3 Part T File 3 Part T Table of Contents

1/12

DADT Establish Policy 1NC.....2 DADT Substantial = 5% 1NC.......3 DADT Substantial = 5% Block...........4,5 WIC Establish Policy 1NC........6 DADT Substantial = 5% 1NC.......7 DADT Substantial = 5% Block.......8,9 In = throughout 1NC.........10 In = throughout Line-by-line blocks........11-13

3 Part T File DADT ESTABLISH POLICY 1NC A. INTERPRETATION: THE AFF MUST CREATE A NEW PLAN FORMULATED OUTSIDE THE JUDICIARY THAT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVING Establish To set up; found Dictionary.com
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish)

2/12

Policy
Pronunciation: 'p-l&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -cies

an overall plan, principle, or guideline; especially : one formulated outside of the judiciary <obligated to consider legislative policy on the matter in their decision> Dictionary.com
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish)

B. VIOLATION: THEY HAVE THE COURTS/CONGRESS RULE THAT ONE SPECIFIC BARRIER TO SERVING SHOULD BE REMOVED C. STANDARDS 1. LIMITS: THERE ARE SO MANY MINOR REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY TO THE MILITARY THAT THE AFF COULD MINUTELY CHANGE OR ELIMINATE TO ALLOW INCREASED SERVICE: AGEISM, RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, POLITICAL PROTESTS, EDUCATION RESTRICTION, NON-CITIZEN RE-ENLISTMENT RESTRICTION, HANDICAPPED, AND MANY MORE 2. PREDICATBILITY: THERE IS NO WAY THE NEG CAN PREPARE FOR EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE CASE THAT CHANGES A SMALL REQUIREMENT FOR ENTRANCE TO THE MILITARY 3. GROUND: DAS AND CPS ARE LOST SINCE THERE ARE NO LINKS TO THESE TINY CASES D. VOTING ISSUE: VOTE ON TOPICALITY OR EVENTUALLY EVERY ROUND WOULD HAVE A NEW, UNBEATABLE CASE

3 Part T File DADT 1NC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% 1NC A. Interpretation the affirmative must make greater the number of people participating in the Armed Forces by at least 5%.

3/12

Substantial equals 5% or more. Business Wire 06 We continued to make substantial improvements in profitability as operating margins exceeded 5% in the fourth quarter, drive by expansion of our higher-margin offshore operations,
growth in our value-added marketing and technology services and success in leveraging corporate infrastructure.

Increase equals to make greater Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish) Increase To make greater or larger B. Violation: They do not on face increase enough people serving in the Armed Forces. There are more than 2.6 million serving in the Armed Forces. US Department of Labor 06
August 4, Bureau of Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm

more than 2.6 million people served in the Armed Forces. More than 1.4 million were on active duty in the Armed Forcesabout 487,000 in the Army, 350,000 in the Navy, 356,000 in the Air Force, and 185,000 in the Marine Corps. In addition, more than 1.2 million people served in their Reserve components, and the Air and Army National Guard. In addition, 33,000 individuals served in the Coast Guard,
In 2005, which is now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Table 1 shows the occupational composition of the 1.2 million active-duty enlisted personnel in February 2005; table 2 presents similar information for the 216,000 active-duty officers.

Also, 5% of 2.6 million is 130,000. The affirmative does not get an increase of at least 130,000. C. Standards 1. Limits: They allow for an infinite amount of policies that only increase a minor amount, crazily underlimiting the topic. 2. Ground: The negative loses all arguments based off the number of people increasing. This includes spending DAs, politics DAs, movement DAs, and Kritiks based off a substantial event, and any CP that increases les than 5%. 3. Effects Topicality is an independent voter. Allowing the affirmative to create a plan not solely based on an increase in the amount of people explodes the negatives research burden by making us research anything that eventually can lead to an increase while unfairly lets them claim advantages that arent based off an increase. Even if their plan decreases the amount of people serving, they can still claim their advantages. D. Voting Issue: Topicality should be decided based on competing interpretations. It is not what they do, but what their interpretation justifies. Vote negative for fairness and education by preserving negative limits.

3 Part T File DADT SUBSTANTIAL = 5% BLOCK

4/12

ALLOWING GAYS INTO THE MILITARY WOULD ALSO LOSE 38,000 IN RECRUTING ANNUALYWHEREAS THEIR EVIDENCE JUST INDICATES A TOTAL INCREASE OF 41,000 HOMOSEXUALS SERVING. AIR FORCE TIMES 05
October 10, Survey Casts Doubt on Recruits Reluctance to Serve with Gays, http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressClips/05_1011_AirforceTimes.htm.

