Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
turtlefarm

Topicality

Recommended Posts

What are the "good" t violations going to be this year?

 

thats somewhat of an oxymoron, but i give you credit for putting "good" in quotations

 

probably issues with whether the mechanism should or shouldn't be specified

 

we might get some wierd grammatical issues with the "and/or" in the resolution and the "one or more" parts in the resolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats somewhat of an oxymoron, but i give you credit for putting "good" in quotations

 

probably issues with whether the mechanism should or shouldn't be specified

 

we might get some wierd grammatical issues with the "and/or" in the resolution and the "one or more" parts in the resolution

C-spec, every round. The affirmative must specify which colon their plan starts at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

m-spec - mechanism specification [how will they get troops out] atleast 10 unique voters = amazing timesuck.

 

let's hope the other team doesn't go for condo bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m-spec - mechanism specification [how will they get troops out] atleast 10 unique voters = amazing timesuck.

 

let's hope the other team doesn't go for condo bad...

 

i was wondering about this

 

i can't figure out whether specifying the mechanism will be a good thing for the neg or a bad thing. It almost seems like the mechanism could be some sort of plank that all your advantages could be based off of

 

like : the usfg should reduce military presence by sending substituting pbj's for troops.

 

and all the advantages are about how sweet pbj's are, not how sweet decreasing troops is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
like : the usfg should reduce military presence by sending substituting pbj's for troops.

 

and all the advantages are about how sweet pbj's are, not how sweet decreasing troops is

That's extra-T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's extra-T.

 

Could be, but you have to win an interp that either makes private contractors a military presence (e.g. aff just switches one type of military for another - not a reduction, and extra-T), or win that 'reduce' means 'eliminate' instead of 'decrease in quantity' - decrease in quantity would make it T because the act of switching out is the means of decreasing in quantity. Eliminate means 'remove, period.'

 

 

T's on "substantially" and "police presence" are probably going to be common.

 

Those will be heavy hitters, especially since the context of 'substantial' is different in each. On one hand - provides the aff an easy out for saying 'not only is your definition of substantial not contextual to the military, but each part of the topic has a different context for substantial you haven't considered - moots most topic lit by making it all a uniform decrease which isn't good because it makes a majority of strictly-topical affs untopical', HOWEVER, it also provides the neg an out for saying "Yes - arbitrary - but we have a country-specific vio - your interp flips your argument and makes the topic that arbitrary."

 

I find the omission of the word 'restrict' to be interesting. An aff that pulls out of Iraq and sends those troops to Afghanistan appears reasonably topical. Not bidirectional because it reduces the number in Iraq, and the resolution specifies 'in one', meaning meet a lot. Winning an interp that says increasing presence in Afghanistan is decreasing presence in Iraq (which isn't hard - see the zero-sum discussion in the military lately) means that aff is T.

 

Presence is going to be the goldmine for T debates. The neg gets to bit a random thing that presence is comprised of, and lots of contextual lit saying 'x' is key to the perception of the military, which seems to be the sole criterion for determining whether something is a 'presence' or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the omission of the word 'restrict' to be interesting. An aff that pulls out of Iraq and sends those troops to Afghanistan appears reasonably topical. Not bidirectional because it reduces the number in Iraq, and the resolution specifies 'in one', meaning meet a lot. Winning an interp that says increasing presence in Afghanistan is decreasing presence in Iraq (which isn't hard - see the zero-sum discussion in the military lately) means that aff is T.

You don't think that is horribly bidirectional? If plan text specifies take the troops from X country and move them to Y country, that wouldn't undermine neg's ground in that half of the aff is the opposite of the topic? On the other hand, maybe you could run "withdraw forces from Iraq" and read evidence that the Iraq drawdown pushes more troops into Afghanistan and claim advantages from that effect of plan. The plan text itself would then be topical. I think redirecting forces to another location specified in the topic is an abuse of neg ground though.

 

Would we say that it is topical this year to cancel one social service program and use the funds to increase another? Sort of strikes me as the same idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't think that is horribly bidirectional? If plan text specifies take the troops from X country and move them to Y country, that wouldn't undermine neg's ground in that half of the aff is the opposite of the topic? On the other hand, maybe you could run "withdraw forces from Iraq" and read evidence that the Iraq drawdown pushes more troops into Afghanistan and claim advantages from that effect of plan. The plan text itself would then be topical. I think redirecting forces to another location specified in the topic is an abuse of neg ground though.

