinal and kills predictability [insert better
standards if you value your t ]
d) T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction.
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best fordebate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention
8
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
9/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Should Is the Past Tense of Shall
A. Interpretation should is the past tense of shall[Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition, 2006, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should]
Should
Verb
the past tense of shall: used to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory (you should go) or to form thesubjunctive mood (I should like to see you; if I should die; should I be late, start without me) [Old English sceolde]
B. Violation the affirmative specifies a plan to be done in the future, not the past
C. Standards
1. Limits: there are an infinite number of possible future plans, limiting the affirmative to past action
ensures fair ground.
2. Predictability: it is impossible to predict what future plans the affirmative could propose, which
destroys debatability and education
3. Education: policy makers formulate policies based on past knowledge, the affirmative eschews thiswhich kills policy education which is the purpose of debate.
A. T is a voter for the reasons above
9
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
10/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Substantially Is Without Material Qualifications
A. Interpretation:Substantially is without material qualification
Blacks Law Dictionary 1991[p. 1024]
Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification.
B. Violation, the affirmative specifies the nature of their incentive,
C. Standards
1. Limits: decreases limits and forces debate about the type of alternative energy, which is what the
resolution is structured to educate about. This is education is at the core of the topic, and
unlimiting to incentives allows extremly broad uneductaional debates
2. Ground: constrains ground picing out of incentives should be negative ground, and reading
generic politics links.
3. Predictability: not predictable to research all different kinds of alternative energy and all different
kinds of incentives which kills in-depth debates and education.
D. Voter for reasons above
10
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
11/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Banning Substances Isn't T
a) Interpretation:
1. increase is to make larger
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006
Increase: verb
To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to
2. An incentive is a reward for desired behavior-our evidence is contextual
Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and ResearchAssistant at the University's Conflict Research Consortium, published atBeyond Intractability, an academic research site,
"Incentives," 2004
What is an incentive?
In an incentive,A promises rewards toB in an attempt to getB to do or not doX. (In our discussion, we will refer toA as a
"sender," andB as a "target.") When punishments or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, providing rewards for preferred
behavior may produce a more desirable outcome. However, incentives have been frequently associated with weakness orindecisiveness. As a result, scholarship has tended to focus more on sanctions than incentives. This unequal attention has skewed
the perceived effectiveness of threats over promises. Incentives can be an effective alternative for managing conflicts. As with all
such devices, however, they must be carefully administered with attention to matching the right tool with the right problem.
b) violation: the aff increases punishments rather than rewards and therefore does not increase incentives
c) standards:
1. limits: the aff interpretation makes the topic bidirectional, allowing for an infinite number of steps
that don't necessarily result in concrete actions. i.e., if we ban coal, that's an incentive notto use
coal but not necessarily an incentive to use alternative energy
2. FX: they're mixing burdens and forcing you to look to solvency to determine the T debate-the
result of a ban may or may not be an increased incentive.
3. Fairness: they can always link out of disads by saying they're only an eventual increase or
claiming that a ban wouldn't necessarily lead to the use of alternative energies-this means none of
our alternative energy links apply
d) T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
11
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
12/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Removing A Barrier Isn't T
a) interpretation: increase is to make larger
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006
Increase: verb
To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to
2. An incentive is a reward for desired behavior-our evidence is contextual
Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research
Assistant at the University's Conflict Research Consortium, published atBeyond Intractability, an academic research site,"Incentives," 2004
What is an incentive?
In an incentive,A promises rewards toB in an attempt to getB to do or not doX. (In our discussion, we will refer toA as a"sender," andB as a "target.") When punishments or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, providing rewards for preferred
behavior may produce a more desirable outcome. However, incentives have been frequently associated with weakness or
indecisiveness. As a result, scholarship has tended to focus more on sanctions than incentives. This unequal attention has skewed
the perceived effectiveness of threats over promises. Incentives can be an effective alternative for managing conflicts. As with all
such devices, however, they must be carefully administered with attention to matching the right tool with the right problem.
b) violation: the aff does not increase incentives directly but rather removes a barrier that allows for
future increases of incentives
c) standards:
1. limits: they're only effectually topical-they allow for an infinite number of steps that eventually
solve the 1ac2. predictability: they force us to prepare by looking to their solvency by having a plan text with no
resolutional basis.
3. Topic-specific education: under their interpretation of debate, we never discuss the resolutional
but instead a number of unrelated steps.
d) T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction.
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
12
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
13/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC FX T
a) interpretation:
1. increase is to make larger
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006
Increase: verb
To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to
2. An incentive is a motivation to act
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006
Incentive: noun
Something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.
b) violation: the affirmative does not directly increase the incentives but instead takes a number of steps
which will eventually lead to an increase
c) standards:
1. limits: They allow for an infinite number of steps that eventually solve the 1ac. This is uniquely
bad because this topic doesn't mandate that affirmative increase alternative energy but only
incentives-abuse is magnified.
