You want me to argue what? Topic Analysis You want me to argue what?

We begin by Defining important words so we have a basic understanding of the question Resolved: The intergenerational accumulation of wealth is antithetical to democracy. Intergenerational antithetical

Intergenerational (+wealth) /ˌin(t)ərˌjenəˈrāSH(ə)n(ə)l/ adjective 1. relating to, involving, or affecting several generations:

antithetical an·​ti·​thet·​i·​cal | \ ˌan-tə-ˈthe-ti-kəl \ variants: or less commonly antithetic \ -​ˈthe-​tik \ Definition of antithetical 1 : being in direct and unequivocal opposition : directly opposite or opposed

Definitions Define terms when it makes a difference. Don’t define excessively •Use definitions that help your advocacy Define terms that might confuse a judge Define “terms of art” using relevant sources (Dept. of State, Dept. of Justice, UN) example: political asylum is a term of art, words need to be defined together.

The very basic question is: IS the accumulation of wealth from generation to generation contradictory to Democracy? We discuss as a group… generating as many ideas regarding this as possible. We discuss as a class, then for homework students are expected to discuss with at least two adults, and/or supplement their understanding with reading.

The Subject What is the subject(s) being evaluated? Definition: The Topic being debated or the controversial issue in the resolution. Ask yourself: What is the thing that we are deciding is right, just, moral, beneficial, ect.?

Example What is/are the subject(s) in our resolution?

Type of Resolution Is the resolution comparative or noncomparative? •  Definition:  Comparative – argues two subjects against each other. Both may be good, but the topic is asking which is better. Ex. Vanilla is more delicious than chocolate. Noncomparative – argues pros and cons of one subject. Is it good or bad? Ex.: Vanilla is delicious. •  Ask yourself: Has the negative been given a subject to defend or is the negative only attacking the affirmative?

Resolved: Is our resolution comparative or non comparative?

On Neg, when the value is non comparative: Neg can assume a position of proving Affirmative wrong, or balancing the resolution.

Limits In what context is the subject placed? Or, what are the limits on what you have to defend? •  Definition: The boundaries on the topic. These are the only conditions you are required to argue in the round, but you may have to point that out to your judge. For example: This resolution is not limited to the United States, so potential negative strategy might be to look at negative effects of the imbalance of wealth outside the US.

Why do limits matter? Limits keep you from having to defend things outside the resolution. In CX land this is Topicality. Limits should help focus the debate and keep our students from debating the merits of communism, or socialism.

The Evaluation What is the evaluative term? Definition: The word or phrase that will be used to judge the subject. This usually takes the form of the verb clause in the sentence. Ask yourself: What am I trying to prove about the subject? Hereditary wealth is counter to Democracy Evaluative term/Phrase in our resolution: accumulation is antithetical

Identify the Main Actor Who is the agent of action? Is the agent explicit or implicit? Definition: The person, group, or organization that would carry out the resolution in the real world. Explicit: Directly stated in the topic. We are clearly told the actor. THE US ought to grant amnesty to asylum seekers. Implicit: The actor isn’t directly stated but is suggested by the topic or implied.

example So, who/what is the agent of action in our resolution? Answer: People accumulating and inheriting intergenerational wealth or, on the negative, people harmed by the ones accumulating/inheriting wealth

Example Is the agent explicit or implicit? Answer:

Now we begin breaking down components: What is Wealth accumulation Why is wealth accumulation/inheritance bad or unfair?

wealth accumulation GOOD

Possible Contentions:

Tie it all together We write contentions first, then look to find what the commonality is before finding what we value. This is a bit like writing the outline after you have written your research paper… it may be backwards but it works for us. If your student is having a hard time, use the value that is called for in the resolution: democracy - and work to find supporting arguments from that point

READ, READ, READ MORE The more students read about topics the better they will be able to defend their own plans, and attack the ideas of others. For advanced students, read journals and philosophy related to the topic from think tanks. Pull answers to arguments as you research, it will help later.

Just an FYI: Resolved: Predictive policing is unjust. The official 2019 NSDA LD topic list: Resolved: Predictive policing is unjust. Resolved: The United States ought to grant legal personhood to natural ecosystems. Resolved: Japan ought to amend Article 9 of its constitution to allow for offensive military capabilities. Resolved: The United States ought to legalize adult sex work. Resolved: The intergenerational accumulation of wealth is antithetical to democracy. Resolved: In the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions. Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Resolved: The United States ought to act as the employer of last resort. Resolved: A just nation ought not use offensive cyber operations to target civilian infrastructure. Resolved: The United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.

Jennifer: jaadams@bsisd.esc18.net Clint: cadams@bsisd.esc18.net Conact: Jennifer: jaadams@bsisd.esc18.net Clint: cadams@bsisd.esc18.net