21 percent of service-age youths say they would not join if there were openly gay service members might still be considered a powerful argument for maintaining the status quo."If 21 percent of these individuals [would be] less likely to enlist following repeal of the ban, this means that perhaps 38,000 potential recruits.
With recruiting at a low point, the fact that

YOU MUST NOT LOOK AT THEIR EVIDENCE OF THE 41,000 THEY CLAIM WOULD ENLIST BECAUSE OVERALL, THEY MUST SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE AND WHEN 38,000 LESS WOULD JOIN EACH YEAR, AT THE MOST THAT WOULD BE ONLY A OF 1 PERCENT INCREASE. THIS EVIDENCE SHOWS HOW THEY WILL NOT EVEN MEET THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION WITH THAT INSIGNIFICANT INCREASE. ALSO EXTEND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CARD SHOWING THAT THE CURRENT NUMBER IS 2.6 MILLION. NOW ONTO THE COUNTER INTERPRETATION DEBATE. (Ground) 1. ON THE GROUND DEBATE, BECAUSE THEY DONT ACTUALLY INCREASE A LARGE ENOUGH AMOUNT, WE LOST LINKS TO OUR BUDGET DA, VOLUNTEERISM DA, ALL TRADEOFF DAS, AND ALL CPS THAT WOULD CHANGE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY JOIN. (C/I) 2. THEY DONT MEET THEIR OWN COUNTER-INTERPRETATION SAYING THE INCREASE MUST BE COMPARED TO CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS. I CHALLENGE THEM TO FIND SOMEONE THAT WOULD HONESTLY SAY THAT SOMETHING LESS THAN 5% IS SUBSTANTIALYOU MUST VOTE NEG TO PRESERVE LIMITS. (Limits) 3. AS FOR OUR LIMITS, WE DONT LIMIT ARMED FORCES CASES WITH PLANS THAT GET MORE THEN 130K PEOPLE INTO THE ARMED FORCES. PLUS THERE IS ALWAYS THE DRAFT WHICH IS TOPICAL WITH THAT INCREASE. THERE ARE ALSO TOPICAL CASES THAT MEET A 5% INCREASE IN EVERY OTHER NATIONAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION

3 Part T File

5/12

(Literature) 4. LITERATURE DOES NOT CHECKTHEY ARE ONLY RUNNING THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY KNOW ITS SO UNTOPICAL THAT NOTHING CAN BEAT IT THEREFORE WE HAVE TO WASTE TIME RESEARCHING CASES THAT ARENT TOPICAL WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM BETTER SPENT TIME. (Arbitrary/Percents bad) 5. AS FOR THEIR ARBITRARY ARGUMENTTHEY DONT EVEN INCREASE NEAR 5% BASED ON CURRENT FORCE LEVELS. WE ARE GIVING THEM SO MUCH LENIENCY BY ONLY MAKING THEM INCREASE 5%. ON THIS YEARS RESOLUTION WHICH SPEAKS OF NUMBERS, A NUMBER VALUE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION UNLIKE THEIR VAGUE DEFINITION [EXTEND FX VOTER IF DROPPED OR ANSWERED BADLY] YOU MUST ALSO LOOK AT OUT VOTER. WE MADE THE POINT THAT IT IS MORE THAN JUST WHAT THEY DO, BUT WHAT THEY JUSTIFY. EVEN IF YOU FEEL THERE IS NO ABUSE OR GROUND LOSS IN THIS ROUND, YOU MUST STILL VOTE NEGATIVE ON TOPICALITY BECAUSE THEIR AFF STILL JUSTIFIES THE CREATION AND RUNNING OF OTHER AFFS AS MENTIONED EARLIER SUCH AS ALLOWING INCREASED SERVICE IN THE MILITARY FOR AGEISM, RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE OTHERS MENTIONED EARLIER.