2. predictability: they force us to prepare by looking to their solvency by having a plan text with no
resolutional basis.
3. Topic-specific education: under their interpretation of debate, we never discuss the resolutional
but instead a number of unrelated steps.
4. bidirectionality: they allow for affs that decrease incentives in order to increase incentives in the
future, which is unpredictable
d) T is a voter for our standards and for jurisdiction
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
13
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
14/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Alternative Energy Violations
14
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
15/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Cant Deplete Resources/Harm the Environment
A. Interpretation alternative energy cant deplete natural resources or harm the environment.
Oxford Diction, 2007Alternative energy is energy fueled in ways that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment
B. Violation the affirmatives use of alternative energy would (result in the depletion of resources)(and/or) (harm the environment).
C. Standards
1. Ground the negative would never have links to resource tradeoff disads, alternative energy
counterplans, case impact turns, consumption bad arguments or stability good arguments.
2. Limits this would allow any affirmative that used resources in order to create energy. Under the
affirmatives interpretation of debate the Use the End of the Oil affirmative, the Hydrogen
affirmative and Nuclear Power affirmatives would be topical.
3. Predictability the resolution implies the net increase of alternative energy, using other resourceswould allow the affirmative to be effectually topical by first decreasing energies and then
increasing them. This is abusive because the affirmative could claim tradeoff scenarios in their
1AC that the negative would never predict this is an independent voting issue for fairness and
education.
D. Voter for the reasons above.
15
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
16/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Alternative Energy Is Opposed to Fossil Fuels
A. Interpretation: Alternative Energy is opposed to fossil fuels
Natural Resources Defense Council energy that is not popularly used and is usually environmentally sound, such assolar or wind energy (as opposed to fossil fuels).[4]
Fossil fuels are carbon containing and either coals, liquid, or gaseous fuels.McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 5th edition, 2008Any naturally occurring carbon-containing material which when burned with air (or oxygen) produces (directly) heat or (indirectly)
energy. Fossil fuels can be classified according to their respective forms at ambient conditions. Thus, there are solid fuels (coals);
liquid fuels (petroleum, heavy oils, bitumens); and gaseous fuels (natural gas, which is usually a mixture of methane, CH4, with lesser
amounts of ethane, C2H6, hydrogen sulfide, H2S, and numerous other constituents in small proportions).
B. Violation: the affirmative's plan is aimed at fossil fuels and not at increasing alternative energy.
C. Standards:
1. Limits: excluding fossil fuels is key to limiting the topic down, allowing fossil fuels explodes the
negative research burden and shifts the core of the topic
2. Predictability: the topic is huge and allowing fossil fuels destroys the ability of the neg to predict
the debate, destroying in-depth debate and topic education
3. Resolutional context: the framers of the resolution mean't the topic to be centered around
alternatives to fossil fuels, the resolution is the focus of the debate and shifting its focus destroys
education and fairness
4. Ground: allowing fossil fuels steals, oil d/a's, peak oil arguments, offshore drilling arguments,
power tradeoff d/a's, alt energy cps, and coal d/a's
D. T is a voter for the reasons above
16
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
17/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Cant Harm the Environment
a) interpretation: Alternative energy is energy that does not hurt the environment
WordNet, Princeton University, 2006
Alternative energy: energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment.
b) violation: the affirmative does not increase incentives for alternative energy but instead increases
incentives for an energy that is harmful to the environment
c) standards:
1. topic-specific education: the core of the topic is a discussion of improvement of the environment.
Discussions of environmentally detrimental fuels explode it so that we no longer talk about what is
important.
2. most real world: our evidence is contextual-all literature assumes a world where alternative
energy is eco-friendly. It's key to political education that we assign to it the meaning thatcongressmen and the USFG give it.
3. ground: all our links are predicated off of an alternative energy source that isn't harmful to the
environment, as none of the literature assumes the term has such a meaning. Inefficient fuels are
advocated in the sqo-that's neg ground
d) T is a voter for our standards and for jurisdiction
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
17
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
18/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Can't Hurt The Environment At: Mixing Burdens
1. It's not a matter of solvency but rather of definition, just like any other T debate. They only have
to provide a definition of their chosen alternative energy saying it's beneficial to the environment.
2. Mixing burdens is inevitable: because of the technical nature of the topic, we have to first
understand what certain substances are. i.e: we have to determine whether something is renewablein order to determine whether it is an alternative energy. Additional research must happen to
satisfy all T standards.
3. key to check aff side bias: they can use any incentive they want, so standards determining what
constitutes alternative energy must be more exacting.
