Finished T File - Fellows

KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILE
BECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE ____ OF ____
Index
Index........................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Index........................................................................................................................................................................1
Random Violations.................................................................................................................................................5
1NC – ASPEC .........................................................................................................................................................................................6
1NC – ASPEC ........................................................................................................................................................6
1NC – Incentives Must Be Given By the Government ...........................................................................................................................7
1NC – Incentives Must Be Given By the Government ......................................................................................7
1NC – Alternative Energy Must Be in the US.........................................................................................................................................8
1NC – Alternative Energy Must Be in the US.....................................................................................................8
1NC – Should Is the Past Tense of Shall.................................................................................................................................................9
1NC – Should Is the Past Tense of Shall..............................................................................................................9
1NC – Substantially Is Without Material Qualifications.......................................................................................................................10
1NC – Substantially Is Without Material Qualifications.................................................................................10
1NC – Banning Substances Isn't T.........................................................................................................................................................11
1NC – Banning Substances Isn't T.....................................................................................................................11
1NC – Removing A Barrier Isn't T........................................................................................................................................................12
1NC – Removing A Barrier Isn't T.....................................................................................................................12
1NC – FX T...........................................................................................................................................................................................13
1NC – FX T...........................................................................................................................................................13
Alternative Energy Violations ............................................................................................................................14
1NC – Can’t Deplete Resources/Harm the Environment......................................................................................................................15
1NC – Can’t Deplete Resources/Harm the Environment.................................................................................15
1NC – Alternative Energy Is Opposed to Fossil Fuels..........................................................................................................................16
1NC – Alternative Energy Is Opposed to Fossil Fuels......................................................................................16
1NC – Can’t Harm the Environment.....................................................................................................................................................17
1NC – Can’t Harm the Environment.................................................................................................................17
Can't Hurt The Environment At: Mixing Burdens.................................................................................................................................18
Can't Hurt The Environment At: Mixing Burdens..........................................................................................18
Incentives Violations ...........................................................................................................................................19
1NC – Incentives Must Be in the US.....................................................................................................................................................20
1NC – Incentives Must Be in the US..................................................................................................................20
1NC – Incentives Must Be Throughout.................................................................................................................................................21
1NC – Incentives Must Be Throughout..............................................................................................................21
1NC – Incentives Must Cause Action....................................................................................................................................................22
1
1NC – Incentives Must Cause Action.................................................................................................................22

1NC – Incentive Group SPEC...............................................................................................................................................................23
1NC – Incentive Group SPEC............................................................................................................................23
1NC – Incentives Must Be Plural..........................................................................................................................................................24
1NC – Incentives Must Be Plural.......................................................................................................................24
1NC – Incentives Must Be Voluntary....................................................................................................................................................25
1NC – Incentives Must Be Voluntary.................................................................................................................25
1NC – Incentives Must Attract Industry Development .........................................................................................................................26
1NC – Incentives Must Attract Industry Development ...................................................................................26
1NC – Incentives Can’t Be Disincentives.............................................................................................................................................27
1NC – Incentives Can’t Be Disincentives...........................................................................................................27
1NC – Incentives Must Be Financial.....................................................................................................................................................28
1NC – Incentives Must Be Financial..................................................................................................................28
2AC Counter Interp Modules ............................................................................................................................29
2AC – Incentives Can Be Rewards or Punishment...............................................................................................................................30
2AC – Incentives Can Be Rewards or Punishment...........................................................................................30
2AC – Alternative Energy Includes Nuclear.........................................................................................................................................31
2AC – Alternative Energy Includes Nuclear.....................................................................................................31
2AC – Alternative Energy is Renewable...............................................................................................................................................32
2AC – Alternative Energy is Renewable............................................................................................................32
Standards Blocks .................................................................................................................................................33
FX T Bad................................................................................................................................................................................................34
FX T Bad...............................................................................................................................................................34
FX T Good.............................................................................................................................................................................................35
FX T Good............................................................................................................................................................35
Extra T Bad............................................................................................................................................................................................36
Extra T Bad..........................................................................................................................................................36
Extra T Good..........................................................................................................................................................................................37
Extra T Good........................................................................................................................................................37
THEORY O/W T....................................................................................................................................................................................38
THEORY O/W T..................................................................................................................................................38
T O/W Theory........................................................................................................................................................................................39
T O/W Theory......................................................................................................................................................39
Breadth Is Better Than Depth................................................................................................................................................................40
Breadth Is Better Than Depth............................................................................................................................40
2
Depth O/W Breadth...............................................................................................................................................................................41

Depth O/W Breadth.............................................................................................................................................41
Education O/W Fairness........................................................................................................................................................................42
Education O/W Fairness.....................................................................................................................................42
Fairness O/W Education........................................................................................................................................................................43
Fairness O/W Education.....................................................................................................................................43
Reasonability Good................................................................................................................................................................................44
Reasonability Good..............................................................................................................................................44
A2 Reasonability Is Vague.....................................................................................................................................................................45
A2 Reasonability Is Vague...................................................................................................................................45
A2 Reasonability=Judge Intervention...................................................................................................................................................46
A2 Reasonability=Judge Intervention...............................................................................................................46
Competing Interpretations Good............................................................................................................................................................47
Competing Interpretations Good.......................................................................................................................47
A2 Race to The Bottom.........................................................................................................................................................................48
A2 Race to The Bottom........................................................................................................................................48
A2 Competing Interpretations=Arbitrary Definitions...........................................................................................................................49
A2 Competing Interpretations=Arbitrary Definitions.....................................................................................49
A2 Clash Checks....................................................................................................................................................................................50
A2 Clash Checks..................................................................................................................................................50
A2 Lit Checks........................................................................................................................................................................................51
A2 Lit Checks.......................................................................................................................................................51
A2 Reasonability Checks.......................................................................................................................................................................52
A2 Reasonability Checks.....................................................................................................................................52
A2 Competing Interpretations Bad........................................................................................................................................................53
A2 Competing Interpretations Bad....................................................................................................................53
A2 Potential Abuse Not a Voter.............................................................................................................................................................54
A2 Potential Abuse Not a Voter..........................................................................................................................54
A2 Our Aff Is the Only T Aff.................................................................................................................................................................55
A2 Our Aff Is the Only T Aff..............................................................................................................................55
A2 Reverse Voting Issue........................................................................................................................................................................56
A2 Reverse Voting Issue......................................................................................................................................56
A2 Kritik of Topicality...........................................................................................................................................................................57
A2 Kritik of Topicality.........................................................................................................................................57
Definitions.............................................................................................................................................................58
3
Resolved.................................................................................................................................................................................................59
Resolved................................................................................................................................................................59
Federal Government...............................................................................................................................................................................60
Federal Government............................................................................................................................................60
Federal....................................................................................................................................................................................................61
Federal..................................................................................................................................................................61
Government............................................................................................................................................................................................62
Government..........................................................................................................................................................62
Should....................................................................................................................................................................................................63
Should...................................................................................................................................................................63
Substantially...........................................................................................................................................................................................64
Substantially.........................................................................................................................................................64
Substantially ..........................................................................................................................................................................................65
Substantially ........................................................................................................................................................65
Increase..................................................................................................................................................................................................66
Increase.................................................................................................................................................................66
Increase..................................................................................................................................................................................................67
Increase.................................................................................................................................................................67
Alternative Energy.................................................................................................................................................................................68
Alternative Energy...............................................................................................................................................68
Incentives...............................................................................................................................................................................................69
Incentives..............................................................................................................................................................69
4
Random Violations
5
1NC – ASPEC
A. Interpretation: Government includes all three branches of government.
Political Science Dictionary 73 – 1973 (Dryden Press, Illinois, p. 174)

