1. ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT: TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS Thursday, 6/27 Baxter and Dave

2. Basic Framework of Theoretical Arguments A. Interpretation B. Violation C. Standards D. Voting Issues

3. Topicality Proper  The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.

4. Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should…

5. …substantially…  Arbitrary Values  “Substantial/substantially” means  Essentially  Important  In the Main  Large  To make greater/augment  Material/real  Excludes material qualifications

6. …increase…  Does it have to exist already?  Can it just get better?

7. …its…  The object (economic engagement) belongs to the prior subject (The United States federal government).  Can it be an NGO or private entity?  Can it be cooperative/consultative?

9. …economic engagement…  Big Questions  QPQ  Timeframe  Political Change  G2G  Foreign Aid  Smaller Ones  Specifics  Sanctions  Cooperation

11. …toward…  Does it need to be directly towards?

12. …Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.  Cuba  Does it include Gitmo?  Is the embargo an increase in engagement (FX)?  Mexico  Or  Can it be and?  Venezuela

13. Debating T Well  Like almost all theory, revolves around two impacts  Fairness  Education  You need to focus on three issues  Caselists (content and size)  Division of ground  Types of literature  Good T debating requires an appropriate mix of both offense and defense

14. Non Topicality Procedurals

15. Are the Same As T!!!  Plan vagueness  Solvency advocate (lack thereof)  Specification  Agent  Enforcement  Funding

17. Framework  What is this about? The controversy behind almost all framework debates is which types o f impacts “count” when the judge renders a decision  A secondary question the involves what mechanisms the debaters can use to access those impacts  Useful analogs include  Legal rules of evidence  Criteria debates from old school CEDA or LD  Methodological disputes

18. Framework (2)  What impacts are we competing for?  Education  Fairness  “Good political agents”  What are the approaches negatives take to defending framework against non-traditional affs?  “T”: you are not what the resolution says, debate like a T violation (caveman)  Traditional framework: policymaking is good, you’re not it (old school)  Cooptive frameworks: fair play, etc.

19. Framework (3)  Judges and framework debates  Be aware of the judge’s identity and social location/status  Ideologues K all the way K no way  Centrists (largely incoherent)—both sides get to weigh their impacts

20. Framework (4)  Meaning of words is arbitrary/predictability is a praxis, not a truth  Counter-definitions of worlds that allow an individualized focus  USFG is the people  Resolved refers to us, not the USFG  Debates do not leave the room  Policymakers do evil things, policymaking logic does evil things

21. Framework (5)  Epistemological kritiks (knowledge from policy land is bad/tainted)  Politically-centered kritiks  Friere  Identity politics  Schlag  Ethics kritiks  Language kritiks/dirty words  General “case outweighs”