T - Armed Forces (army, Navy, Or Air Force)

SMN Debate Holloway-Utter

Topicality Armed Forces

A. Definition: Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2006 A country's military force; an army, navy or air force B. Violation: The Affirmative plan does not meet the definition of ARMED FORCES presented by the Negative team because the Affirmative plan utilizes more than one of the following: Army, Navy and Air force. C. Standards: 1. Dictionary usage - Dictionary definitions are best because each word holds its own denotation and helps to shape the overall message of a phrase or statement. 2. Framer’s intent – The context in which each word lies is what distinguishes what the correct definition should be for each word. Each word of the resolution should be defined as its framers intended them to be. 3. Bright-line - This interpretation provides the best way to determine between topical and nontopical plans by drawing a line between the two. 4. Common language – Common sources should be used to define terms because they are more widely used and definitions are subsequently more widely accepted. 5. Each word has meaning – Each word should hold the same amount of weight because each word has purpose in structuring the concept presented by a phrase or statement, just as in the resolution.

SMN Debate Holloway-Utter

Topicality Armed Forces

D. Voting Issues: 1. Fairness - Non-topical plans attempt to subvert the rules by misinterpreting the resolution, which isn't fair. The affirmative has an unlimited amount of time to research, in contrast with the negative. 2. Ground - Non-topical plans stray outside the ground of the resolution reserved for the negative team. This deletes the possibility of the negative team being able to present any of the following, case-specific evidence, disadvantages, counter-plans, critiques, and any other related arguments. 3. Jurisdiction - The judge is offered two options - for and against the resolution. If the plan is outside of the jurisdiction of the resolution, the judge cannot cast a vote for the government. You as a judge can only vote for things the United States Federal Government has authority over. 4. Education - Running a non-topical case decreases education by seeking competitive gain over fair competition. If we don't talk about the issue the resolution dictates, that decreases education on the issue and leads to technical discussions (like this) that don't really increase the educational value of the debate, therefore making the debate next to worthless. 5.

Real World – When the negative team interprets the topic in an inaccurate way, it decreases the authenticity of the debate and does not mimic the real world situations that high school debate is intended to model.

6. Prima Facia Burden – Above all else, the affirmative must prove that its plan is topical. Inherency, Harms, Solvency, and Significance don’t matter if the plan doesn’t fall under the restraints of the resolution.