Tfile (1)

COLUMBUS HIGH SCHOOL - 1 - Topicality2005-2006

INDEX

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.

SPEC- ArgumentsASPEC…………2ESPEC…………3-6OSPEC………….7

Extra Topicality Shell….8Effects Topicality Shell….9

Resolved…10USFG…11Substantially….12Decrease means already in existence….13Authority= law….14Authority is not law….15“Its authority”….16Either means one or other…17Either means both…18Or…19Detain without charge…20Detain…21Probable cause…22Probable cause (brown v state)….23


ASPECA. Interpretation The affirmative must specify an agent of action in their plan text.

B. Violation: The plan only says “United States Federal Government”

C. That's Abusive because :

1. Decreased ground - it destroys negative strategies like agent CP which are key to negative ground 2. Kills education - we can't learn about how policies are actually implemented or debate about implementation.3. 2AC clarification is abusive - the neg sets up the strat to the original lAC plan text – clarification in the 2AC makes them a moving target and destroys competitive equity4. Specification is key to all negative ground. Implementation is 90% of determining whether plan is a desired action

Elmore, 1980, Professor of public affairs at the University of Washington, (Political science quarterly, pg. 605)

Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering: the question. "What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

D. Voter – vote them down for reasons of fairness, education, and competition


E-SPECShell

A. They don’t specify enforcement in their plan.

B. It’s bad:

1. Ground loss – Without enforcement specified we don’t get specific links to DAs, Ks, or on-case arguments because 90% of the plan is in the implementation.Richard Elmore (public affairs at University of Washington), Polisci Quarterly, Volume 94, Number 4, Page 605, 1980:

The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of the policy choices matters very little if the mechanisms for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, “What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?” Allison estimated that, in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.

2. They’re just fiating it. If they refuse to tell us what happens if someone doesn’t obey the plan, it gives us the same ground as if we simply assumed the plan solves. That destroys negative ground because we can’t make solvency arguments, so our strategy has to be based on impact turns. We’ll always lose against some cases (racism, for example), or will have to run sneaky CPs.

3. They don’t justify the resolution. They assume everyone in the US complies with their plan as a precondition to it being solvent. It’s not only extra topical (proving the resolution is insufficient because action by the federal government isn’t enough) and it’s very unpredictable for the negative.

D. It’s a voter

1. They don’t affirm the resolution – they prove that it alone is not enough.

2. It deprives us of much negative ground and forces us into crazy strategies. We lose case arguments because we don’t even know what the plan does, and negative ground is crucial to both fairness and education.


E-SPECAT: Clarification in the 2AC

1. That’s even worse! The fact that they clarified it in their 2AC makes it harder for us to go for the only thing the 1AC lets us run – E-SPEC.

2. They have to have it in plan text. If they clarify later, we can’t debate about a binding text, which is the basis for the round. Clarification in the 2AC moots the 1NC and makes it impossible to debate the aff, because they can spike out of parts of our strategy – vote on it for ground and time skew.

3. It still doesn’t really explain what happens if someone violates their plan or who will enforce it. They’re the keys to our negative ground.

4. They still don’t read evidence about how the plan gets implemented – which is the 1NC standard to debatability, to ensure there are cards answering theirs.


E-SPECAT: Clarification of the Actor

1. We want to know how the plan is enforced, not what part of the government initiates action. Any branch can make a plan which is enforced the same way – we don’t care who begins the action, we want to know who enforces it.

2. They still aren’t reading evidence about how the plan gets implemented. That’s the 1NC standard of debatability.


E-SPECAT: Clarification during Cross-Ex

1. Infinitely regressive. They could read a worthless plan text and clarify everything in the cross-ex. This gives the negative no prep. time until the end of the 1AC cross-ex, which takes it away from the 2N, who will need it more than the affirmative because the negative never knows the case as well as the affirmative does.

2. No one flows cross-ex. It’s impossible to record specifications – people may have different interpretations of what happened.

3. It’s a bad standard for debate. Not everyone things cross-ex is binding. Partner miscommunication can change the round for either team, and there’s no reason it’s better than 1AC clarification.


