Jump to content
ktg9616

T - Substantial

Recommended Posts

Everyone knows that the tiny irrelevant Mexico Affs this year are hard to beat for a variety of reasons. How can T-Substantial be used legitimately this year to hedge against these small random mexico affs? Any good interps/evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk about good interps but one thing that helps is to write out a list of all the bad affs you think shouldn't be allowed and another list of all the good affs that can be run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows that the tiny irrelevant Mexico Affs this year are hard to beat for a variety of reasons. How can T-Substantial be used legitimately this year to hedge against these small random mexico affs? Any good interps/evidence?

 

Substantial = at least 5% (lots of possible evidence for this).

 

For economic engagement, the relevant thing it has to be 5% of is trade with Mexico (which is $500 billion dollars per year)

 

Thus, plan must create at least $25 billion dollars worth of EE per year to be topical.  (My kids won against Border Infrastructure on this.)

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Substantial = at least 5% (lots of possible evidence for this).

 

For economic engagement, the relevant thing it has to be 5% of is trade with Mexico (which is $500 billion dollars per year)

 

Thus, plan must create at least $25 billion dollars worth of EE per year to be topical.  (My kids won against Border Infrastructure on this.)

 

This works

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny Cuba affs are even harder. How do you all find a baseline for Cuba, seeing as there's almost no trade right now?

Edited by JosephOverman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiny Cuba affs are even harder. How do you all find a baseline for Cuba, seeing as there's almost no trade right now?

I probably wouldn't. Cuba Affs are a lot easier to run generic arguments against generally attacking trade with Cuba. Can't do that with Mexico since we already trade so much with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Substantial = at least 5% (lots of possible evidence for this).

 

For economic engagement, the relevant thing it has to be 5% of is trade with Mexico (which is $500 billion dollars per year)

 

Thus, plan must create at least $25 billion dollars worth of EE per year to be topical.  (My kids won against Border Infrastructure on this.)

Particularly useful against Affs that claim a huge economy advantage from an extra $N billion in trade, because you can cross-apply the argument to their solvency/harms scenario. Another great way to run these is to take out the "vote Aff on risk of slight benefit" argument as abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Another great way to run these is to take out the "vote Aff on risk of slight benefit" argument as abusive.

Also known as the security K

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another great way to run these is to take out the "vote Aff on risk of slight benefit" argument as abusive.

As in, try-or-die is unfair? I'm not sure how you would phrase that as a theory question but there are definitely arguments about why a logical policymaker should not evaluate 1% risk impacts at all or why that logic is politically paralyzing or lends itself to violence (Iraq War and the 1% Doctrine), or the Security K (wouldn't make much sense in a plan vs CP debate though), and those arguments are pretty compelling imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in, try-or-die is unfair? I'm not sure how you would phrase that as a theory question but there are definitely arguments about why a logical policymaker should not evaluate 1% risk impacts at all or why that logic is politically paralyzing or lends itself to violence (Iraq War and the 1% Doctrine), or the Security K (wouldn't make much sense in a plan vs CP debate though), and those arguments are pretty compelling imo

 

I think he's referring not to small probability of high magnitude generally, but small probability of large magnitude stemming from small effect of plan.  (That is, insubstantial effects of plan shouldn't be given any weight because there's a tiny chance they might be the straw that breaks the camel's back).  At least, that's what the context leads me to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's referring not to small probability of high magnitude generally, but small probability of large magnitude stemming from small effect of plan.  (That is, insubstantial effects of plan shouldn't be given any weight because there's a tiny chance they might be the straw that breaks the camel's back).  At least, that's what the context leads me to think.

Actually, I'm referring to large probability of small magnitude with no downside. Taking the absurdity to its limits, suppose an Aff was:

 

Plan: Sell Mexico one defunct space shuttle.

 

Advantage: Economic advantage from additional sale of goods + Royal 10.

 

Neg runs, quite correctly, that a single one billion dollar sale does not prevent economic decline, doesn't prevent war, completely takes out the silly misapplication of Royal 10. Aff gets up in the 1AR and says, "Fine, we concede that it won't stop nuclear war, but it still makes money, there's no downside, it helps someone, so they haven't given you a reason to reject the Aff." Now as Neg, you don't really have a policy answer to this without either an absurd DA of your own or an absurd anti-capitalist K. But you shouldn't need silly arguments to defeat a tiny minimalist plan that has no downside because it's too minor to matter. And that's where your T-substantially violation comes in. In an old fashioned stock issues debate, this is what Significance was for, but with modern policymaker/tab paradigms, T has to fulfill that function.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run all of these:

 

"Substantial" is of real worth or considerable value- this is the usual meaning  

Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A, p. 458)

 

D.S.C. 1966.  The word “substantial†within Civil Rights Act providing that a place is a public accommodation if a “substantial†portion of food which is served has moved in commerce must be construed in light of its usual and customary meaning, that is, something of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable, something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal 

Substantial means considerable in quantity  

Merriam-Webster 2003  (www.m-w.com)

 

Main Entry: sub·stan·tial      b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage>

Substantially means including the material or essential part  

Words and Phrases 05  (v. 40B, p. 329)

 

Okla. 1911.  “Substantially†means in substance; in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part.

