Clearly define transportation infrastructure as the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

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

Unformatted text preview: Our best disadvantage links are to large, national changes in policy not tiny changes in local monetary allocation. We should discuss the largest thrusts of the literature, not small projects that only affect one sector like barges or airplanes D. T is a voter for fairness and education, it is critical to preserve the integrity of debate. 3|Page Topicality BDL 1NC – Substantially = without material qualification A. Interpretation – In order to be topical, the Affirmative must not place any qualifications on how the increase investment in transportation infrastructure. That means that they need to invest in all transportation infrastructure, not just one sub-section Substantially is without material qualification BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 1991 (p. 1024 (MHBLUE0036)) Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification. B. The Affirmative only increases investment in ____, not transportation infrastructure as a whole. C. Standards 1. Predictable Limits – Allowing the Affirmative to pick any small sub-set of transportation infrastructure makes it difficult for the negative to compete. We should focus debate on the broad US policies towards transportation, not focus on minute areas that could change rapidly 2. Grammar – Only our interpretation accurately reflects the true meaning of the word substantially, even if increasing all transportation infrastructure seems like a high burden to place on the affirmative we are bound to sit within the limits placed by the resolution D. T is a voter for fairness and education, it is critical to preserve the integrity of debate. 4|Page Topicality BDL Aff Answers – Increase includes create [___] Increase doesn’t require pre-existence Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Judge for the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 2005 (JASON RAY REYNOLDS; MATTHEW RAUSCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees., p. 1090-1 Specifically, we must decide whether charging a higher price for initial insurance than the in sured would otherwise have been charged because of information in a consumer credit report constitutes an "increase in any charge" within the meaning of FCRA. First, we examine the definitions of "increase" and "charge." Hartford Fire contends that, limited to their ordinary definitions, these words apply only when a consumer has previously been charged for insurance and that charge has thereafter been increased by the insurer. The phrase, "has previously been charged," as used by Hartford, refers not only to a rate that the consumer has previously paid for insurance but also to a rate that the consumer has previously been quoted, even if that rate was increased before the consumer made any payment. Reynolds disagrees, asserting that, under the ordinary definition of the term, an increase in a charge also occurs whenever an insurer charges a higher rate than it would otherwise have charged because of any factor--such as adverse credit information, age, or d...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/06/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online