TopiKality

(The argument formerly known as framework)

Topicality
A. Interpretation: the AFF should advocate USFG economic engagement of Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico. We have definitional support: The subject is the central government in DC.
Blacks Law Dictionary 90
6th Ed., p. 695

In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to administrative agencies. In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all
its agencies and bureaus, state and county governments, and city and township governments.

The verb is increase and the object is economic engagement, which includes trade, finance, energy, development, transportation, and telecommunications.
U.S. Department of State, 2009
U.S. Department of State, What is Total Economic Engagement?, http://20012009.state.gov/e/eeb/92986.htm Total Economic Engagement seeks to integrate and coordinate all

U.S. economic instruments and programs into our regional and country strategies. The Bureau of
Economic, Energy and Business Affairs (EEB) broad cross-section of economic disciplines, interagency contacts, and expertise in such areas as trade, finance, energy, development,

transportation, and telecommunications help ensure this coordination.

B. LINK/S (REWORD AS NECESSARY): 1. The SUBJECT or agent is the judge or the debaters, not the USFG. 2. The VERB is affirmation, not increasing an economic policy. 3. The OBJECT is the debate itself, not economic engagement toward a Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico. C. ADVANTAGES: 1. Infinite regressiondisregarding resolutional syntax produces an endless regression to small, trivial plans. An AFF about only the subject, for example, opens the door to ANY philosophy that speaks to being. 2. Limitsresolutional limits encourage AFF innovation, predictive research on a designated topic, and clasha precursor to productive education. Also, the inherent value of arguments within limits is greater, which link turns education arguments. D. If our interpretation is net-beneficial it means theres no reason to vote affirmative. If the case is true then it de-justifies the resolution. Teams are still signified by AFF and NEG, so the resolution is a required measurement for affirmation.

Overview2NC
Our argument is NOT framework, but rather a negotiation of stasis. The 1ACs acknowledgement of the resolution implicitly confirms debates orientation toward topic discussion. The ADVANTAGE to our interpretation is LIMITS, which is created by including a topical advocacy. While framework interprets DEBATING, a LIMIT is an orientation towards a topic. The AFF can include performance, radical politics, rhetorical advantages, etc. These strategies should synergize with the resolution, so that BOTH sides can engage in a productive discussion. Eschewing the topic excludes the NEGour arguments are dismissed as irrelevant just because they spoke first. The LOGIC of their affirmative within the debate space, then, is a double turn with their arguments: to un-limit the AFF is to confine the NEG.

Interpretation/Violation2NC
The AFF should affirm the resolution. Their AFF violates the resolutions syntax. The AFF must say that central government encouragement of energy production is good. There are <three> links to the AFF: (1) The subject is the debaters or the judge, not the USFG. (2) The verb is mere endorsement, not increasing economic policies. (3) The object is debate itself, not economic engagement.

Limits overview
Our interpretation solves limits: First, the process of defending a case should include topical advocacy; limits are derived by the inclusion of a stasis point. Second, their conceptualization of the topic makes stasis impossible. A focus on the subjectivity of the resolution, for example, means any PREREQUISITE argument to understanding the government or democracy would be topical: a discussion of bio-politics, capitalism, equality, power, identity, realism, agency, psychoanalysis, gendered language, etc. Also, re-defining the OBJECT of the resolution means the AFF would only have to offer a communicative relationship toward the judge like: cultural exchanges, invitational rhetoric, ontology of difference, rhizomes, silence, etc. All of these arguments could be made under our interpretation, but they would also have to advocate the topic, which would provide stasis. And, limits are good: A. Most logicalthe significance of one-of-many issues is minimal. limits inherently increases meaning. B. Its a precursoreducation is inevitable, unfocused education isnt productive. Limits shape the direction and productivity of learning. C. Studies provedepth is better than breadth. Arrington 09 (Rebecca, UVA Today, Study Finds That Students Benefit From Depth, Rather Than Breadth, in High School
Science Courses March 4)

A recent study reports that high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each. Robert Tai, associate professor at the

University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, worked with Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington and Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics to conduct the study and produce the report. "Depth Versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High School Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Coursework" relates the amount of content covered on a particular topic in high school classes with students' performance in college-level science classes. The study will appear in the July 2009 print edition of Science Education and is currently available as an online pre-print from the journal. "As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science," Tai said. "These results are based on the performance of thousands of college science students from across the United States." The 8,310 students in the study were enrolled in introductory biology, chemistry or physics in randomly selected four-year colleges and universities. Those who spent one month or more

studying one major topic in-depth in high school earned higher grades in college science than their peers who studied more topics in the same period of time. The study revealed that students in courses that focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched on every major topic.

D. Small schoolssmall topics minimize resource disparities. A narrow research base allows a more level playing field.

A2 Case as offense
You should not presume to know the AFF is true. Who is to say they are right? Just because they have asserted it, without providing an opportunity for refutation, does not will it to truth. An AFF outside the resolution should not be presumed to be true. The logic of these answersthey are only true because they are not fairis antithetical to debate. They also dont understand our idea of debate- its not about the acquisition of specific knowledge, but rather debate is a process by which we gather a conceptual understanding of how to approach knowledge. This also problematizes their impact claims. Making arguments without a fair opportunity for refutation DENIES ideas- its like Stalin testing the idea of the great purge against an opponent who is not allowed to speak.

A2 Grammar bad
The gap between thought and communication relies on shared convention to best translate meaning; grammar exists as a stable point to enhance argument depth, clash, and creativity. The ability to express arguments relies on grammatical functiondistinctions are actually essential for argument formulation; without the minutia the edifice would fall. Strict adherence to grammar is the keyit sets the ground for debate, makes subjective agreements on the topic possible and is a pre-requisite to limits. An ungrammatical interpretation dilutes the meaning of words and makes the AFF a functional moving target. Its a blank check to shift semantic goal posts to make any action topical.