You are on page 1of 3

Extra Topicality Good

(( Thanks to Jen Davidson for the “Extra T is legit” reasons. ))

1. Increases Ground - - Allows for more disad links and CP ground from the random
other things the plan does

2. Increases Education - - It tells us about more things than having the same debate on a
more limited area over and over

3. Not a reason to reject - - Even if the plan takes more action than specifically mandated
by the resolved, it isn’t exclusive. There is no word such as ‘only’ in there

4. Doesn’t hurt ground - - Plan still support the resolved, so the neg still get their links,
plan just does other stuff too

5. Increases Predictability - - The more plan does, the easier it is to find the case in the
literature

6. More Real World - - All bills do more than just a sentence of work, they have more
than one advantage, or no one would pass them

7. Overlimits - - Not a case has no action outside of resolved, signing the bill and hiring
people for implementation isn’t explicitly called for -but is needed

8. Court Analogy - - Judges can open up their jurisdiction in response to cases which
hold particular interest
Affirmative Counterstandards

I. Reasonability

Quick Summary: The negative can always find some definition that the affirmative
doesn’t meet, we should rather accept any reasonable interpretation of terms.

Longer Explanation: Since words have many meanings, negatives can always find
definitions/interpretations that affirmatives don’t meet; there is always some standard that
can be set so that the affirmative fails to meet it. Instead of looking for the most limiting
interpretation, the judge should accept any reasonable interpretation of the term(s).
Reasonable interpretations still provide opportunities for the solid negative arguments.

II. Field Contextuality

Quick Summary: Terms should be taken to mean what they are understood to mean in
the topic they are being used in.

Longer Explanation: Terms should be taken to mean what hey are generally assumed to
mean in the topic specific literature. Affirmative teams will often find topic-specific
meanings when researching their affirmative case and advocate these in the debate round.

III. Affirmative Predictability

Quick Summary: The affirmative is not at all able to predict every weird definition a
negative may come up with.

Longer Explanation: Affirmative teams cannot fairly predict every odd definition of a
term that the negative could read. Interpretations of the topic should be limited to
common-sense meanings.

IV. AT: Educational Value

Quick Summary: Truly learning does not come from being confined to learn about one
single isolated topic with out being able to talk about anything else or being able to see
the topic in context.
Longer Explanation: The negatives interpretation of what “educational value” comes
from is completely misguiding, because if we were non-topical, being educated does not
come from being confined to talk about “X” topic and anything outside of that is not
allowed and will be sternly discouraged; not at all! Learning comes from a diversity of
subjects and a variety of information. Additionally, we need to look at the surroundings
of a topic to be able to grasp a better understanding about where the topic fits in the
happenings of the world today.

V. Affirmative’s Right to Define

Quick Summary: The affirmative sets the pace of the round and we are given the right to
define terms within a reasonable and contextually acceptable manner.

Longer Explanation: As the affirmative team, we set what the round is going to be
about. We are the ones who provide the case to debate, the facet of the resolution to
discuss, et cetera. This is not said in a prideful manner, but we are given the right to
define terms within a reasonable and contextually acceptable manner.