Topicality Armed Forces 2

Topicality: Armed Forces Definition: the combined military, naval, and air forces of a nation Definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary Interpretation: In order to use the Armed Forces in plan text you have to increase a combined number of persons serving in the military, naval, and air forces of a nation. The resolution context itself used Armed Forces as a whole, not individual categories such as Coast Guard, Army, or Marines. Standards: 1) Limits- The affirmative team is over limiting the definition of Armed Forces and only using one specific area of context. Overlimiting the resolution kills case ground for not only the negative but also the affirmative. This causes more work for the negative and in result hurts fairness at the end of the round. Also, by overlimiting the resolution it kills predictability because we only focus on one aspect of the definition rather than the whole word itself. 2) Ground- By the affirmative choosing one specific area in the whole word Armed Forces they kill ground for the negative. The negative has to work with a small portion of the word, rather than the whole thing which would be predictable. The negative is then forced to work with generic D/A’s, K’s, and CP’s. Ground is essential to preserve fairness and education in the round so both sides of the argument are equal to begin with. 3) Predictability- When the affirmative chooses such a miniscule aspect of the definition of Armed Forces the negative no longer can predict what kind of arguments are going to be run in a round. From the beginning of the debate the negative should be able to predict what arguments to run so the AFF/NEG has good clash. When the affirmative takes that away, fairness and education leave the round. VOTERS: Fairness- Debate is a game. In order to have a successful game each side must be fair. When the affirmative chose such a small part of the word WITHIN the resolution, fairness is lost. The negative then refers back to the generic D/A’s and case arguments. Education- Education is the sole reason for debate. Education is essential to make the game run well. When the affirmative minuscule’s the debate by choosing a specific area we lose education in the round and are forced to run generic arguments not enhancing our debate abilities. For these reasons topicality is a voter, and is not fair to let an affirmative team get by with a case that is not topical and destroys education in the round.