{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Topicality---Samford

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
Topicality File Samford Debate Institute 2010 Galloway/Gramzinski/Maffie
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
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.
Background image of page 2
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 sides learn equally, and no one would do debate if it is unfair.
Background image of page 3

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}