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.)

“Substantial/substantially” means Essentially Important In the Main Large To make greater/augment Material/real Excludes material qualifications

Substantially [cont’d]

Potential issues include Do you meet an (arbitrary), quantified

increase in TII Whether the increase can be qualified

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

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?

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”

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

PART TWO: Non-Topicality Procedurals Plan vagueness Solvency advocate (lack thereof) Specification

Agent Enforcement Funding

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

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.

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

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

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)

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

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”