OSPEC

A. THE VIOLATION— the plan specifies a single branch of the government.

B. THE STANDARDS—1. GROUND— the plan kills all key ground to disads and kritiks by specifying the ___________branch. This would justify an aff going through the federal courts to avoid politics disads.

2. LIMITS— the aff makes the topic limitless because we’d have to go research an infinite number of possible ways the aff could enact their plan through separate branches.

3. INFINITELY REGRESSIVE— they justify severing out of every part of the plan that could link to the disad because their text is worded to avoid all DA’s.

4. EDUCATION— they prevent us from looking at the whole USFG’s governmental processes which are key to all political education.

5. COMPETITIVE EQUITY— negative counterplans are required to be specific, not aff cases.

6. PREDICTABILITY— we’d hope and expect the debate to be about the resolution not the endless ways the affirmative could enact their plan text to spike out of virtually ALL links to DA’s.

7. REAL-WORLD— real policies use all three of the government branches, not just a single branch.

C. VOTER— for ground, education, fairness, and competitive equity.


Extra Topicality

A. Interpretation-The entire Affirmative Plan must fall under the resolution.

B. Violation-The Affirmative team has added extra planks to there plan in order to claim Non-Topical advantages.

C. Abuse1.) The Negative Team cannot be expected to research every possible Extra-

Topical plank, as these could be anything and create infinite possibilities.

2.) This distorts Negative ground because the Neg team would have to research every subject under the sun and could never be prepared.

3.) This Destroys Educational value of debate. If the Neg team cannot be prepared it insures that there will be NO clash meaning that there will be NO educational importance in the round.

4.) Advantages claimed by adding extra-topical planks to the plan kill Neg ground. By having these extra advantages the Aff team could outweigh any DA’s and No Counter Plan could ever be more Net Beneficial.

D. VotersThis Topicality is a voting issue for reasons of Jurisdiction, Fairness and Education.


EFFECTS TOPICALITY

A.Violation: The affirmative is not on face topical. Although their case may bring about topic results someday, there is no guarantee they will ever be topical. They are merely effects topical.

B. Standards:1. Limits: Any action taken will eventually lead to topical action, forcing unfair burdens upon the negative.2. Clash: With more topical cases, the neg has more cases to prepare for, resulting in less clash b/c the neg will find a sweet generic positions with a bad link. That also decreases education and predictability by sacrificing depth of debate.3. Ground: Any Counterplan we read could be topical by effects as much as the plan.4. Predictability: There’s no way to research effectively backwards. The negative cannot be expected to have researched every possible scenario that could eventually lead in any way to a certain outcome.

C. Voters: 1. Topicality is an a priori issue and must be voted on before any other issue can be

determined. 2. If the aff is not topical than you cannot vote for them. Without enforcement of

topicality the neg research burden would be infinite and the aff would win every round. To ensure fairness you must vote neg.


Resolved T

A. Definitions - Resolved: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, 1996, Copyrighted, 1992, Houghton Mifflin Company, - To make a firm decision about, firmness of purpose (in a) resolution. a. Constant, steady, strong, sure, without wavering, resolutely, unfluctuating

B. Violation - The Affirmative ‘Reserves The Right To Clarify Intent’

This ability to clarify intent means that the affirmative does not meet the resolved part of the resolution. The words steady, strong, firm, resolutely. unfluctuating, and firm, all contradict the right to clarify intent in the aff's plan.

C. Standards 1. Increased Communication And Speaking Skills: If you allow the affirmative to continue to "clarify" themselves, you support an unorganized debate world. Even if the affirmative is clear and concise, you vote on the violation, because they reserve the right not to be clear and concise.

2. Abuse :The affirmative by reserving this right has the ability to weasel out of links to certain arguments such as DA's. This ability to avoid links must be removed to prevent future abuse in the world of debate.

3. Resolved Is The Most Important Part Of The Resolution Although many times over looked. The word resolved in the resolution affects every other word, the communication in a debate round, and the education of debate. It has been in every resolution since the beginning of debate, because it is the most important and preserves debatablity.