Government is the political and administrative hierarchy of an organized state. Governments exercise legislative, executive, and
judicial functions; the nature of the governmental system is determined by the distribution of these powers. Government may take
many forms, but it must be sufficiently powerful and stable to command obedience and maintain order. A government’s position also
depends on its acceptance by the community of nations through its diplomatic recognition by other states.
B. Violation the Affirmative doesn't specify which branch of the government they use to pass their plan
C. Standards
1. Limits: forcing the affirmative to specify narrows the focus of the debate and prevents aff
condtionality
2. Ground: the neg loses alternate actor cp's, specific agent d/a's, and specific politics links, which
outweighs predictability
3. CX not check: the damage was done pre-round, the 1nc is already set you pull the trigger on T.
D. T is a voter for reasons above
6
1NC – Incentives Must Be Given By the Government

a) interpretation:
1. the USFG is the legislative, judicial, and executive branches
USA.gov, last updated June 27, 2008
U.S. Federal Government
Official information and services from the U.S. government
The three branches of U.S. government—legislative, judicial, and executive—carry out governmental power and functions.
2. The USFG is the subject and "should increase" is a transitive verb of which "alternative energy
incentive" is the object; the subject of a sentence performs the action and thus the USFG is the one who
increases incentives.
b) violation: another actor gives the incentives, replacing the USFG as the subject.
c) standards:
1. limits: our interpretation limits the actor to one entity, whereas the neg allows for an infinite
number of unpredictable actors not mandated by the resolution.
2. topic-specific education: we lose crucial education about politics and alternative energy and their
interactions when we only discuss other actors
3. ground: they spike out of politics links by choosing and non-governmental actor and rob the neg
of agent CPs.
d) T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction.
e) Evaluate T in a framework of competing interpretations; if we win that our interpretation is best for
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention.
7
1NC – Alternative Energy Must Be in the US

a) interpretation:
1. The United States is 48 states in North America, Alaska, and Hawaii
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006
United States
a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North
America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 267,954,767; conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq. mi. (7,827,982 sq. km); with
Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi. (9,363,166 sq. km). Capital: Washington, D.C. Abbreviation: U.S., US
2. in means included within
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006
in
(used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits): walking in the park
3. Increase means to progressively become greater-this means the incentives must progressively increase
in the United States for some period of time
Merriam Webster's Dictionary Online, 2007.
Increase: 1 : to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)
b) violation: the affirmative increases alternative energy outside of the US

c) standards:
1. Limits: limiting the affirmative to defending an increase of alternative energy within the United
States, prevents increasing alternative energies in foreign, countries, which isn't predictable or
germaine to the topic
2. Ground: international actor, world economy, and international arugments are clearly negative
ground, removing them kills the advantage counterplans and alternative solvency mechanism
which are key to check side bias
3. Resolutional field context: the framers of the resolution wanted this years topic to revolve around
alternative energy in the U.S. ignoring this is aresoltuoinal and kills predictability [insert better
standards if you value your t ]
debate, you vote them down. Reasonability is arbitrary and mandates judge intervention
8
1NC – Should Is the Past Tense of Shall

A. Interpretation should is the past tense of shall
[Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition, 2006, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should]
Should
Verb
the past tense of shall: used to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory (you should go) or to form the
subjunctive mood (I should like to see you; if I should die; should I be late, start without me) [Old English sceolde]
B. Violation the affirmative specifies a plan to be done in the future, not the past
C. Standards
1. Limits: there are an infinite number of possible future plans, limiting the affirmative to past action
ensures fair ground.
2. Predictability: it is impossible to predict what future plans the affirmative could propose, which
destroys debatability and education
3. Education: policy makers formulate policies based on past knowledge, the affirmative eschews this
which kills policy education which is the purpose of debate.
A. T is a voter for the reasons above
9
1NC – Substantially Is Without Material Qualifications

A. Interpretation:Substantially is without material qualification
Black’s Law Dictionary 1991
[p. 1024]
Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification.
B. Violation, the affirmative specifies the nature of their incentive,
C. Standards
1. Limits: decreases limits and forces debate about the type of alternative energy, which is what the
resolution is structured to educate about. This is education is at the core of the topic, and
unlimiting to incentives allows extremly broad uneductaional debates
2. Ground: constrains ground picing out of incentives should be negative ground, and reading
generic politics links.
3. Predictability: not predictable to research all different kinds of alternative energy and all different
kinds of incentives which kills in-depth debates and education.
D. Voter for reasons above
10
1NC – Banning Substances Isn't T

a) Interpretation:
1. increase is to make larger
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006
Increase: verb
To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to
2. An incentive is a reward for desired behavior-our evidence is contextual

Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research
Assistant at the University's Conflict Research Consortium, published at Beyond Intractability, an academic research site,
"Incentives," 2004
What is an incentive?
In an incentive, A promises rewards to B in an attempt to get B to do or not do X. (In our discussion, we will refer to A as a
"sender," and B as a "target.") When punishments or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, providing rewards for preferred
behavior may produce a more desirable outcome. However, incentives have been frequently associated with weakness or
indecisiveness. As a result, scholarship has tended to focus more on sanctions than incentives. This unequal attention has skewed
the perceived effectiveness of threats over promises. Incentives can be an effective alternative for managing conflicts. As with all
such devices, however, they must be carefully administered with attention to matching the right tool with the right problem.
b) violation: the aff increases punishments rather than rewards and therefore does not increase incentives
c) standards:
1. limits: the aff interpretation makes the topic bidirectional, allowing for an infinite number of steps
that don't necessarily result in concrete actions. i.e., if we ban coal, that's an incentive not to use
coal but not necessarily an incentive to use alternative energy
2. FX: they're mixing burdens and forcing you to look to solvency to determine the T debate-the
result of a ban may or may not be an increased incentive.
3. Fairness: they can always link out of disads by saying they're only an eventual increase or
claiming that a ban wouldn't necessarily lead to the use of alternative energies-this means none of
our alternative energy links apply
d) T is a voter for our standards and jurisdiction
11
1NC – Removing A Barrier Isn't T

a) interpretation: increase is to make larger
Increase: verb
2. An incentive is a reward for desired behavior-our evidence is contextual

Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research
Assistant at the University's Conflict Research Consortium, published at Beyond Intractability, an academic research site,
"Incentives," 2004
In an incentive, A promises rewards to B in an attempt to get B to do or not do X. (In our discussion, we will refer to A as a
"sender," and B as a "target.") When punishments or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, providing rewards for preferred
behavior may produce a more desirable outcome. However, incentives have been frequently associated with weakness or
indecisiveness. As a result, scholarship has tended to focus more on sanctions than incentives. This unequal attention has skewed
the perceived effectiveness of threats over promises. Incentives can be an effective alternative for managing conflicts. As with all
such devices, however, they must be carefully administered with attention to matching the right tool with the right problem.
b) violation: the aff does not increase incentives directly but rather removes a barrier that allows for
future increases of incentives
c) standards:
1. limits: they're only effectually topical-they allow for an infinite number of steps that eventually
solve the 1ac
2. predictability: they force us to prepare by looking to their solvency by having a plan text with no
resolutional basis.
3. Topic-specific education: under their interpretation of debate, we never discuss the resolutional
but instead a number of unrelated steps.
12
1NC – FX T
a) interpretation:
1. increase is to make larger
Increase: verb
2. An incentive is a motivation to act
Incentive: noun
Something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.
b) violation: the affirmative does not directly increase the incentives but instead takes a number of steps
which will eventually lead to an increase
c) standards:
1. limits: They allow for an infinite number of steps that eventually solve the 1ac. This is uniquely
bad because this topic doesn't mandate that affirmative increase alternative energy but only
incentives-abuse is magnified.
2. predictability: they force us to prepare by looking to their solvency by having a plan text with no
resolutional basis.
3. Topic-specific education: under their interpretation of debate, we never discuss the resolutional
but instead a number of unrelated steps.
4. bidirectionality: they allow for affs that decrease incentives in order to increase incentives in the
future, which is unpredictable
d) T is a voter for our standards and for jurisdiction
13
Alternative Energy Violations
14
1NC – Can’t Deplete Resources/Harm the Environment

A. Interpretation – alternative energy can’t deplete natural resources or harm the environment.
Oxford Diction, 2007
Alternative energy is energy fueled in ways that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment
B. Violation the affirmative’s use of alternative energy would (result in the depletion of resources)
(and/or) (harm the environment).
C. Standards
1. Ground – the negative would never have links to resource tradeoff disads, alternative energy
counterplans, case impact turns, consumption bad arguments or stability good arguments.
2. Limits – this would allow any affirmative that used resources in order to create energy. Under the
affirmative’s interpretation of debate the Use the End of the Oil affirmative, the Hydrogen
affirmative and Nuclear Power affirmatives would be topical.
3. Predictability – the resolution implies the net increase of alternative energy, using other resources
would allow the affirmative to be effectually topical by first decreasing energies and then
increasing them. This is abusive because the affirmative could claim tradeoff scenarios in their
1AC that the negative would never predict this is an independent voting issue for fairness and
education.
D. Voter for the reasons above.
15
1NC – Alternative Energy Is Opposed to Fossil Fuels

A. Interpretation: Alternative Energy is opposed to fossil fuels
Natural Resources Defense Council energy that is not popularly used and is usually environmentally sound, such as
solar or wind energy (as opposed to fossil fuels).[4]
Fossil fuels are carbon containing and either coals, liquid, or gaseous fuels.
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, 5th edition, 2008
Any naturally occurring carbon-containing material which when burned with air (or oxygen) produces (directly) heat or (indirectly)
energy. Fossil fuels can be classified according to their respective forms at ambient conditions. Thus, there are solid fuels (coals);
liquid fuels (petroleum, heavy oils, bitumens); and gaseous fuels (natural gas, which is usually a mixture of methane, CH4, with lesser
amounts of ethane, C2H6, hydrogen sulfide, H2S, and numerous other constituents in small proportions).
B. Violation: the affirmative's plan is aimed at fossil fuels and not at increasing alternative energy.
C. Standards:
1. Limits: excluding fossil fuels is key to limiting the topic down, allowing fossil fuels explodes the
negative research burden and shifts the core of the topic
2. Predictability: the topic is huge and allowing fossil fuels destroys the ability of the neg to predict
the debate, destroying in-depth debate and topic education
3. Resolutional context: the framers of the resolution mean't the topic to be centered around
alternatives to fossil fuels, the resolution is the focus of the debate and shifting its focus destroys
education and fairness
4. Ground: allowing fossil fuels steals, oil d/a's, peak oil arguments, offshore drilling arguments,
power tradeoff d/a's, alt energy cps, and coal d/a's
D. T is a voter for the reasons above
16
1NC – Can’t Harm the Environment

a) interpretation: Alternative energy is energy that does not hurt the environment
WordNet, Princeton University, 2006
Alternative energy: energy derived from sources that do not use up natural resources or harm the environment.
b) violation: the affirmative does not increase incentives for alternative energy but instead increases
incentives for an energy that is harmful to the environment
c) standards:
1. topic-specific education: the core of the topic is a discussion of improvement of the environment.
Discussions of environmentally detrimental fuels explode it so that we no longer talk about what is
important.
2. most real world: our evidence is contextual-all literature assumes a world where alternative
energy is eco-friendly. It's key to political education that we assign to it the meaning that
congressmen and the USFG give it.
3. ground: all our links are predicated off of an alternative energy source that isn't harmful to the
environment, as none of the literature assumes the term has such a meaning. Inefficient fuels are
advocated in the sqo-that's neg ground
17
Can't Hurt The Environment At: Mixing Burdens

1. It's not a matter of solvency but rather of definition, just like any other T debate. They only have
to provide a definition of their chosen alternative energy saying it's beneficial to the environment.
2. Mixing burdens is inevitable: because of the technical nature of the topic, we have to first
understand what certain substances are. i.e: we have to determine whether something is renewable
in order to determine whether it is an alternative energy. Additional research must happen to
satisfy all T standards.
3. key to check aff side bias: they can use any incentive they want, so standards determining what
constitutes alternative energy must be more exacting.
18
Incentives Violations
19
1NC – Incentives Must Be in the US

A. Interpretation – the phrasing in the resolution means that “in the United States” directly modifies
the preceding phrase “alternative energy incentives.”
B. Violation – the affirmative increase incentives outside of the United States (also).
C. Standards
1. Ground – allowing the incentives to (also) be outside of the United States would destroy links to
virtually ever disadvantage. Public perception links, coercion links, consult counterplans,
incentive counterplans, mandatory counterplans, states counterplans, states PICs, and
development kritiks would all have no solvency advocates and would be impossible to strategically
deploy.
2. Predictable Grammar – the only grammatically correct way to interpret the resolution is to
interpret the modification of word incentives. Any preceding direct object to a prepositional
phrase is modified by that prepositional phrase. Grammar is key predictability; a non-stable
interpretation of the resolution would allow the affirmative to take any action destroying fairness
and education.
20
1NC – Incentives Must Be Throughout

A. Interpretation – the phrase “in the United States” modifies “incentives.” In means throughout.
“The” connotes a whole. This means that all of “the United States” must receive incentives.
B. Violation – the affirmative increases incentives only in a part of the United States.
C. Standards
1. Ground – the negative would never be able to win politics disads, economy disads, states PICs, oil
disads, tradeoff disads, permits counterplans or case turns. Without this ground the affirmative
would have a strategic advantage and win most debates.
2. Predictable Limits – allowing the affirmative to specific where in the United States the incentives
are would allow incentives to any combination of states. Assuming there are at least 10 alternative
energy incentives and 50 states, even without combinations, that’s 500 affirmatives that the
negative would need to be prepared to debate.
21
1NC – Incentives Must Cause Action