18
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
19/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Incentives Violations
19
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
20/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Be in the US
A. Interpretation the phrasing in the resolution means that in the United States directly modifies
the preceding phrase alternative energy incentives.
B. Violation the affirmative increase incentives outside of the United States (also).
C. Standards
1. Ground allowing the incentives to (also) be outside of the United States would destroy links to
virtually ever disadvantage. Public perception links, coercion links, consult counterplans
incentive counterplans, mandatory counterplans, states counterplans, states PICs, and
development kritiks would all have no solvency advocates and would be impossible to strategically
deploy.
2. Predictable Grammar the only grammatically correct way to interpret the resolution is to
interpret the modification of word incentives. Any preceding direct object to a prepositional
phrase is modified by that prepositional phrase. Grammar is key predictability; a non-stable
interpretation of the resolution would allow the affirmative to take any action destroying fairnessand education.
D. Voter for the reasons above.
20
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
21/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Be Throughout
A. Interpretation the phrase in the United States modifies incentives. In means throughout.
The connotes a whole. This means that all of the United States must receive incentives.
B. Violation the affirmative increases incentives only in a part of the United States.
C. Standards
1. Ground the negative would never be able to win politics disads, economy disads, states PICs, oi
disads, tradeoff disads, permits counterplans or case turns. Without this ground the affirmative
would have a strategic advantage and win most debates.
2. Predictable Limits allowing the affirmative to specific where in the United States the incentives
are would allow incentives to any combination of states. Assuming there are at least 10 alternative
energy incentives and 50 states, even without combinations, thats 500 affirmatives that thenegative would need to be prepared to debate.
D. Voter for the reasons above.
21
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
22/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Cause Action
A. Interpretation incentives must cause action.
Merriam and Webster Online, 2008 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentive)Incentive: Something that incentives or has a tendency to incite determination or action
B. Violation the affirmative doesnt directly result in an action.
C. Standards
1. Effectually Topical the affirmative would be able to give any incentive that would result in an
action after a number of steps instead of causing the increase that the resolution modifies this
destroys the negatives ability to debate. This would allow the affirmative to be effectually anti-
topical because they could increase an incentive that would decrease alternative energy. This is an
independent voting issue for abuse.
2. Predictable Limits the number of potential affirmatives would be ridiculous under the
affirmatives interpretation of debate. Any action that resulted in an increase in alternative energy
would be topical destroying all predictable affirmative ground.
D. Voter for the reasons above.
22
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
23/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentive Group SPEC
A. Interpretation the affirmative cant specify the group that receives the incentives.
B. Violation the affirmative specifies (that ______) (a group) that receives the mandated incentives
of the plan.
C. Standards
1. Limits the number of potential affirmatives is literally infinite. States, cities, classes, career
groups, age groups, professions, organizations, industries and individual people would all be made
topical under the negatives interpretation.
2. Ground the affirmative would be able to spike out of any negative disad; links and solvency
advocates for counterplans would be impossible to find without doing mass amounts of research
for every specific entity within the United States.
3. The Tie Breaker under our interpretation the affirmative could claim advantage ground off of
specific groups being targeted while at the same time the plantext would not specify allowing thenegative to have increased ground predicated off of normal means debates.
D. Voter for the reasons above.
23
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
24/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Be Plural
A. Interpretation the resolution does not say incentive rather incentives thus this indicates that
these incentives must be plural.
B. Violation the affirmative only offers one incentive.
C. Standards
1. Ground allowing the affirmative to only give one incentive would destroy links to politics, links
spending disads, solvency advocates for virtually every counterplan and trade off disads.
2. Grammar ignoring the pluralization of incentives destroys the grammatical intent of the
resolution. Grammar is the most important standard because it establishes a common ground for
the resolution to take place, ignoring the technicalities of grammar would cause affirmatives to
interpret the resolution in any way they wanted and win the debate.
D. Voter for the reasons above.
24
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
25/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Be Voluntary
a) interpretation: An incentive is a reward for desired behavior and is voluntary
Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research Assistant at
the University's Conflict Research Consortium, published atBeyond Intractability, an academic research site, "Incentives," 2004
What is an incentive?