D. Voter 1. Jurisdictional The affirmative has always had to fulfill every word of the resolution. If not, as the standards prove, the possibilities of abuse increase and debate falls more and more into a disorganized function. You must preserve it. 2. Improve Debate A vote for this violation sends the message of increased communication, value of the real issues of debate, and organization and efficiency. You must send this message to the affirmative to improve debate.3. FairnessThe Negative Team came prepared to debate the resolution and allowing the affirmative team to run non-topical plans distorts ground.


USFG T

A. DEFINITION “UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT”The White House, June 9, 2003, Government

“Branches of [Federal] Government: Executive Branch: The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; Judicial Branch: The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President; Legislative Branch: The legislative branch of the federal government consists of the Congress, which is divided into two chambers -- the Senate and the House of Representatives.”

B. VIOLATIONNegative Interpretation: The United States federal government, composed of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, must establish the policy under the resolution. The affirmative plan involves an organization outside of the federal government. The negative definition is the best possible definition because it comes from the United States federal government directly.

C. STANDARDS1. Field Context: The negative definition is the best possible definition because it comes from the United States federal government directly.2. Bright Line: The negative definition clearly defines a topical case from one that is not topical in that there is a clear distinction. The affirmative fails to meet this bright line, as the affirmative plan is not topical.3. Division of Ground: A broad definition of “United States federal government” that allowed organizations outside of the federal government to establish policies would be unfair to the negative team, as the negative team would have to debate against an infinite number of affirmative cases that used other organizations.4. Vacuum Test: Examine only the affirmative team’s plan for topicality. Don’t consider any advantages of the plan. Outweighing the potential advantages is the fact that the affirmative plan does not follow the fundamental resolution that all policy cases must follow.

D. VOTERTopicality is a voting issue, and issue that needs to be weighed above all in this round. The judge can only vote for affirmative teams that uphold the resolution. By presenting a case that is not topical, the affirmative fails to meet their role in this round of upholding the resolution. Therefore, the judge must vote negative.


Substantially T

Topicality-Substantial

A. The Interpretation - Substantial is defined as considerable in quantity (Merriam Websters Dictionary Online; retrieved 2/3/05)http://www.mw.com/cgibin/dictionary...Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

B. Violation- The affirmative fails decreases auhtority by a substantial amount.

C. Standards-

1. Limits- We provide fair limits within the resolution ensuring this debate continues and that education is possible.

2. Bright line- We provide a clear bright line of what is and what is not topical within the resolution.

3. Education- By failing to decrease authority by a substantial amount, no real change is made and this destroys education

D. Topicality is a voter for fairness, Abuse and Ground.


Decrease= already in existence T

A. Interpretation: Decrease means already in existence. Definition: To grow or cause to grow gradually less or smaller Dictionary.com 2005

B. Violation: the affirmative must decrease a form of government legislation that already exists.

C. Standards1. Limits: The affirmatives interpretation allows for an unlimited number of cases. The negative team offers the best limits, by limiting the affirmative case areas to legislation that already exists, while still allowing for a multitude of case areas, preserving the affs advantage of surprise.2. Ground: Whatever team presents the best limits ultimately upholds the best ground. We uphold negative ground by forcing the aff to debate legislation that already exists; we could never prep for the infinite number of legislations not yet created within our own government.3. Alternate Voter: Education:

a. Literature Deficiency: Policies not yet implemented in our government have none or substantially less literature on them than legislation that has already been in effect. This means the debate would be focused on hypothetical questions and answers, which are infinitely regressive. b. Depth: The negative upholds the most depth on the subject by only allowing cases that contain the most literature. More literature allows for contrasting viewpoints, better clash, better argumentation, and more use of strategy. Debate is focused on depth in education, because it truly allows us to learn about a topic, rather than just skim the surface.c. Breadth: the negative also allows for the best amount of breadth. By forcing equal ground on both sides, and reasonably limiting the aff, the neg interpretation still allows for an array of topics. Too much breadth would be the absence of a resolution, meaning any case would be topical.

4. Predictability: We are always the most predictable, seeing that there is no way to predict the creation of a new legislation, and what that new legislation will entail.

D. Voters1. Jurisdiction: just like a traffic cop cannot rule on a murder case, you as a judge cannot rule on an untopical case.2. Fairness: you as a judge should only vote on a fair round; make this round fair by voting down the aff. 3. Education: We uphold the best education in the round.


