topicality of substantially increasing u.s. transportation

BAYLOR BRIEFS

THE NEGATIVE: CASEBOOKS ON

SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING U.S. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

Volume III

TOPICALITY OF SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING U.S.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

RYAN GALLOWAY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE THEORY OF TOPICALITY ...............................................……………………. 1

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS .................................................. 2

TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE ……………………..…………………………. 5

TOPICALITY IS NOT A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE ……..……………….……… 6

CRITIQUES (KRITIKS) DO NOT PRECLUDE TOPICALITY AS A VOTING ISSUE ………………………………….………….............……… 6

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS ……………………………….. 8

THE BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY ………………………… 9

TOPICALITY IN PRACTICE ………………………………………………………... 9

HOW TO USE TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS IN A DEBATE ……….…….……….. 11

STRUCTURING YOUR OWN TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS ……….…….………. 12

TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS ……….…….…………………………………………. 12 Violation #1: “Infrastructure Is That Which Supports Transportation:” Not the Vehicles Themselves ................................................................................... 12

Violation #2: “Transportation Infrastructure” Refers to Infrastructure Designed For Transporting People and Goods ..................................................................... 14

Violation #3: “Transportation Infrastructure” Must Be Physical and Not Intangible 15

Violation #4: “Transportation Infrastructure” Is Not Space Exploration ………….. 16

Violation #5: "Transportation Infrastructure” Is Not Energy Generation …………… 18

Violation #6: “Investment” Requires a Monetary Investment ……………………….. 19

Violation #7: “Its Investment:” Cases Involving Private Corporations Are Not Topical ……......................... 20

Violation #8: “Its Transportation Infrastructure Investment:” Cases Involving Joint Partnerships Are Not Topical ……………………….. 21

Violation #9: “Increase:” The Affirmative Plan Must Increase Existing Transportation Infrastructure Investment …….................... 22

Violation #10: “Increase” Means a “Net Increase:” Plans Which Improve Transportation Infrastructure Are Not Topical ………. 23

Violation #11: “Substantially Increase:” At Least Fifty-One Percent Plans That Increase Investment By Less than 51% Are Not Topical ……………. 24

Violation #11: “Substantially:” Without Material Qualification Plans That Establish Conditions for the Increase Are Not Topical ………………. 26

INDEX TO EVIDENCE ...........................................................................…………….. 28

EVIDENCE ................……………..................................................………………….. 30

1 RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

This book provides high school debaters with a variety of Topicality arguments to use during the 2012-2013 debate season. Topicality is an important argument for the negative. A negative team cannot be adequately prepared to debate every potential affirmative case and plan. By being prepared to debate Topicality, the number of cases a negative team must research in order to debate the topic is decreased. Additionally, Topicality provides another weapon in the negative arsenal of arguments that will enhance the negative’s chances of winning debate rounds. Finally, Topicality can often serve as a “wedge issue,” forcing the affirmative to defend interpretations of the resolution that best link to negative disadvantages, counter-plans, and solvency attacks.

Topicality will be especially important on this year’s high school debate topic. Seemingly, any type of action connected to transportation like energy production or oil drilling could fall under a broad interpretation of what infrastructure to support transportation means. Somewhat surprisingly, there is also evidence that going to space requires an effective transportation infrastructure, so some schools may try to make all of last year’s cases topical again! The negative will have to be aggressive to prevent such cases from becoming commonplace on this year’s topic.

However, on a second glance, the topic contains enough limiting terms to allow the negative to effectively challenge whether such cases actually affirm the topic. The key to make this topic manageable for the negative is to aggressively use every term of the resolution in order to create a clear limit on the topic so that the negative need not research plans that allow the affirmative team to provide tangential means by which to increase investment in transportation infrastructure. This book will provide the negative the tools with which to accomplish such a task.

Because of the potential for such a broad topic, it will be difficult if not impossible for debate programs with many researchers and the best facilities to be well prepared to debate all elements of the topic. Additionally, debate programs with fewer debaters and that lack access to large libraries will be at even more of a disadvantage when debating this topic. Topicality can equalize the debate “playing field” because Topicality places more of an emphasis on the in-round rhetorical and persuasive abilities of the debaters, and less emphasis on the amount of evidence the debaters possess on a particular case.

THE THEORY OF TOPICALITY

This section of the book discusses the theoretical issues surrounding Topicality. First, there is a brief discussion of the theoretical rationales underlying why Topicality should be considered a voting issue in a debate. Next, there is a discussion of various standards that negative teams can use to evaluate definitions in a way favorable to the negative side.

TOPICALITY AS A VOTING ISSUE

While it is obvious to most that the affirmative plan must be topical in order for the affirmative team to win the debate, some debaters have been known to challenge this notion. Some debaters have even been brazen enough to make the argument that Topicality is a “reverse voting issue,” meaning that if the negative team does not win the debate on Topicality, all other negative arguments in the debate become irrelevant. This section of the book will provide the negative with the ability to refute these affirmative claims.

