Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Startop

Free A2: Sub= W/O Material Qualifications

Recommended Posts

I fucking hate this arg. Heres a block.

 

T- Sub decrease= all (w/o mat qualification)

 

 

 

 

C/I-

 

1. substatial means a lot

 

<insert random def>

 

 

 

Our interpertaintion is that we have to decrease authority_________________

 

 

 

Your substantial defitionion is dumb, heres why:

 

 

 

1. You're only going to be able to find this definition in a Law dictionary. This definition came from a case involving Yellow Cab company, and was used in a very specific instance, and used a very specific way. They will never be able to win any internal link between their definition and its correct application within the context of this debate round. Thats bad because it means

a. Contextually created - the law dictionaries only provide court cases defining words as they were used in particular litigation cases without universal application.

b.Empirically Bad Definitions - legal definitions change in every court case, means its unpredictible

 

2. NOBODY knows the word substantially to mean this.Its used in very common language to express something to a great extent, used almost synonomously with signifigantly, or greatly.

 

3. Their answer will be that the the counterinterpt doesnt matter at the point where they're winning the limits debate, but this argument is acinine and doesnt hold up under interrogation.

a. If I interpret the resolution to mean the college topic, or the UN topic because those resolutions had sweet limits and good ground for both side, you would laugh at me, the neg is doing the same thing by artifically creating sweet limits with a bogus violation.

 

b. Our interpretation is key to predictibility, which is the lynchpin of ground. They use limits as a way to get to their ground arguments, but in traditional debate terms, we're controlling the internal link to this one at the point where without predictable arguments, theres no clash because negs would always just catch teams off guard, this also turns their education claims.

 

 

Our interp is sweet:

 

1. Can be determined - the common definitons is not exclusive, we are giving an example, just like the plan is a warrant to the resolution. It is the average definition a person would give or agree with

2. Preserves Communication - the purspoe of debate is to communicate positions and issues. This cannot be done unless we avoid using obscure terminolory that no one understands or definitions that make no sense

3 More real world - context makes us has to look to uses of the word as it appears in the literature, and everyone normally communicates using the same language and definitions as the people to whom they’re talking

 

 

 

 

Also, Its not a voter

 

 

X-tra T is the tits:

 

1. Increases Ground - - Allows for more disad links and CP ground from the random other things the plan does

 

2. Increases Education - - It tells us about more things than having the same debate on a more limited area over and over

 

3. Not a reason to reject - - Even if the plan takes more action than specifically mandated by the resolved, it isn’t exclusive. There is no word such as ‘only’ in there

 

4. Doesn’t hurt ground - - Plan still support the resolved, so the neg still get their links, plan just does other stuff too

 

5. Increases Predictability - - The more plan does, the easier it is to find the case in the literature

 

6. More Real World - -

 

A. All bills do more than just a sentence of work, they have more than one advantage, or no one would pass them

B. Judges can open up their jurisdiction in response to cases which hold particular interest

 

7. Everything Is Extra-T - - Not a case has no action outside of resolved, signing the bill and hiring people for implementation isn’t explicitly called for -but is needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic. You are right about the origin of the definition though, props on that.

Also, the other words under substantially in Black's Law are SYNONYMS of the phrase "without material qualifications" rather than seperate definitions. The reason this is important is because those words are things like "essentially" and the case itself was talking about the value of a car and what a substantial amount of the value would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even really understand the basis of this argument, considering that "substantially" is the adverb form of "substantial," or "with existance/substance." Just because there's one stupid legal definition that says this doesn't mean it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I believe the beginning part of the block is Non-contextual/Legal Defs bad. It is true. The definition is being taken FAR out of the context it was created under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I believe the beginning part of the block is Non-contextual/Legal Defs bad. It is true. The definition is being taken FAR out of the context it was created under.

 

which is why it's unpredictable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another free block to tsubs--

We meet: Material means “of, relating to, or composed of matter.”

American Heritage Dictionary 2000

We do not put material qualifications on the decrease of authority – we put procedural qualifications on it.

 

And, we’re the only topical case – this solves their limit standard.

 

And, counter-interp: “substantially” means “true or real, not imaginary.”

American Heritage Dictionary 2000

 

And, we meet the counter-interp: we make a real decrease in the USFG’s authority to detain refugees without charge. [or whatever it is your case does]

 

And, counter-standards:

1) Whole Rez: their interp would lead to repetitive and vague whole-rez debates in which the aff tries to claim the biggest impacts possible to outweigh the neg’s disads, meaning heg v. terror every round, killing breadth and depth

2) Ground: their interp would only require the negative to find a single instance of where detaining without charge is good, PIC out of it and they’d win every round -- killing all aff ground.

3) Double-bind: “decrease” means to “grow gradually less,” not “eliminate,” so if we meet their definition, we violate decrease – putting the aff in an inescapable double-bind. They can give no contextual evidence where “substantially decrease” means to eliminate.

