2. PART ONE: Topicality  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

3. T: United States  Are other “United States”  Brazil  Netherlands  “United States” means “U.S.A.”

4. T: Federal Government  “Federal government” means either  The government based in Washington DC [or]  The system of government that includes the national and state governments within the federal system  Potential issues  “USFG” means all 3 branches  “USFG should” means government action, not individual advocacy

5. T: Should  “Should” means  Implies conditions  Implies a future state  Means must/obligation  Means ought  Means probable/likely  Is the past tense of shall  Issues  “Should” precludes plans in the past tense  “Should” excludes demands

6. T: Substantially  Many definitions of “substantially” (adv.) used in debate are of “substantial” (adj.)  “Substantial/substantially” means  Essentially  Important  In the Main  Large  To make greater/augment  Material/real  Excludes material qualifications

7. Substantially [cont’d]  Potential issues include  Do you meet an (arbitrary), quantified increase in exploration and/or development  Whether the increase can be qualified

8. T: Increase  “Increase” means  Augment numbers or quantity  To make greater/larger  To make a qualitative improvement  Potential disputes include  Whether there must be pre-existing E&D to be increased  Whether the aff must increase the size of E&D, or can just improve it

9. T: Its  “Its” means the possessive form of “it”; used as a modifier before a noun  In this case, “exploration and/or development” belong to “The United States federal government”  Controversy: is “its” exclusive? Are coop affs permissible?

10. T: Exploration  “Exploration” means an act or instance of exploring or investigating  “Explore” means  To traverse or range over (a region, area, et.) for the purpose of discovery  To look into closely; scrutinize, examine  Most contextual definitions are either  Vague  Broad  Use the word “explore” or “exploration” in a way that implies that it is distinct from the plan

11. T: And/Or  “and/or” is used to join terms when either one or the other or both is indicated  Is a definition implying that “and/or” means “both”

12. T: Development  “Development” means the act or process of developing  “Developing” means to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state  Controversy—does it only cover economic activities (and thus exclude military action, etc.)

13. T: Of  “Of” means  Derived or coming from  Resulting from  Proceeding as a product from  Resulting from an operation or process involving

14. T: Space  Space is modified by “beyond the Earth’s mesosphere”  “Space” means  The unlimited/incalculable three-dimensional realm/expanse in which all material objects are located and all events occur  The portion or extent of this in a given instance; extent or room in three dimensions  Outer space

15. T: Beyond  “Beyond” means  On the farther side of  Farther on than; more distant than  Outside the understanding, limits, or reach of  Superior to  More than; surpassing

16. T: the Earth’s  “Earth’s” is possessive, referring to the mesosphere  “Earth” means the third planet from the sun

17. T: Mesosphere  The region of the earth’s atmosphere above the stratosphere and below the thermosphere  Issue: Can you explore (or develop) Earth from space?

18. PART TWO: Non-Topicality Procedural  Plan vagueness  Solvency advocate (lack thereof)  Specification  Agent  Enforcement  Funding

19. PART THREE: 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

20. Framework [cont’d]  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 (caveperson)  Traditional framework: policymaking is good, you’re not it (old school)  Co-optive frameworks: fair play, etc.

21. Framework [cont’d]  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

22. Framework [cont’d]  Traditional framework—instrumental implementation of the plan  Predictable ground [impact: fairness, via competition]  Rez mandates policy focus (resolved, USFG, etc)  Literature that neg mandates is more predictable  Are an infinite number of FORM/CONTENT combos  Education  Policy education leads to a more informed citizenry/bolsters democracy  Training—we learn to play future roles  Advocacy  Empathy  Research Skills  Engagement—avoids “right wing takeover”  Switch-side debate is valuable  Laboratory considerations (experimentation)  Know thy enemy

23. Framework [cont’d]  Form  We need a consensus about what we are debating about for a meaningful debate to occur  Rules are necessary to guide discussion and can promote creativity  Defensive arguments  Playing by the rules can combat bad biopower(s)  The world works this way  Reciprocity  Affirmative choice (if affirmative)

24. Expansive Affirmative FW  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  Resolves refers to us, not the USFG  Debates do not leave the room  Policymakers do evil things, policymaking logic does evil things

25. Expansive FW [cont’d]  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”