Jump to content
JSamuel

Substantially means 1%

Recommended Posts

I've been scouring the internet, searching for topicality evidence that says, "Substantially means 1%."

I'm trying to make a non-abusive Substantially T for the arms sales resolution.

If anyone has this interpretation card, I'd be willing to trade.  I have an entire Dropbox full of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things:

1- You shouldn't strive to design T arguments on the negative to be accommodating to the aff. Your framing argument for T on the neg is competing interpretations. By definition your goal is to provide the most limited interpretation of a word or phrase in the resolution to provide the best predictable limits for a topic. An important thing to remember is that while yes, the aff will have some kind of aff education good argument, your impact on the negative is fairness. So even if the aff wins some risk of offense from an education-based standard, you can win that debate with impact framing/comparison between fairness and education.

2- substantially violations aren't usually persuasive unless you have topic-specific interp/violation cards. Otherwise the aff saying "this is arbitrary, here's a card saying substantially means x%" is pretty easy to listen to. So this will either be a matter of research for you or a waiting game to see what debate camps put out (though typically words that aren't topic specific just get copy/pasted backfile cards from college debaters/coaches doing camp assignments).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, OGRawrcat said:

2 things:

1- You shouldn't strive to design T arguments on the negative to be accommodating to the aff. Your framing argument for T on the neg is competing interpretations. By definition your goal is to provide the most limited interpretation of a word or phrase in the resolution to provide the best predictable limits for a topic. An important thing to remember is that while yes, the aff will have some kind of aff education good argument, your impact on the negative is fairness. So even if the aff wins some risk of offense from an education-based standard, you can win that debate with impact framing/comparison between fairness and education.

2- substantially violations aren't usually persuasive unless you have topic-specific interp/violation cards. Otherwise the aff saying "this is arbitrary, here's a card saying substantially means x%" is pretty easy to listen to. So this will either be a matter of research for you or a waiting game to see what debate camps put out (though typically words that aren't topic specific just get copy/pasted backfile cards from college debaters/coaches doing camp assignments).

Thanks for the response.

1. It's not that I want to be accommodating, it's just that my current "Substantially means 2%" interp card makes it to where literally zero affs meet my violation.  I would run it, but I don't want to deal with the abuse arguments, such as "name 5 affs that meet" and such.

2. I have extremely specific violation cards that I've already found.  But you're right, I won't be able to get any sort of specific interp until the camp files are released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 11:11 PM, JSamuel said:

I have extremely specific violation cards that I've already found.  But you're right, I won't be able to get any sort of specific interp until the camp files are released.

You should look for interps that describe specific actions that are minimally required to be substantial in context of topic specific phrases. This can be numerical, but cards that describe specific portions of FMS or DCS(?) as significant, such as particular weapons systems, countries, international agreements, etc etc etc. This establishes a clearer baseline for a) what the best neg ground looks like/gives a clearer story for WHY your minimal action is necessary for core topic discussions and core ground, b) makes it easier to sidestep the overlimits debate by saying "we could do the aff so long as this action is also done" (which makes your TVA debate simple as well).

You should otherwise set up your limits DA with cards that outline the number of countries we deal with, number of agreements we have with individual countries (giving one country as an example is fine, the point is showing that we have a variety of overlapping arms deals with each country), and number of items considered arms for arms sales. 

I want to specify that the best/most contextual "substantially" cards are actually specific topic phrase interps like "x agreement is the core of foreign military sales, necessary for a substantial reduction."

Edited by OGRawrcat
  • 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...