{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Iraq 2AC blocks_policy aff

Iraq 2AC blocks_policy aff - J(E)DI 2010 Naputi/Taylor 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
J(E)DI 2010 1 Naputi/Taylor 2AC BLOCKS ***AT: TOPICALITY*** AT: Military Presence = Equipment 1. We Meet: We meet their definition because plan says we require the removal of all U.S. presence —everything included equipment will be removed when the withdrawal happens. 2. We do not violate the violation (insert answer here) 3. Counter interpretation- Military Presence is troops. Presence is the group of personnel MSN/Encarta No date (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737158/presence.html) A group of official personnel, especially police, military forces , or diplomats, present or stationed in a place to represent their country and maintain its interest. maintained a heavy military presence in the capital . 4. Reasons to Prefer/Vote AFF A. Preserves Education: This definition not only helps the AFF but it helps the NEG, by restricting the AFF to case that strictly reduce troops—preserves topic education B. Limits: Defining military presence as troops is the most predictable definition that preserves limits on this year’s topic.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
J(E)DI 2010 2 Naputi/Taylor 2AC BLOCKS AT: Reduce ≠ eliminate 1) WE MEET: Less than whole can be zero or we reduce the presence in the me by less than whole, by taking troops out of Iraq 2) Counter Interpretation: Substantially is more than 5% Leo 08 (Kevin Leo** J.D. Candidate, Spring 2008, Hastings College of the Law. Hastings Business Law Journal Spring, 2008 4 Hastings Bus. L.J. 297 LEXIS) Lobbying Activities and the Substantial Part Test In Seasongood v. Commissioner, the court held that devoting less than five percent of activities to lobbying is not substantial . n75 Taxpayers had contributed money to a good government league and sought to claim their contributions as deductions on their income tax returns. n76 The Internal Revenue Code allowed deductions for individual contributions and gifts to corporations operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes. n77 The term "exclusively," as used in this section, did not have its ordinary meaning, and activities that were minor and insubstantial would not disqualify charitable or educational corporations from the benefits of the exemption or disqualify individual contributors to such corporations from deducting their contributions. n78 The court reasoned that organizations formed for purely charitable purposes might, in the course of their existence, as an instance of their activities, be forced to take part in some political activity. n79 Only when such activities constitute a substantial part of their general activity would relief be denied. n80 While the league's activities were essentially educational, even if some were condemned as propaganda or attempts to influence legislation, they were not substantial since they engaged less than one-twentieth (or five percent) of the time and effort that the league put forth in the public interest. n81 Thus, the league's socalled "political activities" were not substantial in relation to its other activities. n82 In contrast, the court in Haswell v. United States held that spending over sixteen percent of an organization's time on lobbying
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}