 

Would we say that it is topical this year to cancel one social service program and use the funds to increase another? Sort of strikes me as the same idea.

 

The resolution says to reduce the presence the presence in one or more. The resolution does not contain the word 'restrict.' This means that as long as the plan does a decrease in one or more of the countries, it's T. The minimum baseline for that is a decrease in at least one of those countries. There's no resolutional basis for interpreting that that forecloses an increase in another, since the aff only has to guarantee a decrease in one.

 

Once again, this is where my earlier comment comes into play. If the aff can win that transferring is a reduction in presence, there's nothing extra-topical about that either.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The resolution says to reduce the presence the presence in one or more. The resolution does not contain the word 'restrict.' This means that as long as the plan does a decrease in one or more of the countries, it's T. The minimum baseline for that is a decrease in at least one of those countries. There's no resolutional basis for interpreting that that forecloses an increase in another, since the aff only has to guarantee a decrease in one.

 

Once again, this is where my earlier comment comes into play. If the aff can win that transferring is a reduction in presence, there's nothing extra-topical about that either.

 

Are you seriously kidding me?

 

Yes, the resolution does say one or more, but it precedes it with the verb phrase "substantially reduce in."

Even if the resolution doesn't include "'restrict'", it doesn't mean that the aff can go around increasing military and/or police presence in x country while decreasing in y.

Would decreasing troops in Iraq but increasing F22 bombers in South Korea, Kuwait, Japan, and Turkey be topical? Under your interpretation, yes it would.

Let's take it into the context of the national service topic [Res: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, and/or the Armed Forces]. Under your interp, increasing persons in LSA while decreasing persons in every other area and claiming offense on decreases in everything else, which encroaches neg ground by the way, would be topical. The same thing applies to this topic, except switch the increase and reduce. Not much sense there, right?

 

What you claim for completely explodes limits because you allow for those cases that just decrease in one area and increase in others. It's neg ground, and against the resolution, to increase military and/or police presence. At best you'd be extra T, but that's in and of itself bad.

Guaranteeing a decrease in one will enable the aff to spike out of generic DA links, and ruin predictability.

 

Oh and transferring isn't topical because you still have an increase in one area. Even if the net is a decrease, you aren't topical still because 1) you mix burdens, destroying the distinction between solvency and topicality, and 2) you're only topical effectually.

 

And that's why it would justify bidirectional cases, which are terrible for neg ground and predictability.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The resolution says to reduce the presence the presence in one or more. The resolution does not contain the word 'restrict.' This means that as long as the plan does a decrease in one or more of the countries, it's T. The minimum baseline for that is a decrease in at least one of those countries. There's no resolutional basis for interpreting that that forecloses an increase in another, since the aff only has to guarantee a decrease in one.

 

Once again, this is where my earlier comment comes into play. If the aff can win that transferring is a reduction in presence, there's nothing extra-topical about that either.

That's like the textbook definition of extra-T abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i meant as in there would be no topical affs because doesn't have military presence anywhere, and us doesn't refer to brazil because of a name change in the late 70's or early 80's.

 

EDIT: according to Wikipedia, the only other current country that has the United States in its name is Mexico, but the abbreviation would be UMS, not US

Edited by Akillu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does everyone think about an aff that removes PMCs? topical? or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does everyone think about an aff that removes PMCs? topical? or not?

 

Trying to find a way of incorporating neoliberalism into next year's topic, Zach? Regardless of your intentions, I'd say PMCs are a form of police presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
m-spec - mechanism specification [how will they get troops out] atleast 10 unique voters = amazing timesuck.

 

Hrm. I wouldn't say exactly how to get troops out (fail to think it's a big difference by ship or by plane or by car...) but the supposed "retreat" amounts and in what stretch of time. I know there's a better word for that phrase - forgive me - but that's probably a better debate. I know irony/critical affs can come out of immediate withdrawals, and certain delays in troop removal can get specific politics links.

 

I think what's flying under the radar about the Iraq/Afghanistan plan is that it has two portions - a topical one and an anti-topical one. Not untopical, anti-topical. As in, major neg ground. I'm sure the framers wanted this plan included in next year's topic, but it's odd when both countries are in the rez. No doubt this aff will be run, and no doubt teams will win against T, but the inclusion of both countries with the desire to decrease - not in any way increase - is irking. Nevertheless, a very specific T to that aff will definitely serve its course. A lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...