A. Interpretation – incentives must cause action.
Merriam and Webster Online, 2008 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incentive)
Incentive: Something that incentives or has a tendency to incite determination or action
B. Violation – the affirmative doesn’t directly result in an action.
C. Standards
1. Effectually Topical – the affirmative would be able to give any incentive that would result in an
action after a number of steps instead of causing the increase that the resolution modifies this
destroys the negatives ability to debate. This would allow the affirmative to be effectually anti-
topical because they could increase an incentive that would decrease alternative energy. This is an
independent voting issue for abuse.
2. Predictable Limits – the number of potential affirmatives would be ridiculous under the
affirmative’s interpretation of debate. Any action that resulted in an increase in alternative energy
would be topical destroying all predictable affirmative ground.
22
1NC – Incentive Group SPEC

A. Interpretation – the affirmative can’t specify the group that receives the incentives.
B. Violation – the affirmative specifies (that ______) (a group) that receives the mandated incentives
of the plan.
C. Standards
1. Limits – the number of potential affirmatives is literally infinite. States, cities, classes, career
groups, age groups, professions, organizations, industries and individual people would all be made
topical under the negatives interpretation.
2. Ground – the affirmative would be able to spike out of any negative disad; links and solvency
advocates for counterplans would be impossible to find without doing mass amounts of research
for every specific entity within the United States.
3. The Tie Breaker – under our interpretation the affirmative could claim advantage ground off of
specific groups being targeted while at the same time the plantext would not specify allowing the
negative to have increased ground predicated off of normal means debates.
23
1NC – Incentives Must Be Plural

A. Interpretation – the resolution does not say “incentive” rather “incentives” thus this indicates that
these incentives must be plural.
B. Violation – the affirmative only offers one incentive.
C. Standards
1. Ground – allowing the affirmative to only give one incentive would destroy links to politics, links
spending disads, solvency advocates for virtually every counterplan and trade off disads.
2. Grammar – ignoring the pluralization of incentives destroys the grammatical intent of the
resolution. Grammar is the most important standard because it establishes a common ground for
the resolution to take place, ignoring the technicalities of grammar would cause affirmatives to
interpret the resolution in any way they wanted and win the debate.
24
1NC – Incentives Must Be Voluntary

a) interpretation: An incentive is a reward for desired behavior and is voluntary
Shane Smith, graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research Assistant at
the University's Conflict Research Consortium, published at Beyond Intractability, an academic research site, "Incentives," 2004
In an incentive, A promises rewards to B in an attempt to get B to do or not do X. (In our discussion, we will refer to A as a "sender,"
and B as a "target.") When punishments or sanctions are likely to be ineffective, providing rewards for preferred behavior may
produce a more desirable outcome. However, incentives have been frequently associated with weakness or indecisiveness. As a result,
scholarship has tended to focus more on sanctions than incentives. This unequal attention has skewed the perceived effectiveness of
threats over promises. Incentives can be an effective alternative for managing conflicts. As with all such devices, however, they must
be carefully administered with attention to matching the right tool with the right problem.
b) violation: the affirmative increases coercive regulations, or sanctions, rather than incentives
c) standards:
1. limits: this limits out mandatory programs, making the case list shorter and closer to the core of
the topic; anything that involves mandatory incentives means affs can just create laws and don't
need solvency advocates-make them research and find ev saying people will ascribe to the
incentive
2. education: this allows us to debate both sides of the issue-if every aff chose to do mandatory
things, we'd never learn about voluntary programs
3. real world: Voluntary actions are used by the USFG-there's a more predictable literature base
Encyclopedia of Global Change, "Energy Policy," 2002
Government energy policies can encourage voluntary actions on the part of individuals and corporations. The Energy Star and Green
Lights programs in the United States are highly successful in promoting more energy efficiency in buildings, appliances, and lighting.
Contests have been devised to promote development of energy-efficient designs of buildings and high-efficiency appliances.
For a time, electric utilities were encouraged through were encouraged through regulatory incentives to sponsor voluntary actions such
as the development of a highly efficient refrigerator. Deregulation may reduce the incentive to participate in such programs.
4. ground: fiated laws or sanctions are neg ground and are key to check unpredictable affs-they get
infinite prep in which to find solvency advocates

25
1NC – Incentives Must Attract Industry Development

A. Governmental Incentives attract the development of industry in specified areas.
A Dicitionary of Geography, 2004, Susan Mahew, http://www.answers.com/topic/government-incentives?cat=technology,
Measures taken by a government to attract the development of industry in specified areas. These include grants for
building, works, plant, and machinery, assistance in encouraging sound industrial projects, removal grants to new
locations, free rent of a government-owned factory for up to five years, taxation allowances against investments, loans,
and contract preference schemes
B. Violation: the affirmative offers a plan that it not a government incentives
C. Standards
1. Limits: we provide the best limits by limiting the topic down to a specific subset of cases that are
both predictable and offer lots of ground
2. Ground: by limiting affirmatives to the mechanisms listed above, the negative ensures links to
alternate incentive counterplans, politics d/a's, and alternate actor counterplans.
3. Predictability: by limiting affirmatives to the mechanisms listed above, it ensures that both the
affirmative and negative will be predictable thus leading to more in-depth debates with better
clash
4. Bright line: our definition provides a clear bright line as to what is and is not an incentive, which
is key to limits, ground and education.
5. Resolutional context: the resolution specifies an incentive to be enacted by the USFG q.e.d. A
government incentive. Resolutional focus is key because it is the focus of the debate and skewing
it destroys fairness and debatability.
E. T is a voter for the reasons above
26
1NC – Incentives Can’t Be Disincentives

a) 1. An incentive is a motivation to act
Incentive: noun
Something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.
2. The removal of tariffs or a barrier isn't T-the disincentive was disproportional to begin with and its
removal isn't an incentive but rather a way to remedy previously unjust punishment
One type is the removal of existing penalties, such as sanctions, embargoes, investment bans, or high tariffs, in exchange for
specific policy changes. This was an implicit part of the U.S. incentives package, which tried to encourage Libyan cooperation
with U.N. antiterrorism conventions and seek Libyan assistance in the hunt for the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks.
However, this approach is not always viewed as an actual incentive. If the penalties being relaxed are thought to be
disproportionate to the alleged actions, or the penalties are perceived to be wrongly imposed in the first place, or their mere
withdrawal is thought to be insufficient compensation, then the target may not view such an offer as an incentive at all. While
these incentives may be viewed as bribes or be resented as invasions of sovereignty, the willingness to lift sanctions in exchange
for particular policy changes can create an atmosphere more conducive to compromise than can the threat of more sanctions
b) violation: the aff decreases a disincentive but does not increase an incentive
c) Standards:
1. limits: allowing disincentives makes the topic bidirectional. It allows cases that decrease something
in order to lead to a future increase that might never occur.
2. FX: this is a classic example of removing a barrier and allows for an infinite number of steps,
exploding limits
3. clash: it allows for affs that aren't researchable and functionally doubles the research load-there
are an infinite number of obscure actions that could lead to an eventual increase
4. most real world: Deregulation decreases incentives
Encyclopedia of Global Change, "Energy Policy," 2002
For a time, electric utilities were encouraged through regulatory incentives to sponsor voluntary actions such as the
development of a highly efficient refrigerator. Deregulation may reduce the incentive to participate in such programs.

