1. ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT: TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS Tuesday, August 5th Baxter and Steve

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 non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

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? (Development!)  Can it be cooperative/consultative?

9. …non-military…  Coast guard  Army Corps of Engineers  Non-military role Icebreakers Search and rescue

11. …exploration…  “ocean exploration” is discovery through observation and recording  Has to be where no one has gone before  Includes data or not

12. …and/or…  Means and/or  Unless it means or…

13. …development…  Makes use of oceans as a resource  Are regulations development?  Is commercial in nature  Non-sustainable?

14. …of the Earth’s oceans.  The SOUTHERN Ocean!?!  Excludes the sea  Excludes the coastal areas  Excludes above the surface

15. 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

16. Non Topicality Procedurals

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

19. 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 (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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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”