Substantial definition extension SUBSTANTIAL MEANS 5% Treasury Regulations 05

Subchapter A, Sec. 1.103-11, TaxAlmanac (b) Substantial user. In general, a substantial user of a facility includes any nonexempt person who regularly uses a part of such facility in his trade or business. However, unless a facility, or a part thereof, is constructed, reconstructed, or acquired specifically for

a nonexempt person shall be considered to be a substantial user only if (1) the gross revenue derived by such user with respect to such facility is more than 5 percent of the total revenue derived by all users of such facility or (2) the amount of area of the facility occupied by such user is more than 5 percent of the entire usable area of the facility. Under
a nonexempt person or persons, such of a facility certain facts and circumstances, where a nonexempt person has a contractual or preemptive right to the exclusive use of property or a portion of property, such person may be a substantial user of such property. A substantial user may also be a lessee or sublessee of all or any portion of the facility. A licensee or similar person may also be a substantial user where his use is regular and is not merely a casual, infrequent, or sporadic use of the facility. Absent special circumstances, individuals who are physically present on or in the facility as employees of a substantial user shall not be deemed to be substantial users.

3 Part T File WIC ESTABLISH POLICY 1NC A. INTERPRETATION: THE AFF MUST CREATE A NEW PLAN FORMULATED OUTSIDE THE JUDICIARY THAT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVING Establish To set up; found Dictionary.com
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish)

6/12

Policy
Pronunciation: 'p-l&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -cies

an overall plan, principle, or guideline; especially : one formulated outside of the judiciary <obligated to consider legislative policy on the matter in their decision> Dictionary.com
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish)

B. VIOLATION: THEY HAVE THE COURTS/CONGRESS RULE THAT ONE SPECIFIC BARRIER TO SERVING SHOULD BE REMOVED C. STANDARDS 1. LIMITS: THERE ARE SO MANY MINOR REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY TO THE MILITARY THAT THE AFF COULD MINUTELY CHANGE OR ELIMINATE TO ALLOW INCREASED SERVICE: AGEISM, RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION, POLITICAL PROTESTS, EDUCATION RESTRICTION, NON-CITIZEN RE-ENLISTMENT RESTRICTION, HANDICAPPED, AND MANY MORE 2. PREDICATBILITY: THERE IS NO WAY THE NEG CAN PREPARE FOR EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE CASE THAT CHANGES A SMALL REQUIREMENT FOR ENTRANCE TO THE MILITARY 3. GROUND: DAS AND CPS ARE LOST SINCE THERE ARE NO LINKS TO THESE TINY CASES D. VOTING ISSUE: VOTE ON TOPICALITY OR EVENTUALLY EVERY ROUND WOULD HAVE A NEW, UNBEATABLE CASE

3 Part T File WIC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% 1NC A. Interpretation the affirmative must make greater the number of people participating in the Armed Forces by at least 5%.

7/12

Substantial equals 5% or more. Business Wire 06 We continued to make substantial improvements in profitability as operating margins exceeded 5% in the fourth quarter, drive by expansion of our higher-margin offshore operations,
growth in our value-added marketing and technology services and success in leveraging corporate infrastructure.

Increase equals to make greater Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish) Increase To make greater or larger B. Violation: They do not on face increase enough people serving in the Armed Forces. There are more than 2.6 million serving in the Armed Forces. US Department of Labor 06
August 4, Bureau of Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm

more than 2.6 million people served in the Armed Forces. More than 1.4 million were on active duty in the Armed Forcesabout 487,000 in the Army, 350,000 in the Navy, 356,000 in the Air Force, and 185,000 in the Marine Corps. In addition, more than 1.2 million people served in their Reserve components, and the Air and Army National Guard. In addition, 33,000 individuals served in the Coast Guard,
In 2005, which is now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Table 1 shows the occupational composition of the 1.2 million active-duty enlisted personnel in February 2005; table 2 presents similar information for the 216,000 active-duty officers.

Also, 5% of 2.6 million is 130,000. The affirmative does not get an increase of at least 130,000. C. Standards 4. Limits: They allow for an infinite amount of policies that only increase a minor amount, crazily underlimiting the topic. 5. Ground: The negative loses all arguments based off the number of people increasing. This includes spending DAs, politics DAs, movement DAs, and Kritiks based off a substantial event, and any CP that increases les than 5%. 6. Effects Topicality is an independent voter. Allowing the affirmative to create a plan not solely based on an increase in the amount of people explodes the negatives research burden by making us research anything that eventually can lead to an increase while unfairly lets them claim advantages that arent based off an increase. Even if their plan decreases the amount of people serving, they can still claim their advantages. D. Voting Issue: Topicality should be decided based on competing interpretations. It is not what they do, but what their interpretation justifies. Vote negative for fairness and education by preserving negative limits.