27
1NC – Incentives Must Be Financial

a) interpretation: Only voluntary, conditional, economic incentives are T-our evidence is contextual
Another type of incentive is one used to improve the recipient's economic standing.[2] This can include financial assistance, access to
technology, loans, or investment initiatives, in return for certain concessions. The foreign policy community in the United States has
recently pushed this strategy. In early 2002, for instance, the U.S. Senate introduced a resolution encouraging greater use of economic
incentives as a diplomatic tool in the fight against terrorism. Joan Nelson and Stephanie Eglinton of the Overseas Development
Council have suggested that foreign aid, typically considered a tool of support or tacit persuasion, should also be used as a form of
pressure by making it explicitly conditional.[3] Ways of achieving this, they argue, include providing more aid to those who meet
certain criteria and making aid contingent on prearranged policy reforms. In 1992, for example, President Bush indicated that financial
assistance to Israel would be contingent on its limiting settlement activities in the occupied territories.
b) violation: the affirmative provides incentives that aren't financial

c) standards
1. limits: there are an infinite number of areas of incentivizing that aren't financial-to the point at
which the aff doesn't have to increase alternative energy but only has to increase incentives, we
need ground for disad and K links
2. predictability: all the literature assumes a world where the USFG gives financial incentives in
relation to policy affairs-our definition proves. This is the most accessible literature base.
3. education: a discussion of financial incentives allows us to focus the topic and have greater depth.
It's better for us to really understand one part of the resolution than to briefly discuss the rest.
28
2AC Counter Interp Modules
29
2AC – Incentives Can Be Rewards or Punishment

(__) Counter Interpretation
A. Incentives can be rewards or punishment.

Words and Phrases Online, 2008 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentive)
Incentive: Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort.
B. We meet our interpretation we provide either a reward or a punishment.
C. Superior Interpretation
1. The negative interpretation over limits the debate to a small number of affirmatives that would be
only one or the other.
2. Education – our interpretation allows a comprehensive analysis of incentivized alternative energy;

any other interpretation would limit the topic to a non-real world standard that would dilute the
debate and render all education useless.
3. Ground – our interpretation allows a fair division of ground. The research for positive and
negative incentives is inevitable and the ground provided on each side of this debate is enough to
win a debate.
30
2AC – Alternative Energy Includes Nuclear

A. Alternative energy includes alternatives to fossil fuel, which are nuclear energies, combustibles,
biomass, synthetic fuels and oil/ natural gass.
Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, 1999
The primary sources of energy for modern living are the fossil fuels: oil, natural gas and coal. Non-fossil fuels include nuclear
power, a significant source of electricity in countries outside the United States; renewable, such as solar, wind, geothermal
steam, waterfalls and tides; combustibles, such as wood, biomass and trash; and synthetic fuels (q.v.). such as ethanol produced
from corn, and oil and natural gas produced from coal and oil shale.
B. We meet our interpretation we increase energy alternative to fossil fuels.
1. Real world – our interpretation of the resolution allows a more real world approach to alternative
energy debates. Alternative energy should include a vast scope of things because the resolution
doesn’t specify alternative to a specific entity.
2. Education – only a comprehensive approach to alternative energy would allow the education that
is needed. Depth would never be able to be covered enough or agreed upon, breath is the only
alternative.
3. The negative’s interpretation over limits to a small number of affirmatives that use only wind or
solar power, this would destroy the intent of the resolution and make it impossible to defend the
affirmative.
31
2AC – Alternative Energy is Renewable

A. Alternative energy is renewable energy.

Minerals Management Service, last updated in 2008
Alternative energy: fuel sources that are other than those derived from fossil fuels. Typically used interchangeably for
renewable energy. Examples include: wind, solar, biomass, wave and tidal energy.
B. We meet our interpretation we increase incentives for energy that is renewable.
1. The negative’s interpretation over limits to a small number of affirmatives, this would destroy the
intent of the resolution and make it impossible to defend the affirmative.
2. Education - only a comprehensive approach to alternative energy would allow the education that
is needed. Depth would never be able to be covered enough or agreed upon, breath is the only
alternative.
3. Real world – in the real world alternative energy and renewable energy are functionally
synonymous, there is no reason this should not also be true in debate rounds.
32
Standards Blocks
33
FX T Bad
1. Unlimits – any action taken that eventually will eventually result in a topical action, forcing unfair
burdens upon the negative.
2. Eliminates negative ground – any counterplan we read could be topical effects as much as the
plan.
3. Mixes burdens – the judge must determine jurisdiction before considering the merits of the plan.
FX mixes burdens destroying the judge’s ability to non-arbitrarily decide a round.
4. Makes T probabilistic – T should be a yes or no question but FX T makes it a question of degree.
5. Unpredictable – there is no way to research backwards, finding an alternative energy problem and
then tracking all the ways to fix it would destroy debate.
6. Arbitrary – any counter interpretation that limits the number of steps can be adjusted based on
the actual action of the plan; this would allow any affirmative to be topical.
34
FX T Good
1. Overlimits – every case on the topic takes a number of steps in order to be topical, an incentive
must result in an action that causes alternative energy to increase, the USFG has to pass a plan
that funds incentives, there literally would be NO aff ground.
2. Real world – every action in policy making is judged by the effects that it will have.
3. Increases ground – every additional step taken by the affirmative is another way to get links to
criticisms, disads and PIC ground.
4. Still predictable – the plan is still germane to the resolution, and finding literature on our aff is
easy.
5. No abuse – there is no real abuse from us taking any steps in the round, don’t vote on potential
abuse it’d be like punishing us for a crime we never committed.
6. Increases education – we increase the education about the topic by alternative causation, causing
more research, higher education levels and better debate.
35
Extra T Bad
1. Proves the resolution is insufficient – if the affirmative can not take a solely topical action to it
proves that the resolution is not enough to warrant a ballot in and of itself.
2. Unpredictable – the affirmative could take any number of actions outside the resolution that we
would never be able to predict, this destroys all ground.
3. Promotes lazy debate – there would be no reason to settle for clash when you can just be extra
topical.
4. Kills education – it makes in depth debate vacuous because the affirmative isn’t germane to the
resolution.
5. Reject the entirety of the affirmative, not just the extra topical portions – anything less creates
being extra topical as a no loss option for the affirmative. We have to read this argument just to
get to ground zero in the world created by the aff.
36
Extra T Good
1. Increases education – discussing things outside of the resolution increases the breath of education
over all.
2. Real world – in the real world proposals aren’t limited exclusively to one topic.
3. Reasonability checks back – we are still germane to the resolution, and there is plenty of literature
on our case.
4. Increases ground – every part of our plan that is extra topical is another place for the negative to
get disad links, counterplan solvency differentials and PIC ground.
5. At worst – reject the extra topical portions of the affirmative not the aff team. This checks back
any in round abuse.
6. No abuse – we don’t use the extra topical portions of the plan to spike out of disad links or
counterplans.
37
THEORY O/W T
1. In-round abuse always o/w potential abuse-don't punish us for what we could have done when
they did something illegitimate
2. Even if they win that we destroy debate for a year, they destroy debate forever by justifying
sketchy strats that will ruin education on every topic
3. Fairness: the resolutional literature basis checks unpredictable affs and makes research possible
whereas there is no check on unpredictable neg strats.
38
T O/W Theory
1. Untopical affirmatives justify sketchy neg strats
2. Even if they win that we destroy debate for a round, there is no overall precedent set because we
are responding to an untopical aff; they destroy debate for an entire year by justifying abusive
cases.
3. Topic-specific education o/w general education because topic specific education is a prerequisite to
education in general-only the resolutional is predictable ground for research. Debates grounded in
the resolution are key to clash.
39
Breadth Is Better Than Depth