“Substantially†means to large extent  

Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

 

To a great extent or degree

“Substantially†means strongly  

Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

 

In a strong substantial way

“Substantially†means to have importance  

Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

 

Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent

“Substantially†means ample  

Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

 

Ample; sustaining

“Substantially†means relating to  

Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

 

Of, relating to, or having substance; material

“Substantial" means in the main  

Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A, p. 469)

 

Ill.App.2 Dist. 1923 “Substantial†means in substance, in the main, essential, including material or essential parts

 

Substantial increase is at least 30%  

Bryson, 2001, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals Federal Circuit

(265 F.3d 1371; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 20590; 60 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1272, 9/19, lexis)

 

The term "to increase substantially" in claim 1 of the '705 patent refers to the claimed increase achieved by the invention in the relative productivity of the catalyst used in the Fischer-Tropsch process. The specification defines "substantially increased" catalyst activity or productivity as an increase of at least about 30%, more preferably an increase of about 50%, and still more preferably an increase of about 75%. '705 patent, col. 1, ll. 59-63. Based on that language from the specification, the trial court found, and the parties agree, that the term "to increase substantially" requires an increase of at least about 30% in the relative productivity of the catalyst. Notwithstanding that numerical boundary, the trial court found the phrase "to increase substantially" to be indefinite because the court concluded that there were two possible ways to calculate the increase in productivity, the subtraction method and the division method, and the patent did not make clear which of those ways was used in the claim.

Substantial is 50%- two examples  

Smythe 10

(Tom, engineer,http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Department_Programs/Flood_Management/ Substantial_Damage_Improvement.htm, 6/15/2010, DA 6/21/11, OST)

 

"Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.   "Substantial improvement" means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed new development of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed.

Substantially is at least 90%  

Words and Phrases, 2005  (v. 40B, p. 329)

 

N.H. 1949.  The word “substantially†as used in provision of Unemployment Compensation Act that experience rating of an employer may be transferred to an employing unit which acquires the organization, trade, or business, or “substantially†all of the assets thereof, is an elastic term which does not include a definite, fixed amount of percentage, and the transfer does not have to be 100 per cent but cannot be less than 90 per cent in the ordinary situation.  R.L. c 218, § 6, subd. F, as added by Laws 1945, c.138, § 16.

Substantial increase is 50 to 100 percent  

UNEP 2 ( United nations environmental program, www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/584.htm, October 1 2002, DA6/21/11, OST)

 

Change in selected pressures on natural ecosystems 2002-32. For the ecosystem quality component, see the explanation of the Natural Capital Index. Values for the cumulative pressures were derived as described under Natural Capital Index. The maps show the relative increase or decrease in pressure between 2002 and 2032. 'No change' means less than 10 per cent change in pressure over the scenario period; small increase or decrease means between 10 and 50 per cent change; substantial increase or decrease means 50 to 100 per cent change; strong increase means more than doubling of pressure. Areas which switch between natural and domesticated land uses are recorded separately.

Substantially must be 2 percent  

Words & Phrases 60

 

'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable." Bequest to charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in state, held exempt from taxation; such expenditures constituting "substantial" part of its activities. Tax Commission of Ohio v. American Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App. 4.

Substantial should be defined as 40 percent – best avoids vagueness  

Schwartz 4 (Arthur, Lawyer – Schwartz + Goldberg, 2002 U.S. Briefs 1609, Lexis)

 

In the opinion below, the Tenth Circuit suggested that a percentage figure would be a way to avoid vagueness issues. (Pet. App., at 13-14) Indeed, one of the Amici supporting the City in this case, the American Planning Association, produced a publication that actually makes a recommendation of a percentage figure that should be adopted by municipalities in establishing zoning  [*37]  regulations for adult businesses. n8 The APA's well researched report recommended that the terms "substantial" and "significant" be quantified at 40 percent for floor space or inventory of a business in the definition of adult business. n9 (Resp. Br. App., at 15-16)

“Substantially†is not imaginary  

Merriam-Webster 2002 (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

 

True or real; not imaginary

"Substantial" means actually existing, real, or belonging to substance  

Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 40A) p. 460

 

Ala. 1909.  “Substantial†means “belonging to substance; actually existing; real; *** not seeming or imaginary; not elusive; real; solid; true; veritable

 

Substantial requires transparency- can’t be concealed  

Words and Phrases 64 (40W&P 759)

 

The words" outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive," in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain: absolute: real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to fonn; actually existing; true; not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.

 

Substantially should be defined by context

Devinsky, 2  (Paul, IP UPDATE, VOLUME 5, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2002, “Is Claim "Substantially" Definite?  Ask Person of Skill in the Artâ€, http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)

 

In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term "substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite.  Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine.  The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has "substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips.  The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite.  The district court recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence:  "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention."  Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention."  The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."