Additionally, many teams are now arguing that Topicality can be superseded by other arguments, especially critical arguments (kritiks/critiques). It is argued that the "performance" of the affirmative critique is more important than Topicality in educating the judge and the debaters toward an emancipatory view of philosophy or rhetoric. Thus, these teams will argue that their kritik simply “outweighs Topicality.” Many teams at the college level now aggressively attack Topicality, arguing that the very requirement that the affirmative team be constrained in their ability to argue whatever they wish "silences their voice" as a form of "discursive violence." Basically, they argue that the very effort by the negative to argue a Topicality position denies them the ability to run their affirmative critique. Arguing that the benefit provided to the debate activity provided by the critical method of inquiry “outweighs” Topicality, this claim can make even the best Topicality violation irrelevant. Thus, this section now includes a brief which answers the “Kritik of Topicality.”

First, Topicality must be an a priori voting issue because it is the burden of the affirmative to “affirm” the resolution. Negative teams must negate the topic, while affirmative teams must affirm it. To affirm the resolution,

2 an affirmative plan must fall under the parameters of the resolution. If the plan does not fall under the resolution, it is logically impossible for the plan to be an affirmation of the resolution.

Second, Topicality must be a voting issue, because without it, debate would be incredibly unfair to the negative. Negative teams should not have to be prepared to debate any issue the affirmative chooses to discuss. Indeed, the very reason why the framers choose specific resolutions and the reason the high school debate community voted to select one resolution was to frame the scope of every debate. If affirmative teams could select whatever plan about any issue they thought was relevant, it is impossible to imagine the negative team having adequate time to research and prepare strategies against the affirmative case and plan.

Further, the negative ability to answer any critique run by the affirmative is grounded in whether or not the negative can accurately predict and research the range of critical arguments available to the affirmative team. Much like the ability to answer case advantages and to effectively run disadvantages, the negative ability to answer critiques, and indeed, to run critiques of their own, is contingent upon the affirmative plan upholding the resolution. The affirmative must be required to uphold a predictable “thesis,” so that the negative team can create a viable “antithesis.” It is through this exchange that the best hope for creating the conditions to critique society, philosophy, or rhetoric can take place. By denying the ability of the negative team to create an “antithesis” to the affirmative “thesis,” the affirmative team renders the point of debate itself moot.

If Topicality was not a voting issue, debates would not be won by the team doing the better debating, instead debates would be won by whichever team happened to be affirmative. The process of debate itself would be devoid of meaning. Only by requiring the affirmative to uphold the resolution can there be adequate preparation and clash by both sides.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS

Having established that topicality is a voting issue, the negative must provide the judge with standards to evaluate competing definitions of terms in the topic. As each word in the topic is subject to several different shades of meaning, it is important for the negative team to convince the judge that the interpretation of the resolution supported by their definition is superior to the affirmative interpretation. The negative must be prepared to refute the affirmative claim that their interpretation need only be “reasonable.”

Only by convincing the judge that the negative interpretation is the better way to view the resolution can the negative win a debate on Topicality. Simply reading any definition of one of the terms in the topic and arguing that the affirmative team does not meet that definition is insufficient, because the affirmative will have a competing definition proving they are topical. It is the debate about the comparison between the competing interpretations of the resolution that is the essence of Topicality debates. The question is then, how do you prove your definition is superior to the affirmative definition? The following standards will provide you with several means of doing so.

DIVISION OF GROUND

When you debate this standard, you must argue that an interpretation of the resolution must provide both the affirmative and the negative ample opportunity to discuss issues surrounding the resolution adequately. A “skew” in ground one way or the other risks making the debate process unfair. Debate places an emphasis on the team with the most analytical and rhetorical skills being able to win the debate round, and an interpretation which makes the resolution undermine rather than enhance this process should be rejected. For the negative, it is important to emphasize that the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution does not adequately limit the topic to a reasonable number of cases, while the negative interpretation of the resolution provides enough ground for the affirmative to utilize a fair number of cases and plans under the topic. Many debate judges believe this is the only standard relevant in judging a Topicality debate.

LIMITATION

When you argue this standard, you must argue that it is better to limit the topic to a small number of cases than a large number of cases. Limitation best enhances the in-depth nature and quality of discussion of complicated issues, while a broad topic allows for only a cursory examination of a wide range of issues, leaving little time for quality argumentation. Additionally, a limited topic equalizes the debate “playing field” by allowing squads with fewer researchers and less adequate research bases the opportunity to fairly compete with larger squads with access to university libraries. By limiting the topic, the Negative can research and prepare more in-depth attacks designed

3 to combat the affirmative advantages of in-depth research and discussion on a single area of the topic. Additionally, a narrower topic allows the negative to research specific arguments against affirmative cases, allowing the negative to overcome the judging community’s increasing unwillingness to vote negative on generic attacks. A limited topic would enhance the negative’s ability to research specific arguments against each affirmative case, which would increase the probability of the negative winning a fair number of debates.