1. key to topic-specific education: discussion of many parts of the topic is key to our understanding
as a whole; the vague wording of the resolution is intended to provide broad understanding of the
topic as a whole. (We're not scientists: we would never have time to understand the chemical
complexities of alternative energy, we can only understand its broader role in governmental
affairs.)
2. prerequisite to specialization: we have to have a general knowledge of everything in order to
choose what is essential to the topic and how we should focus.
3. most real world: policy makers discuss many different components of any issues in order to
understand how they interact
4. most predictable: allows us to find the most accessible parts of the literature base and is an
equalizer-depth requires research in places to which smaller schools don't have access
5. breadth is inevitable: the block will always sandbag to put time pressure on the 1ar. The last
rebuttals are the only speeches that are in depth.
40
Depth O/W Breadth

1. education: depth is crucial to our understanding of issues. This education o/w superficial
education we get with breadth.
2. more limiting: focuses the topic on what is essential and allows us to have fair debates for which
we are prepared
3. most real world: policy makers discuss all the intricacies of an issue so they can make the best
decisions and formulate the best policies-we can never make informed decisions when we have
only superficial knowledge of the topic
4. breadth is pointless without depth-it's terminal impact is topic specific education, but depth solves
that better.
41
Education O/W Fairness

1. education is the terminal impact of fairness-this means if we win that our interpretation creates a
more educational debate, this comes first. Fairness doesn't exist for fairness's sake but rather to
promote education.
2. fairness frameworks exclude important discussions of things like racism that may not necessarily
be included in the res
3. unfairness in debate is inevitable-sandbagging and illegit argumentation happens; education has
more of a unique impact
4. after the round, education has a longer-lasting impact, whereas fairness exists only in the context
of particular rounds.
5. Fairness is arbitrary-the aff always want to exclude the neg and the neg always want to exclude
the aff. Education is the only objective standard.
6. Education is key to critical thinking, which is key to innovative debate that allows smaller schools
to compete even when they can't produce as much evidence. This is the best internal link to
fairness because it creates an inclusive activity.
42
Fairness O/W Education

1. Fairness is the best internal link to education and is a prerequisite to it: fairness is key to
predictability and Ground, without which there can be no clash and substantive discussion
2. The education we gain from maintaining the structure of debate o/w topic specific education
because it allows for education generally, not just on this topic
3. Fairness is the procedural gateway-it is the only way to evaluate the T debate, whereas education
is an issue of content. A framework for evaluating T has to be established before we evaluate it.
43
Reasonability Good
1. Education: it allows us to discuss substantive issues and real political implications, as opposed to
discussing T every round. We'll never learn about the topic if every debate is about limits
2. most real world: policy makers don't argue about semantics, they look for the best policy option
3. lit checks solves all the reasons why reasonability is bad because it checks absurd, unpredictable
affs
4. fairness: allows the neg to pick unfair, limiting definitions contrived to exclude topical affs
5. don't vote on potential abuse: it doesn't set a precedent, key to fairness
a) it's inevitable, we could always beat them up or read a new aff in the 2ar. Don't punish us
unless we actually do it.
b) no brightline: there are an infinite number of possible abusive actions-one instance of in-
round abuse and you vote us down.
44
A2 Reasonability Is Vague
Our interpretation of reasonability is that affs with contextual literature and solvency advocates are
topical.
a) best topic-specific education: encourages in-depth research and allows us to access the core of the
topic
b) most predictable, solving why vagueness is bad. Negs prep based on the available literature base,
which is more predictable than random definitions.
45
A2 Reasonability=Judge Intervention
1. reasonability is the most objective paradigm because we ask the judge to isolate one instance of in-
round abuse. Competing interpretations forces the judge to decide what we would have done
2. It's least arbitrary because definitions are grounded in literature; neg definitions are taken out of
context
3. It's inevitable, there is some amount of judge intervention in every round. Even in competing
interpretation debates, the judge has to decide which args are most reasonable
4. Judge intervention is good; it forces us to be persuasive and checks bad arguments like racism
good
46
Competing Interpretations Good

1. best for topic specific education: discussing definitions is key to determine what the topic should
look like and key to determining which parts of it are key. This discussion is a prerequisite to
meaningful and substantive debates about political implications.
2. most objective: checks judge intervention by making us debate T like other arguments
3. fairness: checks abuse by establishing which definitions are best for reciprocal ground
4. key to contextualizing evidence by forcing comparison, which allows more in-depth research
5. Vote on potential abuse-if we prove their interpretation is bad for debate, you vote them down. It's
not what they do, it's what they justify.
a) they destroy debate for the rest of the year by encouraging people to run similar affs
b) potential abuse is functionally in-round abuse: it determines what we will run and skews
our strategy. We're not going to waste time reading a disad they'll just link out of.
47
A2 Race to The Bottom

1. it's not a race to the bottom if you can prove that other standards o/w limits or that overlimiting is
bad
2. it's no more a race to the bottom than other arguments. We're not necessarily looking for the most
limiting definition but rather the one that's best for debate: perms of definitions are legit
3. The aff always has the advantage when it comes to T definitions. They can find specific evidence
pertaining to their aff-competing interpretations is key to check infinite prep
48
A2 Competing Interpretations=Arbitrary Definitions

1. Competing interpretations is about determining which world is best for debate; an arbitrary
definition constructed to exclude the aff will never win the standards debate
2. And all you have to win to defeat arbitrary definitions is that overlimiting is bad
3. Author quals check. We have to have contextual literature written by someone in the field; the
definition can't be arbitrary
49
A2 Clash Checks
1. We do not need a non-viable negative strategy to prove the abuse.
2. The time that we spent researching on their non topical aff, we should spend on topical affs.
3. There can be clash on anything. Our argument is that there should be better clash
50
A2 Lit Checks
1. This does not prove that they are topical. This just means we did our research.
2. We do not need a non-viable negative strategy to prove the abuse.
3. You can find literature on anything. They expect us to read the entirety of the internet articles on
this just to find stuff on their case.
4. Jurisdiction still applies. The judge can not vote for aff that isn’t topical regardless of whether or
not there is literature on it.
(only read if g-stein is the judge)

5. Lit checks is dumb
MICHAEL B. GREENSTEIN, PROFESSOR OF DEBATE AT GEORGETOWN, 2007 (NOTE: THIS CARD WAS NOT
ACTUALLY PUBLISHED)
If someone read the penguin testicles aff and I had my icy hot disad ready to go, does that make them topical? NO!!!
51
A2 Reasonability Checks
1. Reasonability is way too arbitrary for you to vote on. It allows way to much judge intervention
because there is no brightline for what is reasonable and what isn’t.
2. The affirmative has to be 100% topical not just reasonable, that’s their burden.
3. Even under this standard they aren’t topical because they aren’t even reasonably topical…
4. Reasonability is unfair because the aff is the one who gets to chose what is and what isn’t
reasonable meaning even obscure affirmatives would be able to claim this.
5. Topicality is always a voting issue for jurisdiction meaning it’s all or nothing.
(only read if g-stein is the judge)