In an incentive,A promises rewards toB in an attempt to getB to do or not doX. (In our discussion, we will refer toA as a "sender,"
andB as a "target.") When punishments or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, providing rewards for preferred behavior may
produce a more desirable outcome. However, incentives have been frequently associated with weakness or indecisiveness. As a result,
scholarship has tended to focus more on sanctions than incentives. This unequal attention has skewed the perceived effectiveness of
threats over promises. Incentives can be an effective alternative for managing conflicts. As with all such devices, however, they must
be carefully administered with attention to matching the right tool with the right problem.
b) violation: the affirmative increases coercive regulations, or sanctions, rather than incentives
c) standards:1. limits: this limits out mandatory programs, making the case list shorter and closer to the core of
the topic; anything that involves mandatory incentives means affs can just create laws and don't
need solvency advocates-make them research and find ev saying people will ascribe to the
incentive
2. education: this allows us to debate both sides of the issue-if every aff chose to do mandatory
things, we'd never learn about voluntary programs
3. real world: Voluntary actions are used by the USFG-there's a more predictable literature base
Encyclopedia of Global Change, "Energy Policy," 2002
Government energy policies can encourage voluntary actions on the part of individuals and corporations. The Energy Star and GreenLights programs in the United States are highly successful in promoting more energy efficiency in buildings, appliances, and lighting.
Contests have been devised to promote development of energy-efficient designs of buildings and high-efficiency appliances.
For a time, electric utilities were encouraged through were encouraged through regulatory incentives to sponsor voluntary actions such
as the development of a highly efficient refrigerator. Deregulation may reduce the incentive to participate in such programs.
4. ground: fiated laws or sanctions are neg ground and are key to check unpredictable affs-they get
infinite prep in which to find solvency advocates
d) T is a voter for our standards and for jurisdiction
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
25
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
26/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Attract Industry Development
A. Governmental Incentives attract the development of industry in specified areas.A Dicitionary of Geography, 2004, Susan Mahew, http://www.answers.com/topic/government-incentives?cat=technology,
Measures taken by a government to attract the development of industry in specified areas. These include grants for
building, works, plant, and machinery, assistance in encouraging sound industrial projects, removal grants to new
locations, free rent of a government-owned factory for up to five years, taxation allowances against investments, loans,
and contract preference schemes
B. Violation: the affirmative offers a plan that it not a government incentives
C. Standards
1. Limits: we provide the best limits by limiting the topic down to a specific subset of cases that are
both predictable and offer lots of ground
2. Ground: by limiting affirmatives to the mechanisms listed above, the negative ensures links to
alternate incentive counterplans, politics d/a's, and alternate actor counterplans.
3. Predictability: by limiting affirmatives to the mechanisms listed above, it ensures that both the
affirmative and negative will be predictable thus leading to more in-depth debates with betterclash
4. Bright line: our definition provides a clear bright line as to what is and is not an incentive, which
is key to limits, ground and education.
5. Resolutional context: the resolution specifies an incentive to be enacted by the USFG q.e.d. A
government incentive. Resolutional focus is key because it is the focus of the debate and skewing
it destroys fairness and debatability.
E. T is a voter for the reasons above
26
http://www.answers.com/topic/government-incentives?cat=technologyhttp://www.answers.com/topic/government-incentives?cat=technology -
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
27/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Cant Be Disincentives
a) 1. An incentive is a motivation to act
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006
Incentive: noun
Something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.
2. The removal of tariffs or a barrier isn't T-the disincentive was disproportional to begin with and its
removal isn't an incentive but rather a way to remedy previously unjust punishment
Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research Assistant atthe University's Conflict Research Consortium, published atBeyond Intractability, an academic research site, "Incentives," 2004
One type is the removal of existing penalties, such as sanctions,embargoes, investment bans, or high tariffs, in exchange for
specific policy changes. This was an implicit part of the U.S. incentives package, which tried to encourage Libyan cooperation
with U.N. antiterrorism conventions and seek Libyan assistance in the hunt for the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks.
However, this approach is not always viewed as an actual incentive. If the penalties being relaxed are thought to be
disproportionate to the alleged actions, or the penalties are perceived to be wrongly imposed in the first place, or their mere
withdrawal is thought to be insufficient compensation, then the target may not view such an offer as an incentive at all. While
these incentives may be viewed as bribes or be resented as invasions of sovereignty, the willingness to lift sanctions in exchangefor particular policy changes can create an atmosphere more conducive to compromise than can the threat of more sanctions
b) violation: the aff decreases a disincentive but does not increase an incentive
c) Standards:
1. limits: allowing disincentives makes the topic bidirectional. It allows cases that decrease something
in order to lead to a future increase that might never occur.