PREDICTABILITY

When you argue this standard, you are arguing that the topic serves to limit the range of cases to those that are predictable via the terms of the topic. Predictability is best served by looking at the literature surrounding the topic, and investigating the policies advocated which would increase investment in transportation infrastructure. The topic exists to provide the negative with “fair warning” about what is reasonable for them to be prepared to debate. An interpretation that is not supported by the bulk of topic literature is not predictable for the negative to be able to debate, and should thus be rejected. This standard is especially useful against new cases and “squirrel cases.”

FIELD CONTEXT

When you argue this standard, you must argue that the best definitions of the resolution come from experts who discuss issues relevant to the field from which the topic is drawn. Energy experts should define terms on an energy topic, foreign policy experts should define terms on a foreign policy topic, and transportation experts should define terms on a transportation topic. Obviously, these experts have a greater understanding of the usage of the terms as applied to the topic than a standard dictionary definition, and thus their definitions are more relevant to issues that debaters will actually find discussed in the literature surrounding the topic. Hence, definitions with “field context” should be considered superior to other definitions in a debate round.

BRIGHT LINE

When you argue this standard, you must argue that the best definitions of the resolution are definitions that clearly demarcate ground between the affirmative and the negative on the topic. Definitions that are arbitrary and vague should be rejected in favor of definitions that clearly draw a “bright line” between what the affirmative is allowed to discuss and not allowed to discuss under the topic. This standard has particular merit when the affirmative is trying to claim that a vague definition of the resolution is sufficient to provide fair ground for both the affirmative and negative team. The negative should point out that the arbitrary nature of the affirmative definition makes the affirmative interpretation meaningless, and their interpretation should be rejected in favor of a clear interpretation of the resolution.

LEGAL CONTEXT

When you argue this standard, you must argue that the best definitions of the resolution come from experts who discuss legal issues. This is because of the many similarities between the legal process and the debate process. Lawyers and judges are called upon to analyze terms in a statute, contract, or case closely in order to determine how these terms affect legal issues. In a similar way, debaters are called upon to analyze terms in the resolution closely to determine how these words affect the resolution under which the debate process operates. Because lawyers and judges carefully scrutinize words, their opinions about the definitions of those terms should be considered superior to another author who carelessly misuses a term of the topic in a sentence, or a mere dictionary definition. Hence, definitions with “legal context” should be considered superior to other definitions in a debate round.

RESOLUTIONAL CONTEXT

When you debate this standard, you must argue that words must be defined in a way that emphasizes the way in which they appear in the resolution “sentence.” The resolution should be presumed to be a well-crafted and carefully constructed sentence, as it was carefully scrutinized by both the framers of the topic committee and the high school debate community before being selected to be this year’s resolution. Hence, the interactions of the words in the sentence should carry weight. An example would be the phrase "red herring." When considered individually, the terms might be construed to mean a maroon colored fish, but when considered together, "red herring" generally refers to a deceptive or misleading clue. It is important to define terms collectively to gain the proper "context" of the resolution. This is uniquely important on this year’s topic with the term of art “transportation infrastructure.”

4 TOPICAL VERSION OF THE AFFIRMATIVE

When you argue that there is a “topical version of the affirmative case,” you are explaining to the judge that even a slight modification of the case could make the affirmative topical. This holds persuasive value to the judge in that you are not trying to over-limit the resolution, but merely provide fair ground for the negative. So, for example, “a topical version of their affirmative would be to allow for them to build hydrogen refueling stations, but those hydrogen refueling stations must be funded by the federal government” is a way to utilize this standard.

GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY

When you debate this standard, you must argue that the words in the resolution should be construed in a way to emphasize proper rules of grammar and sentence construction. The resolution should be thought of as a carefully crafted, grammatically correct sentence. Indeed, the framers of the resolution choose each word in the resolution extremely carefully to achieve just such a result. An example from this resolution would be the phrase “substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment.” Some teams may wish to argue that their plan has a substantial advantage in that it stops a war or bolsters the US economy. However, the resolution says that the United States federal government must substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment. The size of the advantage is simply not relevant to the size of the investment. Because of the grammatical context of the resolution, definitions and interpretations which emphasize the grammatical rules of construction of the English language should be considered superior to definitions which fail to provide grammatical accuracy.

PRECISION

When you argue for this standard, you argue that having a precise interpretation of the topic is more important than having an interpretation that provides adequate ground for both teams. Often, an interpretation of the resolution may provide fair ground for both teams without being precise in some fundamental way. Many affirmatives wish to talk solely about how their interpretation of the resolution provides adequate “ground” for both sides. The affirmative team may be tempted to argue that the nature of their case is one that the negative team should be prepared to refute, even if they fail to meet the precise meaning of the topic. For example, they may argue that even if their plan does not meet the precise wording of the topic, that the negative team should be prepared to debate against affirmatives which claim to solve terrorism or which bolster US leadership. With this standard you can argue that Topicality is fundamentally about a precise definition, even prior to considerations of equity in debate.