6. Reasonability is dumb
MICHAEL B. GREENSTEIN, PROFESSOR OF DEBATE AT GEORGETOWN, 2007 (NOTE: THIS CARD WAS NOT
ACCTUALLY PUBLISHED)
Is it reasonable for me to hit you with a stick in the middle of your speech? I would say it is. “Oh I’m sorry, you can’t speak
any more, oh well it was reasonable, don’t worry”.
52
A2 Competing Interpretations Bad

1. The affirmative is the team who created the competing interpretation.
2. Competing interpretations are good because they are the only non arbitrary thing on topicality.
3. If we prove that our interpretation is better than your counter interpretation this standard goes
away.
53
A2 Potential Abuse Not a Voter

1. Just because there’s not visible abuse doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any. We weren’t able to run
any disads or counterplans off of the way that you increase which is something you should have to
defend.
2. Proving in round abuse is always going to loose because you can say it didn’t happen.
3. Potential abuse is always going to be a voting issue because it’s not what you do it’s what you
justify.
54
A2 Our Aff Is the Only T Aff

1. Any affirmative team will be able to say this proving that you can’t vote here.
2. This decreases education because you would only be learning about 1 of the countless affirmatives.
3. Destroys framers intent- if the framers meant for only one aff to be topical they would have made
this the resolution instead.
4. Counter counter interpretation only ______ is topical.
55
A2 Reverse Voting Issue

1. This is dumb. You don’t win a debate just because your case is topical.
2. Defecating on flows is better than this.

MICHAEL B. GREENSTEIN, PROFESSOR OF DEBATE AT GEORGETOWN, 2007 (NOTE: THIS CARD WAS
NOT ACTUALLY PUBLISHED)
90% of the time, if a team just defecated on their flow and handed to me, I would vote for them over a reverse voting issue on
topicality.
56
A2 Kritik of Topicality
1. Empirically denied: people have been reading topicality since debat started and the types of
conflicts you describe have not been made uniquely worse because of t.
2. It’s not about silencing voices, it’s about the education that debate brings.
3. We need fairness so that each team is put in an equal position to argue for or against the topic.
4. You silence our voices just as much by telling us that we can’t read our topicality violation.
5. Topicality is a prerequisite to debate – it sets the precedent for debate focus and education
Neta C. Crawford, associate professor (research) at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University and
Professor of Political Science and African American Studies at Boston University, 2002, "Argument and change in World
Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention", The Cambridge University Press, p.19
57
Definitions
58
Resolved
Resolved means to express by formal vote—this is the only definition that’s in the context of the
resolution
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (dictionary.com)
Resolved:
6. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a
clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money should be apropriated (or, to appropriate no
money)
59
Federal Government
Federal government is central government
WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED, 1976, p. 833.
Federal government. Of or relating to the central government of a nation, having the character of a federation as distinguished from
the governments of the constituent unites (as states or provinces).
Federal government is central government

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY WORDNET, 1997, p. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=federal%20government.
Federal government. n: a government with strong central powers.
Federal government is in washington, d.c.

WEST'S LEGAL THESAURUS/DICTIONARY, 1985, p. 744.
United States: Usually means the federal government centered in Washington, D.C.
60
Federal
Federal means relating to the national government of the United States
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1999
federal, adj. Of or relating to a system of associated governments with a vertical division of governments into national and regional
components having different responsibilities; esp., of or relating to the national government of the United States.
61
Government
Government includes all three branches of government.
Political Science Dictionary 73 – 1973 (Dryden Press, Illinois, p. 174)
Government is the political and administrative hierarchy of an organized state. Governments exercise legislative, executive, and
judicial functions; the nature of the governmental system is determined by the distribution of these powers. Government may take
many forms, but it must be sufficiently powerful and stable to command obedience and maintain order. A government’s position also
depends on its acceptance by the community of nations through its diplomatic recognition by other states.
Government includes all three branches

Shafritz 88 – 1988 (The Dorsey Dictionary of American Government and Politics, p. 249)
Government is the formal institutions and process through which binding decisions are made for a society. Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) wrote in Civil
Disobedience (1849) that “that government is the best which governs least”. This statement is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson but while it certainly reflects his
philosophic sentiments, it has never been found in any of Jefferson’s writings. 2 The apparatus of the state, consisting of executive, legislative, and
judicial branches. 3 A political entity that has taxing authority and jurisdiction over a defined geographic area for some specified purpose, such as fire protection or
schools. 4 The indiciduals who temporarily control the institutions of a state or subnational jurisdiction. 5 The United States government, especially as in “the
government”.
62
Should
Should is equal to obligation
WORDS AND PHRASES 1953, Vol. 39, p. 313.
The word “should”, denotes an obligation in various degrees, usually milder than ought Baldassarre v. West
Oregon Lumber Co., 239 p.2d 839, 842, 198 Or. 556.
Should is used to express probability or expectation

WEBSTER'S II, 1984, p. 1078
Should - used to express probability or expectation. They should arrive here soon.
Should means expectation of future action

Remo Foresi v. The Hudson Coal Co, SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 106 Pa. Super. 307; 161 A. 910; 1932 Pa.
Super. LEXIS 239 July 14, 1932
As regards the mandatory character of the rule, the word 'should' is not only an auxiliary verb, it is also the
preterite of the verb, 'shall' and has for one of its meanings as defined in the Century Dictionary: "Obliged or
compelled (to); would have (to); must; ought (to); used with an infinitive (without to) to express obligation,
necessity or duty in connection with some act yet to be carried out." We think it clear that it is in that sense that the
word 'should' is used in this rule, not merely advisory. When the judge in charging the jury tells them that, unless they find from all the
evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, they should acquit, the word 'should' is
not used in an advisory sense but has the force or meaning of 'must', or 'ought to' and carries [***8] with it
the sense of [*313] obligation and duty equivalent to compulsion. A natural sense of sympathy for a few unfortunate
claimants who have been injured while doing something in direct violation of law must not be so indulged as to fritter away, or nullify,
provisions which have been enacted to safeguard and protect the welfare of thousands who are engaged in the hazardous occupation of
mining.
Should is used to express future obligation not past tense-past rules have been abandoned
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language in ‘00
(4th Edition, p. 1612)
Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the
Usage Note
use of should and would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now
be used in the first person to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered
differently. But in the second and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for
. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should is also used in all
should, however
three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or
promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your
attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than should.
Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should’ve.
63
Substantially
Substantially relies upon field context to give it meaning
Devinsky, 02 (Paul, IP UPDATE, VOLUME 5, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2002, “Is Claim "Substantially" Definite? Ask Person of Skill in the Art”,
http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)
In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the
intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term
"substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related
to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine. The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has
"substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips. The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall
thickness" was not supported in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite. The district
court recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The
Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic context" be found
solely in intrinsic evidence: "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood
by persons in the field of the invention." Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and specification
may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention." The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court
with instruction that "[t]he question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the
phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."
Substantially is quantitative
Merriam-Webster, 2003 (www.m-w.com)
Main Entry: sub·stan·tial

b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage>
Substantially is essentially
WORDS AND PHRASES, 1964, p. 818.
“Substantially” means in substance; in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part.
64
Substantially
Substantially is to a large degree
Cambridge International Dictionary of English, 2001, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/default.asp?dict=A
Substantially - adverb - The new rules will substantially (=to a large degree) change how we do things.
Substantial is of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or size