2. FX: this is a classic example of removing a barrier and allows for an infinite number of steps,
exploding limits
3. clash: it allows for affs that aren't researchable and functionally doubles the research load-there
are an infinite number of obscure actions that could lead to an eventual increase
4. most real world: Deregulation decreases incentives
Encyclopedia of Global Change, "Energy Policy," 2002
For a time, electric utilities were encouraged through regulatory incentives to sponsor voluntary actions such as the
development of a highly efficient refrigerator. Deregulation may reduce the incentive to participate in such programs.
d) T is a voter for our standards and for jurisdictione) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
27
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/arms_embargo/http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/arms_embargo/http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/arms_embargo/http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/arms_embargo/ -
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
28/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
1NC Incentives Must Be Financial
a) interpretation: Only voluntary, conditional, economic incentives are T-our evidence is contextual
Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research Assistant at
the University's Conflict Research Consortium, published atBeyond Intractability, an academic research site, "Incentives," 2004
Another type of incentive is one used to improve the recipient's economic standing.[2] This can include financial assistance, access to
technology, loans, or investment initiatives, in return for certain concessions. The foreign policy community in the United States hasrecently pushed this strategy. In early 2002, for instance, the U.S. Senate introduced a resolution encouraging greater use of economic
incentives as a diplomatic tool in the fight against terrorism. Joan Nelson and Stephanie Eglinton of the Overseas Development
Council have suggested that foreign aid, typically considered a tool of support or tacit persuasion, should also be used as a form of
pressure by making it explicitly conditional .[3] Ways of achieving this, they argue, include providing more aid to those who meet
certain criteria and making aid contingent on prearranged policy reforms. In 1992, for example, President Bush indicated that financia
assistance to Israel would be contingent on its limiting settlement activities in the occupied territories.
b) violation: the affirmative provides incentives that aren't financial
c) standards
1. limits: there are an infinite number of areas of incentivizing that aren't financial-to the point atwhich the aff doesn't have to increase alternative energy but only has to increase incentives, we
need ground for disad and K links
2. predictability: all the literature assumes a world where the USFG gives financial incentives in
relation to policy affairs-our definition proves. This is the most accessible literature base.
3. education: a discussion of financial incentives allows us to focus the topic and have greater depth.
It's better for us to really understand one part of the resolution than to briefly discuss the rest.
d) T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction.
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
28
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
29/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
2AC Counter Interp Modules
29
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
30/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
2AC Incentives Can Be Rewards or Punishment
(__) Counter Interpretation
A. Incentives can be rewards or punishment.
Words and Phrases Online, 2008 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentive)Incentive: Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort.
B. We meet our interpretation we provide either a reward or a punishment.
C. Superior Interpretation
1. The negative interpretation over limits the debate to a small number of affirmatives that would be
only one or the other.
2. Education our interpretation allows a comprehensive analysis of incentivized alternative energy;
any other interpretation would limit the topic to a non-real world standard that would dilute the
debate and render all education useless.
3. Ground our interpretation allows a fair division of ground. The research for positive and
negative incentives is inevitable and the ground provided on each side of this debate is enough to
win a debate.
30
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
31/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
2AC Alternative Energy Includes Nuclear
(__) Counter Interpretation
A. Alternative energy includes alternatives to fossil fuel, which are nuclear energies, combustibles
biomass, synthetic fuels and oil/ natural gass.
Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, 1999The primary sources of energy for modern living are the fossil fuels: oil, natural gas and coal. Non-fossil fuels include nuclear
power, a significant source of electricity in countries outside the United States; renewable, such as solar, wind, geothermal
steam, waterfalls and tides; combustibles, such as wood, biomass and trash; and synthetic fuels (q.v.). such as ethanolproduced
from corn, and oil and natural gas produced from coal and oil shale.
B. We meet our interpretation we increase energy alternative to fossil fuels.
C. Superior Interpretation
1. Real world our interpretation of the resolution allows a more real world approach to alternative
energy debates. Alternative energy should include a vast scope of things because the resolution
doesnt specify alternative to a specific entity.
2. Education only a comprehensive approach to alternative energy would allow the education that
is needed. Depth would never be able to be covered enough or agreed upon, breath is the only
alternative.
3. The negatives interpretation over limits to a small number of affirmatives that use only wind or
solar power, this would destroy the intent of the resolution and make it impossible to defend the
affirmative.
31
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
32/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
2AC Alternative Energy is Renewable
(__) Counter Interpretation
A. Alternative energy is renewable energy.
Minerals Management Service, last updated in 2008Alternative energy: fuel sources that are other than those derived from fossil fuels. Typically used interchangeably forrenewable energy. Examples include: wind, solar, biomass, wave and tidal energy.
B. We meet our interpretation we increase incentives for energy that is renewable.
C. Superior Interpretation
1. The negatives interpretation over limits to a small number of affirmatives, this would destroy the
intent of the resolution and make it impossible to defend the affirmative.
2. Education - only a comprehensive approach to alternative energy would allow the education that
is needed. Depth would never be able to be covered enough or agreed upon, breath is the only
alternative.
3. Real world in the real world alternative energy and renewable energy are functionally
synonymous, there is no reason this should not also be true in debate rounds.
