1 / 16

PROCEDURALS

PROCEDURALS. PART ONE: Topicality. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. T: Substantially. Many definitions of “substantially” (adv.) used in debate are of “substantial” (adj.)

baris
Download Presentation

PROCEDURALS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROCEDURALS

  2. PART ONE: Topicality • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.

  3. T: Substantially • Many definitions of “substantially” (adv.) used in debate are of “substantial” (adj.) • “Substantial/substantially” means • Essentially • Important • In the Main • Large • To make greater/augment • Material/real • Excludes material qualifications

  4. Substantially [cont’d] • Potential issues include • Do you meet an (arbitrary), quantified increase in TII • Whether the increase can be qualified

  5. T: Increase • “Increase” means • Augment numbers or quantity • To make greater/larger • To make a qualitative improvement • Potential disputes include • Whether there must be pre-existing TII to be increased • Whether the aff must increase the size of TII, or can just improve it

  6. T: Its • “Its” means the possessive form of “it”; used as a modifier before a noun • In this case, “transportation infrastructure investment” belong to “The United States federal government” • Controversy: is “its” exclusive? Are coop affs (with states, private entities, other countries) permissible?

  7. Investment • Means deploying resources (time, money, material) with the expectation of some future gain • Is used *broadly* and *frequently* in the context of infrastructure • May end up meaning “all government money spent on infrastructure”

  8. Debating Topicality • Like almost all theory, revolves around two impacts • Fairness • Education • You need to focus on three issues • Caselists (content and size) • Division of ground • Types of literature • Good T debating requires an appropriate mix of both offense and defense

  9. PART TWO: Non-Topicality Procedurals • Plan vagueness • Solvency advocate (lack thereof) • Specification • Agent • Enforcement • Funding

  10. PART THREE: Framework • What is this about? The controversy behind almost all framework debates is which types o f impacts “count” when the judge renders a decision • A secondary question the involves what mechanisms the debaters can use to access those impacts • Useful analogs include • Legal rules of evidence • Criteria debates from old school CEDA or LD • Methodological disputes

  11. Framework [cont’d] • What impacts are we competing for? • Education • Fairness • “Good political agents” • What are the approaches negatives take to defending framework against non-traditional affs? • “T”: you are not what the resolution says, debate like a T violation (caveman) • Traditional framework: policymaking is good, you’re not it (old school) • Cooptive frameworks: fair play, etc.

  12. Framework [cont’d] • Judges and framework debates • Be aware of the judge’s identity and social location/status • Ideologues • K all the way • K no way • Centrists (largely incoherent)—both sides get to weigh their impacts

  13. Framework [cont’d] • Traditional framework—instrumental implementation of the plan • Predictable ground [impact: fairness, via competition] • Rez mandates policy focus (resolved, USFG, etc) • Literature that neg mandates is more predictable • Are an infinite number of FORM/CONTENT combos • Education • Policy education leads to a more informed citizenry/bolsters demcoracy • Training—we learn to play future roles • Advocacy • Empathy • Research Skills • Engagement—avoids “right wing takeover” • Switch-side debate is valauble • Laboratory considerations (experimentation) • Know thy enemy

  14. Framework [cont’d] • Form • We need a consensus about what we are debating about for a meaningful debate to occur • Rules are necessary to guide discussion and can promote creativity • Defensive arguments • Playing by the rules can combat bad biopower(s) • The world works this way • Reciprocity • Affirmative choice (if affirmative)

  15. Expansive Affirmative FW • Meaning of words is arbitrary/predictability is a praxis, not a truth • Counter-definitions of worlds that allow an individualized focus • USFG is the people • Resolves refers to us, not the USFG • Debates do not leave the room • Policymakers do evil things, policymaking logic does evil things

  16. Expansive FW [cont’d] • Epistemological kritiks (knowledge from policy land is bad/tainted) • Politically-centered kritiks • Friere • Identity politics • Schlag • Ethics kritiks • Language kritiks/dirty words • General “case outweighs”

More Related