Jump to content

Substantially Topicality

Recommended Posts

Hey, what are some general substantially t definitions that aren't unrealistic? Any definitions, not specific to the resolution would be greatly appreciated.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.  "Substantially = Without Material Qualifications" periodically reemerges, usually to force concession that PIC is competitive, and/or reclaim PIC ground from an aff that is already a PIC out of itself. Eg, if the aff lifts the embargo, they have to commit to that without qualifying, so they can't leave tourism restrictions in place to spike out of tourism turns, they can't leave restrictions on food imports to spike out of "unsanitary food facilities" turns, etc. 


2.  "Substantially >= Y percentage" is never well-grounded in literature (the %age is always drawn from a court case but the case is never in the context of the resolution), but it is the historical basis of that word in the rez (prevents minor repairs). 


3.  "Substantially = materially or tangibly, excludes symbolic actions" might be better grounds (than a non-exclusive definition of "economic engagement") for "QPQs are untopical". A QPQ that gets rejected by the target country is clearly only a symbolic action, which isn't a material change. There are strong standards arguments to support this - if the aff doesn't have to win that their QPQ will be accepted, the plan really can be any unpredictable condition that the aff wants to gain offense for advancing even without enactment. And of course even if the aff isn't doing that 

[This basically says "substantially" is the adverbial inflection of the noun "substance".]


It sounds like you might be looking for something to read as a counter-interpretation? If so, and if you meet, I would try #3. You can win a huge advantage to your 2ac interp (strong brightline, genuinely preserves negative ability to compete). Of course this isn't a direct refutation of the 1nc interp, but your interp accounts for the entire meaning of the word in the rez, so you can make decent refutation against the inevitable 2nc "permutation of interpretations". 

  • Upvote 1

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.

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.


  • Create New...