THE RANDOM HOUSE COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 1973, p. 844
Substantial - is of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or size.
Substantially relies upon field context to give it meaning

Devinsky, 02 (Paul, IP UPDATE, VOLUME 5, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2002, “Is Claim "Substantially" Definite? Ask Person of Skill in the Art”,
http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)
In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the intrinsic
claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term "substantially"
made a claim fatally indefinite. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod
for an internal combustion engine. The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has "substantially constant
wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips. The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported
in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite. The district court recognized that the use
of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed,
concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic
evidence: "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the
field of the invention." Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic
evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention." The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he
question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the phrase would be understood by persons
experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."
65
Increase
Increase means to become larger or greater in quantity
Encarta Online Dictionary. 2006. ("Increase."
<http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741>.)
in·crease [ in krss ]
transitive and intransitive verb (past and past participle in·creased, present participle in·creas·ing, 3rd person present singular
in·creas·es)Definition: make or become larger or greater: to become, or make something become, larger in number, quantity, or
degree
noun (plural in·creas·es)
Increase means to get progressively bigger

Merriam-Websters Dictionary Online, 2006. (“Increase.”
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=increase>.)
Inflected Form(s): in·creased; in·creas·ing

Etymology: Middle English encresen, from Anglo-French encreistre, from Latin increscere, from in- + crescere to grow -- more at
CRESCENT
intransitive verb
1 : to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)
2 : to multiply by the production of young
transitive verb
1 : to make greater : AUGMENT
2 obsolete :
Increase means to make things larger numerically

Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2007. (“Increase.”
<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=40073&dict=CALD>)
increase Show phonetics

verb [I or T]
to (make something) become larger in amount or size:
Incidents of armed robbery have increased over the last few years.
The cost of the project has increased dramatically/significantly since it began.
Gradually increase the temperature to boiling point.
Increased/Increasing efforts are being made to end the dispute.
Compare decrease.
Increase does not mean to decrease

Websters Dictionary. 1913 ("Increase." <http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=increase>.)
In*crease" (?), v. i.
To become greater or more in size, quantity, number, degree, value, intensity, power, authority, reputation, wealth; to grow; to
augment; to advance; -- opposed to decrease.
66
Increase
Increase means net increase
Words and Phrases, 05 (Cummulative Supplementary Pamphlet, v. 20a, p.295)
Cal.App.2 Dist. 1991. Term “increase,” as used in statute giving the Energy Commission modification jurisdiction over any alteration,
replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in “increase” of 50 megawatts or more in electric generating capacity of
existing thermal power plant, refers to “net increase” in power plant’s total generating capacity; in deciding whether there has been the
requisite 50-megawatt increase as a result of new units being incorporated into a plant, Energy Commission cannot ignore decreases in
capacity caused by retirement or deactivation of other units at plant. West’s Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 25123.
Increase requires evidence of the preexisting condition

Ripple, 87 (Circuit Judge, Emmlee K. Cameron, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Company, State Automobile
Insurance Association, and Glassley Agency of Whitley, Indiana, Defendants-Appellees, 824 F.2d 570; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816,
9/24, lexis)
Also related to the waiver issue is appellees' defense relying on a provision of the insurance policy that suspends coverage where the
risk is increased by any means within the knowledge or control of the insured. However, the term "increase" connotes change. To
show change, appellees would have been required to present evidence of the condition of the building at the time the policy was
issued. See 5 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 2941 at 4-5 (1970). Because no such evidence was
presented, this court cannot determine, on this record, whether the risk has, in fact, been increased. Indeed, the answer to this question
may depend on Mr. Glassley's knowledge of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued, see 17 J. Appleman & J.
Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 9602 at 515-16 (1981), since the fundamental issue is whether the appellees contemplated
insuring the risk which incurred the loss.
67
Alternative Energy
Alternative Energy replaces fossil-fuels.
Words and Phrases Online, 2008 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alternative%20energy)
Alternative energy: energy, as solar, wind, or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional fossil-fuel sources, as
coal, oil, and natural gas.
Alternative energy is energy from nontraditional sources/natural gas

[EPA, 2008, January 11,http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html]
Alternative Energy
Energy derived from nontraditional sources (e.g., compressed natural gas, solar, hydroelectric, wind).5
68
Incentives
Incentives must be positive.
Words and Phrases Online, 2008 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentive)
Incentive: 1. a positive motivational influence [ant: deterrence], 2. an additional payment (or other remuneration) to employees
as a means of increasing output [syn: bonus]
69

Finished T File - Fellows

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finished T File - Fellows

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 TOPICALITY FILE

BECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE ____ OF ____

1NC – Incentives Must Cause Action.................................................................................................................22

Depth O/W Breadth...............................................................................................................................................................................41

Political Science Dictionary 73 – 1973 (Dryden Press, Illinois, p. 174)

1NC – Incentives Must Be Given By the Government

USA.gov, last updated June 27, 2008

U.S. Federal Government

Official information and services from the U.S. government

1NC – Alternative Energy Must Be in the US

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006

2. in means included within

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006

Merriam Webster's Dictionary Online, 2007.

Increase: 1 : to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)

b) violation: the affirmative increases alternative energy outside of the US

1NC – Should Is the Past Tense of Shall

A. T is a voter for the reasons above

1NC – Substantially Is Without Material Qualifications

B. Violation, the affirmative specifies the nature of their incentive,

D. Voter for reasons above

1NC – Banning Substances Isn't T

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006

To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to

2. An incentive is a reward for desired behavior-our evidence is contextual

1NC – Removing A Barrier Isn't T

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006

To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to

2. An incentive is a reward for desired behavior-our evidence is contextual

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006

To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to

2. An incentive is a motivation to act

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006

Alternative Energy Violations

1NC – Can’t Deplete Resources/Harm the Environment

D. Voter for the reasons above.

1NC – Alternative Energy Is Opposed to Fossil Fuels

D. T is a voter for the reasons above

1NC – Can’t Harm the Environment

WordNet, Princeton University, 2006

Can't Hurt The Environment At: Mixing Burdens

1NC – Incentives Must Be in the US

D. Voter for the reasons above.

1NC – Incentives Must Be Throughout

D. Voter for the reasons above.

1NC – Incentives Must Cause Action

B. Violation – the affirmative doesn’t directly result in an action.

D. Voter for the reasons above.

1NC – Incentive Group SPEC

D. Voter for the reasons above.

1NC – Incentives Must Be Plural

B. Violation – the affirmative only offers one incentive.

D. Voter for the reasons above.

1NC – Incentives Must Be Voluntary

Encyclopedia of Global Change, "Energy Policy," 2002

d) T is a voter for our standards and for jurisdiction

1NC – Incentives Must Attract Industry Development

B. Violation: the affirmative offers a plan that it not a government incentives

E. T is a voter for the reasons above

1NC – Incentives Can’t Be Disincentives

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, "Incentive," Random House Inc, 2006

Encyclopedia of Global Change, "Energy Policy," 2002

d) T is a voter for our standards and for jurisdiction

1NC – Incentives Must Be Financial

BECCA, CRAIG AND ROBIN PAGE OF