Authority is law T

Definition:Authority: “The power to enforce laws.” Dictionary.com 2005.

Violation: The affirmative does not reduce the Federal Government’s ability to enforce laws. [insert round context]

Standards: A. Bright line: The negative draws a bright line between what is and what is not

topical you either decrease authority or do not.B. Ground: The affirmative explodes the ground by not being subject to changing

laws but instead having the ability to change anything within the realm of government.

Voters: FairnessEducationJurisdiction


Authority is not law TDefinition:Authority: “Justification; grounds.” Dictionary.com 2005.

Violation: the affirmative does not reduce the Federal Government’s justification or grounds; it only changes the law.


topical. Without changing the actual justification of the government only the letter of the law is changed and not the intent. Without reducing justification and grounds no lasting change is accomplished and the affirmative is not topical.

B. Ground: The affirmative explodes the ground by not having to follow the resolution exactly.

Voters: A. FairnessB. EducationC. Juridction


“Its Authority”

T- its authority

1. Interpretation – (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language 2000 http://dictionary.reference.com/ visited on January 30, 2005)its adj. The possessive form of it

it pronoun Used to refer to that one previously mentioned. Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified, unknown, or irrelevant; a group of objects or individuals; an action; or an abstraction

Authority n. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

In the resolution, its refers to the USFG, so the affirmative has to decrease the USFG government’s authority

2. Violation – Affirmative doesn’t decrease the authority of the USFG, they decrease the authority of _________________. At best, they are extra topical, and you should reject them.

3. Standards a. Dictionary best – the editors of dictionaries spend a long time to make sure that

the definitions are the best that they can beb. Precision – by using multiple definitions, you see the true framer’s intent of the

resolution.c. Brightline – either the affirmative decreases the USFG’s authority, or it doesn’td. Extra T is bad – look at the entire affirmative case, if it is not completely

topical, you should throw it out.

4. Topicality is a voter for Fairness, Education and Ground


Either means one or the other

Definition: Either-the one or the other; Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition

Violation: The Aff is both decreasing its authority to detain without charge and search without probable cause. According to the resolution they can only do one of these.

Standards: A) Limits: The negative provides the best limits for the round B) Brightline: We provide a clear brightline for what is and what is nottopical C) Framers Intent: The framer of the resolution only intended the aff to doone or the other.

Voter: Fairness, Education, Limits


Either means both

A) Negative interpretations:

Either- each of two (Webster’s New World Dictionary 2nd Edition)Each- every one of two or more

B) Violation: The Affirmative team only decreases the United States Federal Government’s authority of one of the two stated in the resolution.

C) The negative interpretation is superior:

1. We create a better educational environment. We allow for cases to have more substance to them. Allowing each case to cover more information and increase our education.

2. We set better limits. The Aff must decrease the authority of both, to detain without charge and to search without probable cause.


Or TA. Definition: Or-Used to indicate the second of two alternatives, the first being preceded by either or whetherhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=or

B. Violation: The affirmative plan decreases authority to detain without charge and to search without probable cause.

C. Standards:1. Bright line- Our Interpretation provides a strict bright line over whether or not

the affirmative is topical. They must do one or the other.2. Resolutional Context- Our definition is the most grammatically correct within

the resolution. It gives an example of how it’s used in context and that’s how it’s used in the Resolution.

3. Common Person’s Definition- Everyone in school learned to use or as a conjunction, giving an alternative of two things.

4. Easily accessible- This definition came from the most accessed online dictionary. In these days, technology is the best place for information and the internet is where people go when in need of a good definition.

D. Voting Issue:1. Topicality is a voter for issues of Fairness and Education.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=or


Detain without chargeA. 1-DefinitionDetain, from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law, 1996To hold or keep in custody or possessionWithout, from the American Heritage Dictionary, 2000Not having; lackingCharge, from WordNet by Princeton University, 2004Accusation: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence

2) InterpretationWhen taken in context by the sum of their respective definitions, the resolutionary phrase, “detain without charge” means to hold or keep in custody without any accusation or assertion of guilt or fault.