3 Part T File WIC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% BLOCK

8/12

FIRST EXTEND ACROSS OUR DEFINITION THAT THEY MUST INCREASE 5%. NOT ONLY IS ANY INCREASE PROVISIONAL, AS IS SEEN HOW THEY DONT HAVE EVIDENCE SHOWING IT, BUT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE OF 130K WHICH IS ONLY 5%. ALLOWING WOMYN INTO THE MILITARY COULD ACTUALLY DECREASE THE NET AMOUNT OF PEOPLE Browne, 01
[Kingsley R., Prof of Law @ Wayne State U Law School, Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective, 49 Buffalo L. Rev. 51, lexis] bernick A. Integration May Diminish the Attractiveness of Military Service to Men and May Affect What Kind of Men Join Throughout the

men have joined the military both to test and to prove their manhood, attracted by the traditionally masculine life of the military. In an era in which we rely on volunteers to staff the armed services, eliminating one of the primary attractions of the military to men may have negative effects on the military's ability to field a sufficient number of troops. Although some argue that female "participation in
years, combat will not change the nature of our military," n746 that can only be true, if at all, if there are very small numbers of women. Even now, it is fair to say that the military is a very different place from what it would be if women were not widely included. It is difficult to measure the extent to which men might be less inclined to join the military because of the integration of women. People's motivations for joining the military are not necessarily accessible to us, or, perhaps, even to themselves. Respondents to surveys asking military personnel why they joined tend to identify such factors as educational and economic opportunities, serving one's country, and so forth. n747 Few say that they are joining to turn themselves into men or to make themselves feel manly. That would, after all, be a very unmanly thing to say. Men who write about their decision to join long after the fact, however, when they do not feel that their manhood must be proved, often identify the need to test their manhood as a major motivation. n748 Concerns about the effect on the willingness of men to join the military were expressed during debate over the question of admitting women into the

The present male-dominated, sea-going facet of Navy life is one that is understood and accepted by the country and the men in the Navy. Men join the Navy for many different reasons; however, a certain portion join and remain in the Navy because they enjoy being in a job which has been historically associated with fellowship among men in a difficult and dangerous endeavor. Changing the fabric of the Navy by integrating women into all combat roles might well reduce the attractions of the Navy to this segment of
service academies. Admiral Worth Bagley, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, testified before Congress as follows: mankind, as well as to some of those men who might, in the future, join the Navy and make it a career. The services have recently had difficulty attracting enough recruits, in large part because of the booming civilian economy and a smaller cohort of 18-to 22-year-olds. n750 Given the current orientation of military recruiting, which is to compete essentially on civilian-labor-market terms, these difficulties are not surprising.

When the military is perceived as just another job, it lacks the special attributes that have traditionally attracted young recruits. It may not be a coincidence that the Marine Corps - the
most "masculine" of the services, the only service to retain sex-segregated basic training, and the service accused of being the most "disconnected" from civilian society - is the only service that has continued to be successful at meeting its recruiting goals. n751 Indeed, a study of recruiting practices commissioned by the Pentagon found that only the Marine Corps, among all the services, articulates a clear image. n752 That image, most clearly, is one of masculine toughness.Sexual integration may not affect just the numbers of men who join; it may also negatively affect which men join. One major criticism of the volunteer force is that it has substituted an occupational orientation for an institutional orientation; it has come to compete with the civilian sector on civilian terms. n753 Thus, there is substantial focus on compensation competitive with the civilian sector and [*198] training that will have value outside the military. Diminishing the sense of "warrior spirit" that is associated with the military would predictably enhance that shift. n754 This may hold true even for men who are not in combat MOSs, and, indeed, it may be even more true of them. Under the current Marine Corps ethos, for example, "every Marine is a rifleman." n755 Thus, even Marines in combat service support enjoy the cachet of "warrior." But when they work side by side with women, who are not eligible to participate in rifle companies, that mystique may diminish.

