This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Topicality Interpretation : Provide counter definition and implications Violation : Their definition doesn’t meet this definition/implication because…. Being non-topical means the affirmative is never fulfilling the burden given by the words in the resolution. Standards: 1. Ground standards: A. Division of Ground – The affirmative interpretation defines affirmative and negative ground in such a way where the affirmative is placed in a more preferable position. <Explain why your ground is bad vis-à-vis the affirmative.> An unfair division of ground links to fairness in so far as starting the round with unfair positions skews the substantive debate in such a way where even superior debating cannot compensate for the relative starting points. B. Time skew – The affirmative interpretation creates an unfair time burden on the negative strategy by requiring me to respond to multiple sufficient methods of affirmation that she can sever out of in the next speech, collapsing down to one. This prevents me from constructing a positional strategy against a stable advocacy, setting unfair terms for the debate. 2. Predictability Standards A. Topical literature: by allowing them to falsely define the definitions in the resolution it’s no longer predictable insofar as the topical literature is no longer applicable. This allows them to draw upon whatever sources they want, which allows them to use obscure argumentation and that possess no link to the resolution. This is no longer fair insofar as it takes away the ability for the negative to answer the affirmative under the scope of the resolution. This is also links back to education insofar as it’s no longer education because we can’t make substantive, developed, and supported arguments. B. Resolutional text: they no longer are restricted by the text of the resolution and so are allowed to use impacts and arguments that are extra-resolutional meaning there’s no way I can predict what arguments they’re going to make nor how they will function in the round. This impacts back to fairness because there’s no way of knowing what facet of the resolution they will chose to focus in on. It’s also uneducational because it shifts the focus of the resolution away from the topic at hand and allows the affirmative to make random arguments that aren’t logically warranted and compatible with the topic we’re trying to debate. Voters: (look to section about why fairness and education are voters ) Implications: (same as voter section) REJECT THE DEBATER:-You reject the debater for reasons of fairness and education and the fairness or educational aspects of the activity come before the truth value of the resolution insofar as they dictate how 1 we determine the validity of the resolution....
View Full Document