INTENT TO DEFINE

When you argue for this standard, you argue that evidence which intends to define a term in the resolution is superior to evidence that merely uses the words of the topic in a sentence. Often, a writer will use a phrase in a sentence, without having the “intent” to either define or provide a precise usage of the term. Many affirmative teams will use evidence like this as “contextual evidence” to prove they are topical. A powerful way to indict this type of evidence is to argue that the author of the evidence did not intend to define the term in the resolution, and that evidence intending to define terms is superior to mere casual usage of the terms in a sentence.

FRAMERS’ INTENT

When you argue this standard, you should argue that the words in the resolution should be construed to serve the spirit and intent of the “framers” of the resolution in the best way possible. Obviously, the authors of the resolution had certain ideas and concepts in mind when they wrote the resolution, much as the authors of a statute or law had certain ideas when they wrote the instrument. Indeed, courts and other bodies which interpret statutes place a great deal of weight on the meaning of the words that the framers of the law had in mind when the law was written. Debaters are well advised to read The Forensic Quarterly and the topic paper for this resolution in order to glean additional insight to the “framers’ intent” behind the resolution.

EACH WORD HAS A MEANING

When you argue for this standard, you should argue that there is a presumption that each word in the resolution was designed to have a meaning that adds to the resolution as a whole. Otherwise, the word would not have been placed in the resolution. This interpretation also gains insight from the rules of statutory construction, that if two interpretations of a statute exist, one which would provide each word of the statute with meaning, and one which

5 would leave even a single word in the statute devoid of meaning, there is a heavy presumption that the interpretation which provides meaning to each word in the statute is the correct interpretation. Thus, if an affirmative interpretation risks “writing a word out of the resolution,” it should be considered inaccurate.

BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY

Many affirmative teams will claim their interpretation of the resolution needs only to be a “reasonable” interpretation of the resolution. Negative debaters must refute this standard, and argue that Topicality debates center around which of the competing definitions is the “best definition” for the debate. When you argue the “best definition” standard you must argue that judges are looking for the best interpretation of the resolution, not one that is merely a “reasonable” interpretation of the resolution. Many teams also say that the judge should look at “competing interpretations” instead of reasonability, which is a way of saying “good is not good enough” and the better definition should be used.

TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE

1. TOPICALITY IS A RULE OF THE GAME. Dale Herbeck & John P. Katsulas (profs. of speech communication @ Boston College), Jrnl. of the American Forensic Assoc., Win., 85, 136-37. “Similar to the rules which govern the time limits and the number of speeches for a debate, the rule that topicality is a voting issue remains nondebatable. For equity reasons, the participants of all competitive games arrive at some consensual agreement on the rules prior to the start of the contest.”

2. TOPICALITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE BURDEN: THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN MUST BE TOPICAL OR THE NEGATIVE WINS THE DEBATE. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “Unless the affirmative demonstrates that the plan does implement the resolution (i.e., that it is a topical plan), they have not fulfilled their prima facie burden, and the negative can charge, they should lose.”

3. TOPICALITY IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “If the plan in non-topical, then the judge has no province, or no jurisdiction, over the plan and therefore must, regardless of the societal merits of the plan, reject it.” David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “Since the question of jurisdiction is one of fact, it emerges as an either-or issue; it is nonsensical to appeal to the judge to accept a plan on the ‘risk’ that at some point it ‘might be’ topical. Certainly district courts do not decide to listen to cases on the ‘risk’ that they might have jurisdiction.”

4. TOPICALITY IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF DEBATE. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-4. “The fact that a body of educators selects the resolution suggests that they find educational value in the discussion of that resolution, perhaps because of its timeliness, its social importance, or its unique high-lighting of relevant sub-issues such as the opposition of federal actions versus state or local actions.” David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-4. “Part of the educational value of debate derives from its method of argument from, for example, the use of evidence and personal knowledge in the discussion of a particular issue. Before this issue can be fulfilled, both teams must be prepared, both in terms of knowledge and in terms of evidence, to debate the same issue. Without this common ground, much of the educational value of debate evaporates, and ultimately, it is only through adherence to a resolution that some degree of common ground is guaranteed.”

5. THE FACT THAT WE SELECT A SPECIFIC TOPIC MAKES TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “If the final resolution is not binding, if it has no meaningful relation to the actual debates, then why go through the bother and expense of topic selection? It makes little sense, and the negative can argue that the fact that such a selection process exists suggests that topicality should be a voting issue in a given round.”