3 Part T File WIC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% BLOCK

9/12

THIS EVIDENCE SHOWS HOW THEY WILL NOT EVEN MEET THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WE CAN BE SURE OF IS PEOPLE WILL LEAVE THE MILITAY POST PLAN. ALSO EXTEND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CARD SHOWING THAT THE CURRENT NUMBER IS 2.6 MILLION. NOW ONTO THE COUNTER INTERPRETATION DEBATE. (Ground) 6. ON THE GROUND DEBATE, BECAUSE THEY DONT ACTUALLY INCREASE A LARGE ENOUGH AMOUNT, WE LOST LINKS TO OUR BUDGET DA, VOLUNTEERISM DA, ALL TRADEOFF DAS, AND ALL CPS THAT WOULD CHANGE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY JOIN. (C/I) 7. THEY DONT MEET THEIR OWN COUNTER-INTERPRETATION SAYING THE INCREASE MUST BE COMPARED TO CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS. I CHALLENGE THEM TO FIND SOMEONE THAT WOULD HONESTLY SAY THAT SOMETHING LESS THAN 5% IS SUBSTANTIALYOU MUST VOTE NEG TO PRESERVE LIMITS. (Limits) 8. AS FOR OUR LIMITS, WE DONT LIMIT ARMED FORCES CASES WITH PLANS THAT GET MORE THEN 130K PEOPLE INTO THE ARMED FORCES. PLUS THERE IS ALWAYS THE DRAFT WHICH IS TOPICAL WITH THAT INCREASE. THERE ARE ALSO TOPICAL CASES THAT MEET A 5% INCREASE IN EVERY OTHER NATIONAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION (Literature) 9. LITERATURE DOES NOT CHECKTHEY ARE ONLY RUNNING THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY KNOW ITS SO UNTOPICAL THAT NOTHING CAN BEAT IT THEREFORE WE HAVE TO WASTE TIME RESEARCHING CASES THAT ARENT TOPICAL WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM BETTER SPENT TIME. (Arbitrary/Percents bad) 10. AS FOR THEIR ARBITRARY ARGUMENTTHEY DONT EVEN INCREASE NEAR 5% BASED ON CURRENT FORCE LEVELS. WE ARE GIVING THEM SO MUCH LENIENCY BY ONLY MAKING THEM INCREASE 5%. ON THIS YEARS RESOLUTION WHICH SPEAKS OF NUMBERS, A NUMBER VALUE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION UNLIKE THEIR VAGUE DEFINITION

[EXTEND FX VOTER IF DROPPED OR ANSWERED BADLY]

YOU MUST ALSO LOOK AT OUT VOTER. WE MADE THE POINT THAT IT IS MORE THAN JUST WHAT THEY DO, BUT WHAT THEY JUSTIFY. EVEN IF YOU FEEL THERE IS NO ABUSE OR GROUND LOSS IN THIS ROUND, YOU MUST STILL VOTE NEGATIVE ON TOPICALITY BECAUSE THEIR AFF STILL JUSTIFIES THE CREATION AND RUNNING OF OTHER AFFS AS MENTIONED EARLIER SUCH AS ALLOWING INCREASED SERVICE IN THE MILITARY FOR AGEISM, RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE OTHERS MENTIONED EARLIER.

3 Part T File Topicality IN: Cant Specify a Program 1NC Shell

10/12

A. Interpretation Topical affirmatives increase persons serving in the entirety of a national service agency, not just in one aspect of it: Westers Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged In (prep.) throughout the whole of a place or object B. Violation The aff doesnt increase persons in the _______ broadly, just in the _________ program. C. Standards: 1. Ground- It is impossible to get critical links off of the [insert specific branch here ]. This will undermine our ability to begin to understand the assumptions of the resolution. Additionally it is impossible to run plan inclusive Counterplans when they pick a certain actor within the topic. 2. Limits- Their interpretation will blow up the resolution by allowing for countless actors who are under the military, like NSA, Navy, Air Force, Marines as well as potential JAG cases[if not armed forces, insert specific subsets examples], while also allowing infinite number of cases with the other agencies in the resolution. 3. Extra Topicality- This is an independent reason to vote neg, by specifying their subsets actor in plan text they are generating extra defense by being able to put no links on all of our disadvantages. Additionally they can also generate extra offense by being able to criticize most of the military.

