LHS Debate 09-10

Rachel and Robin

T Shells

O-spec

1. Definition: The US Federal Government is all 3 branches

Read Definition (Scuton & Prof 07)

2. Violation: The AFF team over specifies by specifying one branch of the USFG

3. Standards:

A. Limits: By over specifying the AFF team explodes the ground. As soon as you allow
the AFF to determine a specific branch of the government, who is to stop them from
determining specific offices in the bureaucracy? Even under conservative estimates the
ground would at least triple. It is vital to limit the AFF to a manageable amount of ground

B. Education: With no limits we can never be prepared for the AFF case. This destroys
education because we will only be able to run generic, repetitive arguments. Since education
is the whole reason for doing debate, it is vital to preserve it.

C. Fairness: If we can’t predict the AFF case than we can never win. This destroys
fairness in debate.

4. Voters: This is a voter for fairness, jurisdiction, and education

1
LHS Debate 09-10
Rachel and Robin
T Shells
Increase Not Removing a Barrier

1. Definition: Increase is to make greater in number or value.

Read def. pg. 36 (Merriam Webster Online)
2. Violation: The AFF does not increase social services directly. Instead they merely
remove a barrier.
3. Standards:
A. Limits: It is important that a definition provides enough limits. There are an infinite
number of ways a plan could effectually increase social services by removing various
barriers, so it is vital to limit the AFF team to plans that directly increase.
B. Predictability: Because of the infinite number of ways to remove barriers, such cases
are unpredictable for the NEG. Unpredictability is bad because if we cannot prepare
for the AFF case it hurts the education and the fairness of the round.
C. Topic Specific Education: Under their definition we don’t discuss the resolution, we
discuss an infinite number of steps.
D. FX Bad:
i. No Brightline: Who determines how many steps are too many? By allowing
them to be FX topical by even one step you justify hundreds of steps
ii. Topicality: you cant be mostly topical, you are topical or you arnt. If they only
become topical through the effects of their case, than they are simply not
topical
iii. Destroys Education: By being insanely unpredictable, our education is killed.
We can never prepare for their case, and therefore there will never be the topic
specific education necciscary to a good round. We are reduced to running
generic, repetitive neg strats that suck.
iv. FX T becomes an independent voter. You vote the aff team down for screwing
the debate
4. Voters: T is a voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction.

2
LHS Debate 09-10
Rachel and Robin
T Shells
T: Persons in Poverty

A. Interpretation: Persons living in poverty is defined by the federal guidelines

A. Interpretation: Federal model is the most predictable –federal guidelines are more
accurate than the threshold
DHHS 9 (Department of Health and Human Services, “The 2009 HHS Poverty Guidelines: One
Version of the [U.S.] Federal Poverty Measure”, AD: 7/9/9) LS

There are two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure: The poverty
thresholds, and the poverty guidelines.The poverty thresholds are the original version of
the federal poverty measure. They are updated each year by the Census Bureau (although
they were originally developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security
Administration). The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes — for instance,
preparing estimates of the number of Americans in poverty each year. (In other words, all
official poverty population figures are calculated using the poverty thresholds, not the
guidelines.) Poverty thresholds since 1980 and weighted average poverty thresholds since
1959 are available on the Census Bureau’s Web site. For an example of how the Census
Bureau applies the thresholds to a family’s income to determine its poverty status, see
“How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty” on the Census Bureau’s web site. The
poverty guidelines are the other version of the federal poverty measure. They are
issued each year in the Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). The guidelines are a simplification of the poverty thresholds for use
for administrative purposes — for instance, determining financial eligibility for
certain federal programs. The Federal Register notice of the 2009 poverty guidelines is
available.

B. Violation: The aff plan directly gives aid to persons not living in poverty

(insert specific card here)

C. Standards

1. Limits – failure to limit the debate to persons in poverty explodes the topic.
Literally ever government policy affects persons in poverty; we must restrict it
to ones that directly give aide.
2. Ground – Universal Counter plans and criticism of the federal poverty line
are core parts of the neg ground that are destroyed when they run a plan
giving aid directly to those above the poverty line
3. Predictability: We will never be able to predict which group of people above
the poverty line they will be affecting. This makes it impossible to prepare and
destroys education
4. Contextuality: our definition of poverty is the most predictable because it’s
defined by the resolution actor – when the usfg enacts poverty policies, this is
the definition they turn to.

3
LHS Debate 09-10
Rachel and Robin
T Shells
D. This is a voter for fairness and education

4
LHS Debate 09-10
Rachel and Robin
T Shells

T Substantial

A. Interpretation: Substantial must be a considerable amount

Substantial is of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or size

The Random House College Dictionary 73, p. 844

Substantial - is of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or size.

B. Violation: The Aff plan does not increase by a substantial amount

C. Standards

1. Limits: By not increasing to a substantial degree, the Aff explodes the possible
ground that the neg has to combat. We can never prepare for the tinniest changes
in federal social service programs, plans have to be limited to ones that make a
considerable difference.
2. Predictability: our definition of substantial is standard. If the Aff is not at least
increasing a considerable amount, then they are clearly violating the resolution.
3. Reasonability: In the context of the topic, the aff can have next to no advantages
and impacts if they are not making at least a considerable difference. Fitting this
definition is ultimately beneficial for both teams
4. Education: The huge amount of ground allowed by the AFF destroys our ability to
have clash or education in debate, eliminating the reason to participate in the
activity at all.

D. This is a voter for fairness, jurisdiction, and education