6 TOPICALITY IS NOT A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE

1. TOPICALITY IS A BURDEN FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE NOT THE NEGATIVE. The burden of the affirmative is to prove the resolution true, to “affirm” the resolution. Merely because the affirmative proves their plan falls under the resolution does not prove the resolution is justified. The resolution must still be proven to be advantageous. Merely meeting one level of a two-part test does not mean the affirmative should win the debate.

2. A “GOOD FAITH” TOPICALITY VIOLATION SHOULD NOT COST THE NEGATIVE THE ENTIRE DEBATE. Merely because we honestly believed there was a legitimate Topicality concern with the affirmative plan and are now convinced that such is not the case should not cost us the entire debate. For example, if we ran two disadvantages and discovered that one did not link to the affirmative case, the judge should not disregard the other disadvantage merely because we chose to concede that the first did not link to the case.

3. TOPICALITY IS NOT A “TIME WASTER.” If the affirmative truly thought this topicality violation was designed to get them to spend too much time on the argument, then the appropriate response is to run three or four of their best answers and move on to other issues in the debate. Merely because the affirmative chose to make multiple topicality answers is not a reason to vote against the negative team.

4. THE NEGATIVE TEAM SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXTEND EVERY ARGUMENT. The essence of quality debate is the ability to pick and choose the best possible arguments and extend only those in the last rebuttal. Our admission that this is not the best argument we have in the debate only enhances the quality of the debate.

5. NO INTELLECTUAL PURPOSE IS SERVED BY MAKING TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE AGAINST THE NEGATIVE TEAM. The purpose of Topicality is to provide a check on the scope of the discussion initiated by the affirmative. No such purpose is served by punishing the negative for running a Topicality violation.

CRITIQUES (KRITIKS) DO NOT PRECEDE TOPICALITY AS A VOTING ISSUE

1. TOPICALITY ESTABLISHES THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE ENTIRE ROUND. Either side’s ability to make any kind of argument, including critical arguments, stems from the necessity for the affirmative plan to be topical.

2. TOPICALITY IS A CENTRAL AFFIRMATIVE BURDEN. Merely because the critical performance of the affirmative is beneficial in some sense does not obviate the affirmative of the burden to “affirm” the resolution.

3. ALLOWING CRITICAL ARGUMENTS TO SUPERSEDE TOPICALITY ADVERSELY AFFECTS NEGATIVE GROUND. By lifting the affirmative burden to uphold the resolution, the affirmative can merely pick to critique any aspect or element of society, regardless of what the topic wording said.

4. ALLOWING CRITICAL ARGUMENTS TO SUPERSEDE TOPICALITY HINDERS THE NEGATIVE’S ABILITY TO ANSWER THE AFFIRMATIVE’S CRITICISM. By allowing the affirmative to critique whatever they wish, the judge gets a false sense of the validity of the affirmative critique. Because the negative is ill-prepared to answer critiques on issues other than the topic, the judge may falsely buy into the affirmative criticism without adequate understanding of the arguments against such a critique.

5. TOPICALITY IS AN “A PRIORI” ISSUE. Topicality happens “above the board,” meaning it is an argument that takes place prior to when the “debate game” begins. Entering a critical argument into the debate game may be beneficial, but the affirmative must first meet certain burdens before the game begins.

7 6. ACCEPTING THEIR STANDARD LEADS TO “HOLLOW” CRITICISMS.

The affirmative would be allowed to critique society at the most basic level with which the negative could never disagree. Critiques arguing that racism or sexism is bad are obvious comments that no one would disagree with. To deal with complex issues like those posed by the resolution, the affirmative team should be required to present a topical course of action.

7. ARGUMENTATION REQUIRES A “DIALECTIC” OR FAIR ABILITY FOR THE NEGATIVE TO CREATE AN “ANTITHESIS” TO THE AFFIRMATIVE “THESIS.” FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THIS RECIPROCAL OBLIGATION LEADS TO VIOLENCE, STRIFE, AND THE SEPARATION OF PERSON FROM PERSON AND NATION FROM NATION. Douglas Ehninger, prof. of speech communication at the University of Iowa, 1970, (Speech Monographs, vol. 37; 110). But this process also is reflexive, for insofar as we treat the “other” as a person rather than as an “object,” we become persons ourselves; while insofar as we fail do so, our own “personhood” is to that extent diminished. The attributes of freedom and responsibility that are defining of the “person” are not absolutes with respect to the “other,” but are states that are only reached in “relationship.” Relation, inclusion, experience from the opposite side, the capacity to comprehend the contradiction which opposition entails, these are not merely descriptive of the human condition; they are constitutive. The I attains to its full potential only when, and only to the extent that, it meets the “other” as a Thou. Argument as a way of “living through a common experience from the other side” as a reciprocal honoring of the “person” rather than a unilateral exploitation of the biological or economic individual, is, therefore, a way of gaining “freedom” and “responsibility;” a way of achieving “personhood” for oneself by bestowing “personhood” upon another. Johnstone has remarked that the creature who refuses to argue or to listen to arguments must, of necessity, remain something less than human. Because [sic] man is by nature a social animal [sic] he attains complete humanity only when [sic] he enters into such relationships as argument provides. The ultimate justification of argument as method, therefore, lies not in any pragmatic test of results achieved or disasters avoided. Rather it lies in the fact that by introducing the arguer “into a situation of risk in which open-mindedness and tolerance are possible,” it paves the way toward “personhood” for the disputants, and through them and millions like them opens the way to a society in which the values and commitments to “personhood” may some day replace the exploitation and strife which now separate [sic] man from [sic] man and nation from nation.