32
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
33/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Standards Blocks
33
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
34/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
FX T Bad
1. Unlimits any action taken that eventually will eventually result in a topical action, forcing unfair
burdens upon the negative.
2. Eliminates negative ground any counterplan we read could be topical effects as much as theplan.
3. Mixes burdens the judge must determine jurisdiction before considering the merits of the plan
FX mixes burdens destroying the judges ability to non-arbitrarily decide a round.
4. Makes T probabilistic T should be a yes or no question but FX T makes it a question of degree.
5. Unpredictable there is no way to research backwards, finding an alternative energy problem and
then tracking all the ways to fix it would destroy debate.
6. Arbitrary any counter interpretation that limits the number of steps can be adjusted based onthe actual action of the plan; this would allow any affirmative to be topical.
34
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
35/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
FX T Good
1. Overlimits every case on the topic takes a number of steps in order to be topical, an incentive
must result in an action that causes alternative energy to increase, the USFG has to pass a plan
that funds incentives, there literally would be NO aff ground.
2. Real world every action in policy making is judged by the effects that it will have.
3. Increases ground every additional step taken by the affirmative is another way to get links to
criticisms, disads and PIC ground.
4. Still predictable the plan is still germane to the resolution, and finding literature on our aff is
easy.
5. No abuse there is no real abuse from us taking any steps in the round, dont vote on potential
abuse itd be like punishing us for a crime we never committed.
6. Increases education we increase the education about the topic by alternative causation, causing
more research, higher education levels and better debate.
35
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
36/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Extra T Bad
1. Proves the resolution is insufficient if the affirmative can not take a solely topical action to it
proves that the resolution is not enough to warrant a ballot in and of itself.
2. Unpredictable the affirmative could take any number of actions outside the resolution that wewould never be able to predict, this destroys all ground.
3. Promotes lazy debate there would be no reason to settle for clash when you can just be extra
topical.
4. Kills education it makes in depth debate vacuous because the affirmative isnt germane to the
resolution.
5. Reject the entirety of the affirmative, not just the extra topical portions anything less creates
being extra topical as a no loss option for the affirmative. We have to read this argument just to
get to ground zero in the world created by the aff.
36
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
37/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Extra T Good
1. Increases education discussing things outside of the resolution increases the breath of education
over all.
2. Real world in the real world proposals arent limited exclusively to one topic.
3. Reasonability checks back we are still germane to the resolution, and there is plenty of literature
on our case.
4. Increases ground every part of our plan that is extra topical is another place for the negative to
get disad links, counterplan solvency differentials and PIC ground.
5. At worst reject the extra topical portions of the affirmative not the aff team. This checks back
any in round abuse.
6. No abuse we dont use the extra topical portions of the plan to spike out of disad links orcounterplans.
37
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
38/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
THEORY O/W T
1. In-round abuse always o/w potential abuse-don't punish us for what we could have done when
they did something illegitimate
2. Even if they win that we destroy debate for a year, they destroy debate forever by justifying
sketchy strats that will ruin education on every topic
3. Fairness: the resolutional literature basis checks unpredictable affs and makes research possible
whereas there is no check on unpredictable neg strats.
38
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
39/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
T O/W Theory
1. Untopical affirmatives justify sketchy neg strats
2. Even if they win that we destroy debate for a round, there is no overall precedent set because we
are responding to an untopical aff; they destroy debate for an entire year by justifying abusive
cases.
3. Topic-specific education o/w general education because topic specific education is a prerequisite to
education in general-only the resolutional is predictable ground for research. Debates grounded in
the resolution are key to clash.
39
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
40/69
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
41/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Depth O/W Breadth
1. education: depth is crucial to our understanding of issues. This education o/w superficial
education we get with breadth.
2. more limiting: focuses the topic on what is essential and allows us to have fair debates for which
we are prepared3. most real world: policy makers discuss all the intricacies of an issue so they can make the best
decisions and formulate the best policies-we can never make informed decisions when we have
only superficial knowledge of the topic
4. breadth is pointless without depth-it's terminal impact is topic specific education, but depth solves
that better.
41
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
42/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Education O/W Fairness
1. education is the terminal impact of fairness-this means if we win that our interpretation creates a
more educational debate, this comes first. Fairness doesn't exist for fairness's sake but rather to
promote education.
2. fairness frameworks exclude important discussions of things like racism that may not necessarilybe included in the res
3. unfairness in debate is inevitable-sandbagging and illegit argumentation happens; education has
more of a unique impact
4. after the round, education has a longer-lasting impact, whereas fairness exists only in the context
of particular rounds.
5. Fairness is arbitrary-the aff always want to exclude the neg and the neg always want to exclude
the aff. Education is the only objective standard.