4) Grammar: under their interp, “substantially” modifies “authority” instead of “decrease,” and as substantially is an adverb, which cannot modify nouns. If their interp were grammatical, “substantially” would modify decrease and we’d be topical because we fully decrease, but it's “authority” that's qualified by the aff plan.

 

And, we meet a reasonable definition of “substantially” which they could prepare for – they had 8 minutes of arguments against our case. Do not vote on potential abuse – people aren’t arrested for crimes they haven’t yet committed, just as we shouldn’t be voted down for something we haven’t done.

 

And, jurisdiction is not a voter – our interp is key to topical CPs, which are essential to checking opportunity cost of the aff and improving education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF THA REZ WANTED ALL IT WOULDVE SAID ALL
No. If the rez DIDN'T want all, it wouldn't have the word "substantially" in it.

 

<Note: I'm just saying how I would answer your argument. Your point may actually be true.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's asinine to say that "substantially" means "all", especially when the word "eliminate" serves a better purpose. The framers aren't that stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framer's intent is a bad standard... go for "contextual definitions best" standard if you want that debate (key to predictability, etc.). Challenge the neg team to find a single instance in which "substantially decrease" means to eliminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my block, just for shits and giggles--

 

1. We meet—we don’t qualify the decrease in authority to search one’s blood for HIV

 

2. We meet—decreasing one part of the governments authority to search without probable cause is decreasing the entirety of its overall authority

 

3. We meet--grammatically the word "substantial" modifies "decrease" not "search" meaning you're still allowed to qualify which search the plan pertains to, you just cant qualify the way in which you decrease the authority to conduct that search

 

4. Their interpretation is bad—

A. It causes PICs—negative teams would just exclude some random subset. We would always lose since we could never defend against this infinite regression of PIC literature and it undermines topical education since we’re forced to debate trivial distinctions instead of the resolution

B. It overlimits the topic—we’re forced to debate the same two cases over and over again—the same debates would take place over and over again and we’d never receive resolutional education—every negative strategy would be generic

C. It makes affirmative debate impossible—we’d be forced to defend every disad link they have to any small portion of any topic. We can never prepare for these arguments and would always lose

 

5. Their interp is arbitrary--it's just an assertion that material qualification is any condition at all- no definitional reason it has to include things like location

 

6. Counter interpretation—“Substantial” is defined as “being largely but not wholly that which is specified”—from Merriam Webster’s dictionary in 2003.

 

7. Reasonability is key—if we can win that our case is a logical component of the topic then you should vote neg. Trivializing debate by focusing on minor discussions shifts the educational value of this forum away from topical education

 

8. Competing interpretation is bad—it makes the debate a race to the bottom since they will just artificially exclude each and every affirmative by using a new interpretation each round. You shouldn’t consider this round in a vacuum. This justifies counter interpretation—only our case is topical because it is the most limiting.

 

9. Topicality is not a voting issue—potential abuse causes judge intervention and jurisdiction just means that the judge has jurisdiction over some interpretation of the topic, not the best interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's a pretty damn good block too though -- I'd have a concrete reason why jurisdiction is a bullshit voter though... like that it limits out topical cps (hypothetically the topic is what defines "aff ground" and "neg ground" is everything outside of that -- which isn't topical CPs.) if they go for tsubs in the 2nc, ask them to give a normative reason why jurisdiction is a good thing to have in debate. they won't be able to give one, I promise -- just crappy analogies with courtrooms. call bullshit on it.

 

DON'T LET TEAMS WIN ON THIS ARG AT STATE TOURNAMENTS/THE TOC/NATIONALS. IT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN DEBATE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my shit, if only I saw this like 2 days ago I wouldn't have gotten owned that bad in semifinal at VHSL states tournament.

 

Thanks anyways, I'll learn to look on CX next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's a pretty damn good block too though -- I'd have a concrete reason why jurisdiction is a bullshit voter though... like that it limits out topical cps (hypothetically the topic is what defines "aff ground" and "neg ground" is everything outside of that -- which isn't topical CPs.) if they go for tsubs in the 2nc, ask them to give a normative reason why jurisdiction is a good thing to have in debate. they won't be able to give one, I promise -- just crappy analogies with courtrooms. call bullshit on it.

 

DON'T LET TEAMS WIN ON THIS ARG AT STATE TOURNAMENTS/THE TOC/NATIONALS. IT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE IN DEBATE.

 

Just found this thread. First off -- Ouch, Michael. Certain hatred for the argument? Scared of it? Evidently so scared that we almost got you to defend Half-Rez the one debate we hit you on the Neg. I'm glad that teams ran this violation all year and at the conclusion of such, the only pre-round ace in the hole strategy you had against it is this Jurisdiction CX argument, hahaha. Second, I had to give some love for the most legit argument on last years topic -- Substantially is Without Material Qualifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...