8. TOPICALITY IS A NORM THAT ENCOURAGES PLURALITY AND DIVERSITY OF OPINION IN DEBATE. Star Muir, prof. of speech communication @ George Mason University, 1993. (Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 26; pg. 290-291). A final point about relativism is that switch-side debate encourages fairness and equality of opportunity in evaluating competing values. Initially, it is apparent that a priori fairness is a fundamental aspect of games and gamesmanship [sic]. Players in the game should start out with equal advantage, and the rules should be construed throughout to provide no undue advantage to one side or the other. Both sides, notes Thompson, should have an equal amount of time and a fair chance to present their arguments. Of critical importance, he insists, is an equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is manifest throughout many debate procedures and norms. On the question of topicality—whether the affirmative plan is an example of the stated topic—the issue of “fair ground” for debate is explicitly developed as a criterion for decision. Likewise, when a counterplan is offered against an affirmative plan, the issue of coexistence, or of the “competitiveness” of the plans, frequently turns on the fairness of the affirmative team’s suggested “permutation” of the plans. In these and other issues, the value of fairness, and of equality of opportunity, is highlighted and clarified through constant disputation. The point is simply that debate does teach values, and that these values are instrumental in providing a hearing for alternative points of view. Paying explicit attention to decision criteria, and to the division of ground arguments (a function of competition), effectively renders the value structure pluralistic rather than relativisitic.

9. TESTING POINTS OF VIEW FROM BOTH SIDES IS CRITICAL TO MORAL EDUCATION. Star Muir, prof. of speech communication @ George Mason University, 1993(Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 26; pg. 291). Sound conviction, a key element of an individual’s moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasoned assessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues. It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two opposing accounts are present on everything, and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. Debate might be rendering students a disservice insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction.

8 10. RULES FOR DISCUSSION ARE NECESSARY FOR BENEFICIAL DECISION-MAKING AND TO AVOID

DOMINATION OF OTHERS IN DISCUSSION. Hugh Duncan, 1993 (Landmark Essays on Kenneth Burke, ed. Barry Brummet; pg. 196-197). Nothing better illustrates the power of form in social relationships than rules. In play, games, manners, and all moments of pure sociability we are bound to each other by the form of the game. Such forms function as bounds and determinants of conduct. As Mead taught us, in games we play our positions in terms of assumptions about how other players will play theirs. But these assumptions, however internalized, are objectified in forms of play which must be followed if the game is to be played fairly. Once rules are made and codified so that all concerned may know them, we appoint an umpire to serve as guardian of the rules we ourselves have made or accepted. His power is derived from his knowledge of the rules and his ability to apply them quickly and surely in all moments of play. He “speaks from the book (of rules)” and can “throw the book at us,” as we say in America. Like the judge in common law, the umpire must remember that he applies, but does not interpret or create, rules. Reason in democratic society is born in discussion that depends on disputants who remain loyal to the rules of discussion. In a society based on discussion there are no “revealed truths,” any more than there are “laws” (physical, biological, or historical) of social process which “determine” human conduct. Nor, for that matter, are there fixed logical canons of inquiry. What we do try to fix, and make binding on all, are rules for discussion. Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free and informed people who subordinate themselves to rules of discussion, are the best ways to decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reach agreement that binds us to a common cause. We assume also in democracy that the highest kind of human relationship is friendship, because friendship among people of very different ranks and capacities enlarges our understanding and thus strengthens the “will” of our social bonds. If we are to be equal, and if we believe discussions among equals is a way to truth, relationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions. Equals agree, inferiors obey, superiors command. Democracy lives in agreement and it remains strong so long as there are many ways of reaching agreement.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS

1. DEFINITIONS MUST PROVIDE A FAIR DIVISION OF GROUND. Donn W. Parson (U. of KS), Dimensions of Argument (2nd SCA Conf. on Argumentation), Oct. 15, 81, 537. “[As Campbell notes] a proposition so broad that its function is lost, or so defined that it prevents negative teams from preparing against innumerable cases is unreasonable.” Edward A. Hinck (U. of KS) et al., Argument in Transition, Oct. 15, 83, 809. “This criterion [grammar and syntax] eliminates overly strategic interpretations of topics by rewarding arguments which define the resolution fairly. Overly narrow or broad meanings for the resolution will be criticized on the ground that they are unfair in allocating argumentative ground. Hence, the best definitions will be ones which fairly divide negative and affirmative ground.”