B. ViolationThe affirmative team’s case involves acts of detainment with charge, meaning that at the time of the detainment there were significant assertions of guilt or fault. In order to be topical, the act of detainment must take place in a situation where there is no guilt and complete innocence on the part of the detainee.

C. Standards: Our definitions are the best definitions for the following reasons:1) Grammatical Correctness-By defining a phrase from the resolution instead of one word, we are able to extrapolate the true meaning. This allows for the truest definitions and the best education.2) Common Person-The American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet by Princeton University are both publications readily accessible by anyone within society. These are the definitions you would find if you flipped open a dictionary at your house, which makes for the fairest debate.3) Legal Context-This year’s resolution is focused on the legal aspect of policy making, and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law is a highly respected legal dictionary. Using definitions from a legal context ensures appropriate word usage and is important to policy decisions.4) Limits-Our definition provides the best limits for the debate. The word “without” is key to this year’s resolution and therefore must be taken into consideration within the phrase “detain without charge.” If the affirmative team was allowed to simply ignore this word, the negative research burden would explode and debate would cease to have a point.

D. Voters:1) Jurisdiction-2) Education-


DetainT Shell

Definition:Detain: “To keep in custody or temporary confinement” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Violation: The affirmative plan deals with confinement for long periods of time and not temporary confinement.


topical.B. Ground: The affirmative explodes the ground by not having to follow the

resolution exactly. Voters:

EducationJurisdiction


T: Probable Cause

A. DefinitionMerriem-Webster’s Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com, 2005

Probable Cause: a reasonable ground for supposing that a charge is well-founded

B. Violation

The affirmative team does not decrease authority to search based on reasonable ground. Rather, they merely limit the government’s ability to search with no cause.

C. Standards

1. Bright Line: This definition provides a very bright line as to what is topical and what is not. It is very easy to see whether or not a case fits in this topic. If the affirmative is dealing with a policy which involves reasonable ground for searching, they are topical. This case does not.

2. Limits: The negative interpretation provides the best limits to the topic.3. Ground: The negative interpretation allows for the affirmative to run cases and

also allows for the negative to run on-case disadvantages, kritiks, and counterplans.

4. Common person: The negative interpretation uses a common person source. In this debate round, we are civilians, we should be using layperson’s terms.

D. Voters

1. Jurisdiction: If this case falls outside of the topic, then the judge cannot vote on it. Topicality limits the judge’s jurisdiction

2. Fairness: Topicality is needed to limit the topic in order to keep the round fair3. Education: Off-topic cases such as the affirmative’s prevent us from learning

anything in this debate round.

http://www.m-w.com/


Probable Cause

A DefinitionProbable cause must exist before a search takes place Brown v. State , 42 Ala.

App. 429, 167 So.2d 281 (1964), the Alabama Court of Appeals

It is important to note that whether a warrant is obtained or not, probable cause must exist before a search or seizure by any governmental agent. As some have pointed out, allowing the development of probable cause after the fact becomes more difficult. Imagine the pressure on a judge to look the other way when an illegal search proves that a defendant was involved in illegal activity, and when it is the defendant who is seeking relief from his or her own criminal actions. Requiring warrants ensures that the fact-finding regarding justified police behavior is done prior to a search or a seizure eliminates this possibility.

B Violation: The aff case deals with issues that involve situations where knowledge is already attained and therefore does not directly uphold the resolution.

C Standards1. Limits – It is necessary to limit the topic to avoid abuse and improve clash on the

main issues of the topic.2. Resolutional Integrity – the intent of the resolution was to solve for civil liberties

by decreasing authority not by indirectly dealing with the detention and charging of citizens based on a preconceived notion of probable cause.

D Voting IssueJurisdiction – the judge has the jurisdiction to vote against the resolution. If the aff is not

under the resolution then the judge has no reason to vote for it and every reason to vote Neg.

A Priori Issue – topicality must be the first issue determined in the debate. The judge must first decide if the plan is relevant to the resolution in order to support it.Rules of the game – Topicality is an issue like every other issue in debate. If the Aff cannot meet this attack and prove their topicality then the Neg deserves to win.

Tfile (1)

Documents

negative ground

ground loss

decreased ground

negative strategies

ac clarification

agent of action

desired action elmore

index topicality