Topicality---Samford - Topicality File Samford Debate...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Topicality File Samford Debate Institute 2010 Galloway/Gramzinski/Maffie Topicality File Samford Debate Institute 2010 Galloway/Gramzinski/Maffie **Military Presence is Troops Only (Shell)—1/1 ** A) Neg Interp: Troops are soldiers only: 1. Military means of or pertaining to soldiers : Stuart Flexner, 1987 (Editor-in-chief), RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, UNABRIDGED, 2nd Ed., 1987, 1220. Military: Of or pertaining to soldiers. 4. befitting, characteristic of, or noting a soldier : a military bearing. 2. Presence means people or units in a particular country. Richard Bowyer, 2004 (Editor), DICTIONARY OF MILITARY TERMS, 3rd Ed. 2004, 187. Presence: The fact of having people or units which represent a particular country or organization within a particular area . B) Violation: the plan doesn’t reduce the number of troops in a topic nation. C) Standards: 1) Fair limits: Their interpretation allows for weapon of the week cases that would explode the topic: our interp allows for cases that remove troops from one or more of six different geographically distinct nations. 2. Ground: AFF interp massively undermines disad and counterplan ground specific to troop withdrawals—they allow individual weapons systems with little effect on overall relations. D) T is a voter for Fairness, Education, and Ground. Topicality File Samford Debate Institute 2010 Galloway/Gramzinski/Maffie Weapon of the Week Bad 1NR extensions Extend limits. The aff interpretation under limits allowing for weapons cases. Exploding aff ground. This makes debate impossible for the neg. Three reasons. 1. There are thousands of cases based off of different military systems Allowing for the affirmative team to reduce commitments or weapons system massively explodes the topic—any kind of plane, tank, truck, jeep, ammunition, etc. all of sudden becomes a topical affirmative. US Military History Companion 2000 . The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford University Press, Inc. Online. Internet. Accessed May 1, 2010 at http://www.answers.com/topic/casualties-1 By World War I, better recoil mechanisms (which improved the rapidity and accuracy of fire), the introduction of indirect firing techniques, and advances in high explosives and shell design made artillery once again the most destructive force on the battlefield. More recently, landmines and aerial attack (bombardment, strafing, and napalm) have produced significant casualties . The huge number of weapons systems on the modern battlefield and their more rapid rate of fire has also increased casualties, and chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons pose even greater threats to survival. 2. This under limiting of the topic explodes the neg research burden and forces us to come up with a different strategy for every single weapons system. The aff can literally run a different weapon every week and the neg could never keep up. This destroys fairness because debate becomes a race to the bottom to find the most obscure weapon. Fairness is key to education because 1. It is the only way both bottom to find the most obscure weapon....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 51

Topicality---Samford - Topicality File Samford Debate...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online