2. DEFINITIONS SHOULD EMPHASIZE FIELD CONTEXT. Dale A. Herbeck (prof. of speech communication @ Boston College) et al., Jrnl. of the American Forensic Assoc., Win., 85, 138. “The first way to prove that the affirmative’s definitions are unreasonable is to prove an absence of field context. The negative must establish that the affirmative is incorrectly importing definitions from one context into another context.” Steve Mancuso (former director of debate @ Univ. of Michigan), Debater’s Rsch. Guide (Arms Sales), 82, 31. “To defend this standard [field context] one would argue that these professionals have an interest in accuracy, rigor and timeliness in defining their field of study. Their definitions, therefore, would be especially useful in determining what is a reasonable example of the topic.”

3. LEGAL DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE USED. Steve Mancuso (former director of debate @ Univ. of Michigan), Debater’s Rsch. Guide (Arms Sales), 82, 31. “A defense of this standard could begin by noting that the interpretive function of the courts is very similar to that of debaters. It is explicit, and it must balance competing notions of specificity, breadth and relevance. Additionally, the courts often deal with words in their context in policy discussions or applications; therefore, the parallel with debate is even stronger.”

4. DEFINITIONS SHOULD EMPHASIZE RESOLUTIONAL CONTEXT. Donn W. Parson (U. of KS), Dimensions of Argument (2nd SCA Conf. on Argumentation), Oct. 15, 81, 537. “Individual words may have several meanings, not one of them more ‘true’ than any other. Words may also be combined into adjectival clauses or phrases in which the interanimation of individual words changes or enhances the possible meaning of the word cluster. Taking the words ‘minimum,’ ‘educational,’ and ‘standards’ with separate, possibly multiple meanings and linking them into ‘minimum educational standards’ created a new configuration of meaning separate from individual meanings of words.”

9 David Williams (U. of KS) & Frank Cross, U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-10. “The type of combination [of semantic meanings] is determined by the type of grammatical relations obtained between the constituents whose readings are to be combined. This process of combination must also weed out unacceptable readings.”

5. DEFINITIONS SHOULD EMPHASIZE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY. Edward A. Hinck (U. of KS) et al., Argument in Transition, Oct. 15, 83, 809. “Arguments which present the most accurate reflection of grammar and syntax for the resolution should be regarded superior to those arguments which are less accurate reflections of correct usage.” Edward A. Hinck (U. of KS) et al., Argument in Transition, Oct. 15, 83, 809. “Since language is a system of symbolic expression possessing rules of usage, and given the fact that the resolution is expressed linguistically, the interpretation of the resolution should conform to the rules of usage. Incorrect usage vitiates language’s power to express meaning in ways which other individuals may grasp; it distorts the meaning of terms preventing a clear apprehension of a term’s meaning by various individuals in an argumentative encounter. Close adherence to rules of usage will prevent distortion of the resolution.”

6. EACH WORD HAS A MEANING. Corpus Juris Secundum, 53, 551-52. “There is a presumption that every word, sentence, or provision was intended for some useful purpose, has some force and effect.”

THE BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY

I. “REASONABILITY” IS A POOR STANDARD.

A. “REASONABILITY” IS INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS. James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 3-4. “[Reasonability] itself is extremely vague and ambiguous. As a court once put it: ‘Any attempt to give specific meaning to the word “reasonable” is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space.’ In short, one man’s reasonability is another’s irrationality.”

B. “REASONABILITY” DOES NOT ADEQUATELY LIMIT THE TOPIC. James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 4. “Reasonability as a limitation upon definitional excess is both ineffective and counterproductive. It means that the actual words of the proposition will play a minimal role in actually formulating the nature of the subject matter under discussion.”

II. THE “BETTER DEFINITION” SHOULD BE USED.

A. THE BETTER DEFINITION STANDARD ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF DEBATE. James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 5. “[With the better definition standard] the quality of substantive public policy arguments would also be substantially improved. By requiring a search for the ‘best’ definition rather than one which is merely ‘reasonable,’ the possible range of affirmative cases would be inevitably restricted to those considered most meaningful and relevant to the subject matter area itself.”

B. THE BETTER DEFINITION STANDARD IS SUPERIOR TO THE “REASONABILITY” STANDARD. James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 5. “Such an approach totally eliminates the current emphasis upon a single standard of acceptability, i.e., ‘reasonability,’ and puts in its place a comparative assessment which requires both teams to discover the superiority of one of their definitions through a process of argumentative comparison and contrast. In so doing, it places topicality argumentation on a more rational and equitable level with all other portions of the debate.”

TOPICALITY IN PRACTICE

This section begins with advice about how to argue Topicality most effectively in practice. Further, this section provides advice about how best to utilize the violations and standards in this book.

