Jump to content
Bored tennis player

Internet Protocol Aff?

Recommended Posts

Normally I'd say that internet affs could be arguably topical, but I'm pretty sure just changing internet protocol isn't increasing internet infrastructure at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people try to pull this shit its obviouisly not topical. My 1nc would be 5 violations and three minuets me just yelling about how stupid hacks are.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a team reads a contention of the 1AC about how they're topical, the first thing going through my mind is "these guys are definitely not topical."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be over complicating things, but I'm curious if you wrote your plan text with USFG....transportation congestion control mechanism you can spin better that you're topical I think. Why? Well congrestion control becomes more directly what the reader of your plan text looks to.

 

You might think of other ways to make it the plan text seem more transportation based. For instance, you could say USFG via the DOT will do the plan.

Yes you will get over-spec....and yes you will get potetial DOT bad or DOT tradeoff arguments.....but I think over-spec in this instance is 100% innane.

 

You are just clarifying what normal means in the first place--doing the negative a favor.

 

Thats not unpredictable--because thats what the rez says to do--transportation--and there is ZERO ground loss in my imagination.

 

Any abuse...and I mean any abuse is ofset by providing them a clean link to DoT.

 

Whats the difference between clarifying it in the plan text & clarifying in the cross-ex or the 2ac.

 

Also, what exactly is the "congestion control mechanism"?

 

You could define this after the plan text.....on another sheet (why: this separates it from the official plan text).....so the judge is re-assured during the 1ac that its topic.

 

I think the answer to is it topical....could in fact hinge on the answer to that question and how you answer it on a round by round basis.

 

* Realize, if this recommendation makes your sentence harder to understand or somehow its not possible--I get that.

 

If I was the neg...I might run a violation which combined.

1) IT infrastructure or communication infrastructure versus transportation infrastructure (reading definitions of both) probably reading something about IT = something other than transportation

2) Extra

3) FX.

 

This is contrived exclusivity in some respects (above)--it says what it is--but it really doesn't say what it isn't (and just because its communication infrastructure, doesn't means its also not transportation infrastructure--every aff can be spun to be something else). However, it still sounds a bit FX.

 

You might look to see if other cases change technology and are the center of the topic (although, to my mind you need a definitional support to prove those violations in general).

 

I would think about transportation as transportation systems if you could (surely there is some definition that does this). With this kind of interpretation--I think you can critique the neg. definition for being hyper-simplistic & killing education. (Admittedly, there is probably a bit of a K link there for them.....but just be ready for it.) I would rather be topical....than link to one K. Plus, at this point you both link to the K--so its a wash OR their violation is tantamount to pre-medidated murder.

http://en.wikipedia..../Systems_theory

 

Heres my example: the transportation infrastructure needs lights or signs or reflectors--thats still freaking transportation infrastructure. You don't know if something is transportation infrastructure in a vacuum, in the same way you don't know what a knife is going to kill or not--its by definition a cause and effect relationship that defines what is and is not transportation.

 

Someone posted this on another thread--it echos what I said above:

You can concede that it's communication infrastructure, but you will need to win that these categories aren't necessarily universally disinct from each other. For example, If you give a "serves a primary purpose" counter-interp, you could argue that the plan serves both purposes equally.

 

Demonstrate how this would turn every other aff into a non-topical one, because they deal with multiple sectors.

 

**** I think I would use a car or boat as my analogy. The computer in the car is still part of the car infrastructure. It doesn't cease being part of the cars infrastucture....even if it communicates with Onstar (aka communications).

 

Plus, I believe your aff contextually defines the IT segment as at the CORE of what transportation is & how it functions. If the IT doesn't work--the. The aff. interpretation is exactly what keeps us from understanding that we can't have effective transportation without a tech backbone.

 

I think I would also say something like having the DoT do the plan (presumably they would)--

a) that means we meet (even if not the contrived definition)

b] that checks any abuse. its not like we're using another department like military or some security agency.

 

By the way....I think you should have an extra piece of paper with all these acronymns on them. They are borderline maddening--especially for lay judges.

 

******I think you should underline "traffic control systems"--in the last piece of evidence

 

The tag to the 2nd piece of evidence I don't think makes sense--I don't see how this is "historical" evidence that you are topical.

 

You are a congestion aff...that uses technology & person power to solve a transportation infrastructure issue. Thats what every topical aff does essentially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the help in determining topicality (it's not... and I'm not even going to try)

I'm relieved

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line question: Is there a literature based distinction between the internet & transportation infrastructure?

 

I think there are 5 to 6 pretty good defenses which can be leveled:

 

1. Those contextual definitions were pretty decent. One was a bit skewed. But the aff had 3 at the end that explained contextually.

 

2. Analogies prove. The analogy I used was Onstar. Onstar is car infrastructure.

 

3. Someone in washington DC would be hardpressed to separate the way in which leadership, communication, and overall functioning of our infrastructure is routed via IT. So goes IT, so goes the rest of the system.

 

4. Transportation is a system. Its not just roads. You can arbitrarily take a stove pipe or limited view of the issue of transportation. (obviously this needs to be explained and impacted, I think it can be in some ways leveraged with the existing cards perhaps).

 

5. Its the core of the topic--it cures congestion. Also, the Department of Transportation links check abuse.

 

6. Every aff is going to deal with another sector.....or else you wouldn't have advantage areas like competitiveness. Transportation doesn't exist in a bubble.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...