6. Education is key to critical thinking, which is key to innovative debate that allows smaller schools
to compete even when they can't produce as much evidence. This is the best internal link to
fairness because it creates an inclusive activity.
42
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
43/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Fairness O/W Education
1. Fairness is the best internal link to education and is a prerequisite to it: fairness is key to
predictability and Ground, without which there can be no clash and substantive discussion
2. The education we gain from maintaining the structure of debate o/w topic specific education
because it allows for education generally, not just on this topic3. Fairness is the procedural gateway-it is the only way to evaluate the T debate, whereas education
is an issue of content. A framework for evaluating T has to be established before we evaluate it.
43
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
44/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Reasonability Good
1. Education: it allows us to discuss substantive issues and real political implications, as opposed to
discussing T every round. We'll never learn about the topic if every debate is about limits
2. most real world: policy makers don't argue about semantics, they look for the best policy option
3. lit checks solves all the reasons why reasonability is bad because it checks absurd, unpredictableaffs
4. fairness: allows the neg to pick unfair, limiting definitions contrived to exclude topical affs
5. don't vote on potential abuse: it doesn't set a precedent, key to fairness
a) it's inevitable, we could always beat them up or read a new aff in the 2ar. Don't punish us
unless we actually do it.
b) no brightline: there are an infinite number of possible abusive actions-one instance of in-
round abuse and you vote us down.
44
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
45/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Reasonability Is Vague
Our interpretation of reasonability is that affs with contextual literature and solvency advocates are
topical.
a) best topic-specific education: encourages in-depth research and allows us to access the core of the
topicb) most predictable, solving why vagueness is bad. Negs prep based on the available literature base,
which is more predictable than random definitions.
45
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
46/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Reasonability=Judge Intervention
1. reasonability is the most objective paradigm because we ask the judge to isolate one instance of in-
round abuse. Competing interpretations forces the judge to decide what we wouldhave done
2. It's least arbitrary because definitions are grounded in literature; neg definitions are taken out of
context3. It's inevitable, there is some amount of judge intervention in every round. Even in competing
interpretation debates, the judge has to decide which args are most reasonable
4. Judge intervention is good; it forces us to be persuasive and checks bad arguments like racism
good
46
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
47/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Competing Interpretations Good
1. best for topic specific education: discussing definitions is key to determine what the topic should
look like and key to determining which parts of it are key. This discussion is a prerequisite to
meaningful and substantive debates about political implications.
2. most objective: checks judge intervention by making us debate T like other arguments3. fairness: checks abuse by establishing which definitions are best for reciprocal ground
4. key to contextualizing evidence by forcing comparison, which allows more in-depth research
5. Vote on potential abuse-if we prove their interpretation is bad for debate, you vote them down. It's
not what they do, it's what they justify.
a) they destroy debate for the rest of the year by encouraging people to run similar affs
b) potential abuse is functionally in-round abuse: it determines what we will run and skews
our strategy. We're not going to waste time reading a disad they'll just link out of.
47
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
48/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Race to The Bottom
1. it's not a race to the bottom if you can prove that other standards o/w limits or that overlimiting is
bad
2. it's no more a race to the bottom than other arguments. We're not necessarily looking for the most
limiting definition but rather the one that's best for debate: perms of definitions are legit3. The aff always has the advantage when it comes to T definitions. They can find specific evidence
pertaining to their aff-competing interpretations is key to check infinite prep
48
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
49/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Competing Interpretations=Arbitrary Definitions
1. Competing interpretations is about determining which world is best for debate; an arbitrary
definition constructed to exclude the aff will never win the standards debate
2. And all you have to win to defeat arbitrary definitions is that overlimiting is bad
3. Author quals check. We have to have contextual literature written by someone in the field; thedefinition can't be arbitrary
49
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
50/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Clash Checks
1. We do not need a non-viable negative strategy to prove the abuse.
2. The time that we spent researching on their non topical aff, we should spend on topical affs.
3. There can be clash on anything. Our argument is that there should be better clash
50
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
51/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Lit Checks
1. This does not prove that they are topical. This just means we did our research.
2. We do not need a non-viable negative strategy to prove the abuse.
3. You can find literature on anything. They expect us to read the entirety of the internet articles on
this just to find stuff on their case.
4. Jurisdiction still applies. The judge can not vote for aff that isnt topical regardless of whether or
not there is literature on it.
(only read if g-stein is the judge)
5. Lit checks is dumb
MICHAEL B. GREENSTEIN, PROFESSOR OF DEBATE AT GEORGETOWN, 2007 (NOTE: THIS CARD WAS NOTACTUALLY PUBLISHED)
If someone read the penguin testicles aff and I had my icy hot disad ready to go, does that make them topical? NO!!!