 

 

Substantially must be measured against a preexisting baseline

Markey, 9 – Judge for the Court of Appeals for the State of Michigan (PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ROBERT ALAN McREYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.   

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20090630_C282582_51_282582.OPN.PDF

 

In MCL 777.37(1)(a), “sadism†is grouped with “torture,†“excessive brutality,†and “conduct designed to substantially increase the fear and anxiety a victim suffered during the offense.†The inclusion of the adjective “excessive†in “excessive brutality†is noteworthy. “Excessive†means going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; characterized by excess.†Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997). Thus, “excessive brutality†implies that there may be brutality in the commission of a crime, but the variable is scored for brutality that is “beyond the usual†occurring in the commission of the crime. Similarly, in the phrase, “conduct designed to substantially increase the fear and anxiety a victim suffered during the offense,†the inclusion of the words “substantially increase†is noteworthy. The phrasing implicitly recognizes that there is a baseline level of fear and anxiety a victim suffers during an offense, and the scoring of the variable is appropriate for conduct that is designed to substantially increase that level. This phrasing also suggests that the Legislature intended the scoring to be based on conduct beyond that necessary to commit the offense. The context of the term “sadism†with other terms that contemplate conduct beyond that necessary to commit the offense suggests that the conduct that forms the basis of sadism is conduct that is in addition to that necessary to commit the offense. Thus, “sadism†denotes conduct that exceeds that which is inherent in the commission of the offense.

 

Substantially means in the main, including the essential part

Words and Phrases, 2 (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, “Substantially,†Volume 40B, p. 324-330 October 2002, Thomson West)

Okla. 1911. “Substantially†means in substance: in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part.

 

Substantially means essential and material

Words and Phrases, 2 (40B W&P – 328)

 

Ind. 1962.  “Substantially†means meeting requirements in essential and material parts.

 

Substantial has to be materially

Words and Phrases, 2 (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, “Substantial,†Volume 40A, p. 448-486 October 2002, Thomson West)

 

Ala. 1909. “Substantial†means “belonging to substance; actually existing; real; * * * not seeming or imaginatary; not illusive; real; solid; true; veritable.†– Elder v. State, 50 So. 370, 162 Ala. 41.

 

 

Substantially means to a large degree

Words and Phrases, 2 (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, “Substantially,†Volume 40B, p. 324-330 October 2002, Thomson West)

N.D.Ill. 2002. Under ADA, “substantially†in phrase substantially limits, means considerable, or to a large degree.

 

Substantial means great in amount

Words and Phrases, 2 (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, “Substantial,†Volume 40A, p. 448-486 October 2002, Thomson West)

 

N.D.Ala. 1957. The word “substantial†means considerable in amount, value, or the like, large, as a substantial gain. – Levenson v. U.S., 157, F.Supp. 224.

 

Substantially means real, not imaginary

Wollman ’93 (Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals – 8th Circuit, Kansas City Power & Light Company, a Missouri corporation, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Credit Company, a Delaware corporation; McDonnell Douglas Finance Corporation, a Delaware corporation; HEI Investment Corp., a Hawaii corporation, Appellants, 995 F.2d 1422; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 13755, L/N)

 

Instruction No. 10 was not given in isolation, however. The district court's instructions also contained a definition of "substantial." Instruction No. 11 defined "substantial" as meaning "true, real or likely to materialize" and as not meaning "imaginary or unlikely to materialize." This instruction properly limited the potential bases for the jury's decision, which is the essential function of jury instructions. When combined with the contract and the verdict-directing instructions,  [*1432]  which tracked the operative language of the contract, Instruction No. 11 required the jury to find that KCPL had determined a real risk, not some imaginary hypothetical risk premised solely on a reduction in the DRD. Because the contract provided only one means of creating a risk of making an indemnity payment--a demand notice from an Investor--the jury's discretion was properly channelled into deciding whether KCPL had sufficiently studied and honestly considered the likelihood of receiving such a demand notice. That determination is all that the contract required.

 

Substantially means real at present time

Words and Phrases 1964 (40 W&P 759) (this edition of W&P is out of print;  the page number no longer matches up to the current edition and I was unable to find the card in the new edition.  However, this card is also available on google books, Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases, Volume 8, p. 7329)

 

The words “outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive,†in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing.  They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain; absolute; real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to form; actually existing; true; not including admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive. Bass v. Pease, 79 Ill. App. 308, 318.

 

Substantially is without material qualification

Black’s Law Dictionary 1991 [p. 1024]

 

Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification.

Edited by Atlas0Smirked
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Substantially has been beaten to death, why doesn't the NFL use a different word or set of words? 
 

Resolved: The USFG should increase it's Economic Engagement with Mexico by a whole lot. 

Resolved: The USFG should do a big increase of Economic Engagement 

Resolved: The USFG's ass is tooooooooo fat. 

Resolved: The United States Fryer's Guild should by a lot increase the amount of salt put on it's fries. 

etc 

  • 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.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...