Topicality Talk

To Run T (as the negative)

A) Interpretation Tell the judge how you think the
resolution should be read
B) Violation Why they violate and be specific
C) Standards (You dont need A Priori if you win these.
These are like voters) Prove your interpretation is the
best way to get to your standards
a. Predictable Limits
i. The aff can run an unreasonable number of
cases. Setting our predictable limit is
necessary to keep work to a good amount
b. Ground
Our interp ensures the aff doesnt steal our
ground by preventing us from running certain
arguments
To answer T (as the affirmative)
1) We Meet (Just say those two words and move on)
2) Counter-interpretation counterdefine their word
(Have a definition for every word)
3) We Meet our Counter-Interpretation
4) Counter-standards
a. Predictable Limits
The negative interpretation overlimits the
affirmatives by preventing us from running a
specific argument
B Ground
The negative has plenty of ground under our
interpretation. They can run all this under it
(Give examples of an array of negative

arguments the neg can run under our

interpretation). Here it is a good idea to point
out how much the negative was able to run
even though you supposedly violated a limit
that stole all their ground.

Example T Debate (Please dont use these

specifically, as I made them and most of this
wasnt in the camp file)

Affirmative Its Possessive T

A. Interpretation Its is a possessive pronoun showing ownership
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or
ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs
to me.)

B. Violation the aff incentives private sector development or exploration it

doesnt mandate federal development or exploration. They violate our
interpretation because the USFG doesnt own the plan. They pretty much
provide incentives to outsource it to the private sector. Obviously, the federal
government does not have possession over the private sector, and the
affirmative violates the resolution
C. Voting issue
1. Predictable limits incentives introduce multiple new mechanisms its huge
Moran, 86 (Theodore, Investing in Development: New Roles for Private Capital?, p. 28)

if incentivesare broadly defined to include tariffs and trade controls along with
tax holidays, subsidized loans, cash grants, and other fiscal measures, they comprise
more than forty separate kinds of measures. Moreover, the author emphasizes, the value of an incentive
package is just one of several means that governments use to lure foreign investors. Other methodsfor example,
Guisinger finds that

promotional activities (advertising, representative offices) and subsidized government servicesalso influence investors location
decisions. The author points out that empirical research so far has been unable to distinguish the relative importance of
fundamental economic factors and of government policies in decisions concerning the location of foreign investmentlet alone to
determine the effectiveness of individual government instrucments.

Thats 40 different ways to use incentives alone to run each aff in this years
topic. The negative should not have to prepare 40 case negs for every
affirmative; thats just unreasonable. The limit that the federal government
should own their plan is perfectly predictable and sets a reasonable research
burden for both the negative and the affirmative, who still have several ways to
run any given affirmative
2. negative ground they kill core negative strategies like free market
counterplans
The private sector, which is part of the status quo, should obviously be negative
ground. If the affirmative is allowed to take that from us, we are no longer able
to use the private sector as actors in counter plans, which is key negative
ground. They have unique access to the whole USFG, the least they can do is
give us the few actors that remain for large scale projects
3. Education We promote more in-depth education on the topic and the USFG
Without the ability to take a generic case and simply complete it using any of
the 40 incentives programs to void negative arguments, the affirmatives have
to complete in-depth topic-specific research to construct a good resilient
affirmative case. We promote the best in-round and out-of-round education,
which is the primary function of debate.

Negative answer to Its T

A. We Meet
B. Counter-Interpretation
Its shows relationship to something
Merriam-Webster 2014
relating to a certain thing, animal, etc.

C. We Meet our Counter-interpretation

Tax incentives and private sector interaction with them is clearly related to the
USFG and therefore entirely topical
D. Counter-standards
1. Predictable Limits
The USFG uses tax incentives to complete its desired projects all the time
because they just dont have the money, time, or human capital to do all of
them. Just look at the Renewable Fuel Standard, which helps the USFG reach its
goals for carbon control by offering tax incentives to those who produce
renewable fuels instead of taking control of the market themselves.
2. Balanced Ground
The affirmative still has access to dozens of actors for Counterplans, even inside
the USFG. Just look at the commonly run ExO CP and Military Cp. If they get
ground inside of a supposedly reserved affirmative actor they shouldnt balk at
us using a regular federal process to access a very common actor for the federal
government.
3. Education
The Affirmative interpretation offers the best education because it allows all
the topic-specific education offered by the negative interpretation but it also
gets team to look at the processes and actors the federal government
commonly uses for ocean policy and sustainability efforts.