51
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
52/69
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
53/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Competing Interpretations Bad
1. The affirmative is the team who created the competing interpretation.
2. Competing interpretations are good because they are the only non arbitrary thing on topicality.
3. If we prove that our interpretation is better than your counter interpretation this standard goes
away.
53
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
54/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Potential Abuse Not a Voter
1. Just because theres not visible abuse doesnt mean that there wasnt any. We werent able to run
any disads or counterplans off of the way that you increase which is something you should have to
defend.
2. Proving in round abuse is always going to loose because you can say it didnt happen.
3. Potential abuse is always going to be a voting issue because its not what you do its what you
justify.
54
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
55/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Our Aff Is the Only T Aff
1. Any affirmative team will be able to say this proving that you cant vote here.
2. This decreases education because you would only be learning about 1 of the countless affirmatives.
3. Destroys framers intent- if the framers meant for only one aff to be topical they would have made
this the resolution instead.
4. Counter counter interpretation only ______ is topical.
55
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
56/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
A2 Reverse Voting Issue
1. This is dumb. You dont win a debate just because your case is topical.
2. Defecating on flows is better than this.
MICHAEL B. GREENSTEIN, PROFESSOR OF DEBATE AT GEORGETOWN, 2007(NOTE: THIS CARD WASNOT ACTUALLY PUBLISHED)
90% of the time, if a team just defecated on their flow and handed to me, I would vote for them over a reverse voting issue on
topicality.
56
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
57/69
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
58/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Definitions
58
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
59/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Resolved
Resolved means to express by formal votethis is the only definition thats in the context of the
resolution
Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (dictionary.com)
Resolved:
6. 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 apropriated (or, to appropriate no
money)
59
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
60/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Federal Government
Federal government is central governmentWEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED, 1976, p. 833.
Federal government. Of or relating to the central government of a nation, having the character of a federation as distinguished from
the governments of the constituent unites (as states or provinces).
Federal government is central governmentPRINCETON UNIVERSITY WORDNET, 1997, p. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=federal%20government.
Federal government. n: a government with strong central powers.
Federal government is in washington, d.c.WEST'S LEGAL THESAURUS/DICTIONARY, 1985, p. 744.
United States: Usually means the federal government centered in Washington, D.C.
60
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
61/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Federal
Federal means relating to the national government of the United StatesBlacks Law Dictionary, 1999federal, adj. Of or relating to a system of associated governments with a vertical division of governments into national and regional
components having different responsibilities; esp., of or relating to the national government of the United States.
61
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
62/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Government
Government includes all three branches of government.
Political Science Dictionary 73 1973 (Dryden Press, Illinois, p. 174)
Government is the political and administrative hierarchy of an organized state. Governments exercise legislative, executive, andjudicial functions; the nature of the governmental system is determined by the distribution of these powers. Government may take
many forms, but it must be sufficiently powerful and stable to command obedience and maintain order. A governments position alsodepends on its acceptance by the community of nations through its diplomatic recognition by other states.
Government includes all three branchesShafritz 88 1988 (The Dorsey Dictionary of American Government and Politics, p. 249)Government is the formal institutions and process through which binding decisions are made for a society. Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) wrote in Civil
Disobedience (1849) that that government is the best which governs least. This statement is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson but while it certainly reflects his
philosophic sentiments, it has never been found in any of Jeffersons writings. 2 The apparatus of the state, consisting of executive, legislative, and
judicial branches. 3 A political entity that has taxing authority and jurisdiction over a defined geographic area for some specified purpose, such as fire protection orschools. 4 The indiciduals who temporarily control the institutions of a state or subnational jurisdiction. 5 The United States government, especially as in the
government.
62
-
8/14/2019 Finished T File - Fellows
63/69
KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILEBECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE____OF____
Should
Should is equal to obligationWORDS AND PHRASES 1953, Vol. 39, p. 313.
The word should, denotes an obligation in various degrees, usually milder than ought Baldassarre v. West
Oregon Lumber Co., 239 p.2d 839, 842, 198 Or. 556.
Should is used to express probability or expectationWEBSTER'S II, 1984, p. 1078
Should - used to express probability or expectation. They should arrive here soon.
Should means expectation of future actionRemo Foresi v. The Hudson Coal Co, SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 106 Pa. Super. 307; 161 A. 910; 1932 Pa.Super. LEXIS 239 July 14, 1932
As regards the mandatory character of the rule, the word 'should' is not only an auxiliary verb, it is also thepreterite of the verb, 'shall' and has for one of its meanings as defined in the Century Dictionary: "Obliged orcompelled (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 theword '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' isnot used in an advisory sense but has the force or meaning of 'must', or 'ought to' and carries [***8] with itthe sense of [*313] obligation and duty equivalent to compulsion. A natural sense of sympathy for a few unfortuna