3 Part T File In = Throughout: Line-by-line Blocks

11/12

Extend our interpretation that in means throughout. This means they must actually increase throughout an entire national service program, not just a small subset of one. They specify the increase of a subset. Their interpretation doesnt resolve any of our offensive arguments: First is the defense against their interpretation. A. Still explodes limits Ill answer this in more detail later. B. We still get stripped of ground under their interpretation an aff that only affects say the automotive training aspect of learn and serve can no link our disads and solvency arguments for why learn and serve is ineffective by saying they dont apply to their specific sector. We should be able to get disads to the program in its entirety otherwise we are forced to resort to hypergenerics. C. This interpretation would let affirmatives violate the word substantial because a part of the national service agency that is not very important could be acted upon by the affirmative. Within just means not exceeding, doesnt mean they can be a subcomponent Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/within Within: at or to some amount or degree not exceeding: within two degrees of freezing. This means that their interpretation is not competitive we can permute and argue that topical affs must affect the entire agency without exceeding the mandate of the agency solves all of their offense. Now for our offense. First extend across ground; all of our literature is specific to increases in the whole [insert main program]. Look to all of their no link arguments on the flow as individual instances of abuse. Also, they undermine education because when we have no specific literature for our offcase arguments we are forced to debate with generic links. Next onto limits; allowing the affirmative to work within a subset program allows for thousands of cases as these subsets. They also allow for smaller subsets to be created which gives the Aff infinite limits when creating a case. [If not citizen corps, insert specific evi] There are over two thousand different divisions of citizencorps thats 2,000 affs just in the Citizen Corps. CitizenCorps Online 2006 (http://www.citizencorps.gov/ We all have a role in hometown security) Citizen Corps asks you to embrace the personal responsibility to be prepared; to get
training in first aid and emergency skills; and to volunteer to support local emergency responders, disaster relief, and community safety.

Currently there are: 2,116 Councils which serve 210,862,216 people or 73 % of the total U.S.
population.

3 Part T File In = Throughout: Line-by-line Blocks

12/12

On the defense: We allow way more than six cases there are a wide variety of different solvency mechanisms that affs can choose from when determining how to get more people into each branch that provides flexibility. We would still allow cases like DADT, immigrant restrictions, age restrictions, end strength, etc. so long as the solvency mechanism applies to the national service program in entirety. The aff can still claim advantages based upon the variety of different programs. For example an aff could increase funding for the peace corps then read cards saying that a specific program of the peace corps would be beneficial if it had more funding. There is virtually no limit to the potential advantage area making limits on plan texts critical. Its better to overlimit than to underlimit you must look to our limits evidence showing there are thousands of potential cases. Even if theyre right that we only allow six topical affs that is still far better than literally thousands of them. You should prefer the education internal link of depth because learning a lot about a limited number of issues is far more valuable than is gaining cursory knowledge about a lot of random subjects. [Only read if dropped Extra-T] Finally extend across the independent voter for extra-topicality. We put an independent voter on this; them not answering is an automatic reason to vote down the affirmative. Topicality must be evaluated before anything else including theory. The violation is that because they specifically put their non-resolutional actor in the plan text, they are using to gain ground off. Do not allow any new arguments on this because the 2NR should be a time to finish up the round, not answer new arguments. [If they answered Extra-T, read below] 1. Unpredictable- No way to predict actions or agencies outside of the resolution. 2. Jurisdiction- Can vote for anything outside of resolution 3. Promotes lazy debate- XT turns into just a way of escaping clash 4. Loss of ground- We lost all CP ground when they blur the distinction by acting beyond the resolution 5. Kills education- makes us debate issues we are not prepared for; this leads to more breadth with no depth

3 Part T File In = Throughout: Line-by-line Blocks

13/12

AT: We Meet The Total # of People in the whole Agency is Higher They dont meet our Websters definition says that you have to affect the agency throughout its whole. They only affect certain components of the agency. Even if the number of persons serving in the entire agency is made greater by the sum of its parts, that still doesnt resolve the throughout element throughout means that every part of the agency must be affected.

AT: Not Real World Specific Programs Get Funded Independently Thats not true each year when an agencys funding is renewed every part of the agency is allocated an amount of money. If this argument were true then parts of agencies wouldnt have any funding and would just dissolve away. Debate isnt real world plan texts are fifty words long but legislation is fifty pages long and congress doesnt have a resolution. The competitive nature of debate means that you should always default to questions of fairness so that the game can be played equitably even if doing so makes it not as realistic as it could be. AT: You Exclude Education About the Specific Programs This claim is bull. A. PICs negatives can counterplan out of specific programs and the net benefit debate allows debate over the specific programs. B. Advantages affs can claim advantages based on the benefits of the specific programs so their merits can be discussed BUT the neg will still have predictable ground against the plan mechanism since the plan will affect the agency broadly. C. Disads the neg can read disads to specific programs that the aff has to answer and we can learn about those programs that way. D. They have no impact to why this education is so critical learning about the core functions of the agency within the context of the debate surrounding how to get more people involved is the heart of the topic. E. There is no depth to this education their interpretation encourages program of the week affs where each week you write a new aff that funds some obscure program in one of the agencies so there is no true education about the intricacies of these programs. F. Their interpretation hurts education because it forces us to resort to hyper generics if every week theres a new aff about a random national service program well be stuck going for things like statism or veto cheato every round which is anti-educational.