HOW TO DEBATE TOPICALITY EFFECTIVELY

Topicality can be a powerful weapon, but it is also one that many judges, and even many debaters, have grown disenchanted with in recent years. Because of the emphasis on semantics and procedural issues over substantive issues like disadvantages and solvency, Topicality is often viewed as merely a tool to confuse debates or drain away

10 time from the affirmative team’s discussion of more substantive issues. This section is an effort to reinvigorate Topicality debates, which can be, if properly performed, some of the most exciting and thrilling debates possible.

First, slow down. That’s probably good advice for most debaters anyway. Topicality places more of an emphasis on rhetorical flourish and fine distinctions than most other issues. Thus, reading the standards blocks and the violations at warp speed diminishes the impact and the value of the arguments. Additionally, many judges really have to be persuaded that Topicality is worth voting on. Hence, placing more emphasis on the argument by slowing down in comparison to the other arguments in the debate will help you “sell” Topicality to the judge. Excellent topicality debaters will slow down and use all of their rhetorical and persuasive skills to convince the judge that Topicality is a necessary and vital part of the debate.

Second, spend time on Topicality. If you are planning on extending Topicality throughout the debate, it will require a substantial investment of time throughout the debate. A Topicality violation extended carelessly in the waning seconds of the Second Negative Constructive or First Negative Rebuttal will likely be treated by the judge as a “cheap shot,” a diversionary tactic designed to draw the affirmative into spending time on the argument. Hence, the argument will not be given the proper attention and focus by the judge that you may feel it merits in the debate round. Spending between two to three minutes extending a Topicality violation in the negative block will be far more beneficial to your hopes of winning than hoping that you will introduce so many arguments into the debate that the affirmative team will not be prepared to answer them all. Indeed, it is this type of strategy which is causing judges to grow less likely to vote on Topicality, as it begins to be perceived as a tactical ploy rather than a well-developed argument.

Third, use only one or two Topicality violations per debate. Many debaters feel that if they argue multiple Topicality violations, they can “spread the affirmative team out” by making so many arguments that the affirmative will not adequately answer them all. This strategy, however, has several flaws. First, Topicality arguments often overlap. A standard used on one Topicality violation will likely be inconsistent with one run on another. Thus, a smart affirmative team will point to the inconsistencies between the violations and use the negative’s own standards against them. Second, the quality of the arguments will dramatically suffer. There are probably only one or two quality Topicality violations against any particular affirmative plan. When a team tries to argue three or four violations, the third and fourth violations are likely so inapplicable to the affirmative plan that the affirmative can dispense with the arguments in little or no time at all. Thus, whatever time advantage the negative was trying to gain by introducing so many Topicality violations will likely be quickly nullified by an affirmative team. Further, low quality arguments make judges less likely to vote negative on Topicality as a whole. The ethos and general credibility of a team suffer when they flood a debate with low-quality arguments, and these perceptions will often spill-over into the judge’s perceptions of the round as a whole.

Fourth, make a decision in the Second Negative Rebuttal. I once heard that mixing Topicality and substance in the Second Negative Rebuttal is like drinking and driving, in that you are risking a serious accident. While this will shock many debaters, the modern conception of Topicality is that if one is going to extend Topicality in the Second Negative Rebuttal, it should be the only argument extended by the Second Negative Rebuttalist. One Topicality violation, extended and explained for all five minutes of the rebuttal. That’s it. This allows the Second Negative Rebuttalist the opportunity to focus their energy and attention on one argument, marshaling their rhetorical power and persuasive ability to defeat the Affirmative plan. Because Topicality is an issue that requires debaters to slow down and make fine distinctions, trying to extend it and extend substantive arguments in the Second Negative Rebuttal will leave both arguments in a state of poor quality, insufficient for the judge to vote negative on either set of arguments. Hence, negative debaters must be ready and willing to make a decision in the Second Negative Rebuttal: am I going to extend Topicality, or am I going to win the debate on its substantive merits? Failure to make this choice will lead to more negative losses than trying to “go for” both Topicality and substantive issues.

Fifth, use concrete examples from this year’s topic. One of the most frequent complaints judges have about Topicality debates is that the arguments quickly become abstract in nature, and divorced from examples about the topic. The best Topicality debaters will compare and contrast cases already being run on that topic with negative strategies that are excluded because of the non-topical nature of the affirmative plan. For example, one might argue that the affirmative plan’s effort to use private source of funding deprives the negative team of the ability to argue disadvantages inherent to governmental funding of transportation infrastructure. Arguments that are specific to the topic make judges far more likely to vote on Topicality than more abstract and theoretical arguments.

11 Sixth, use concrete examples from that round. Another frequently heard complaint is the notion of “potential

abuse.” Many negatives are good at arguing “if you allow this case, then you would allow ‘x.’” However, pointing out strategies that were attempted in the debate, but disallowed because of the non-topical nature of the affirmative, will often win a Topicality debate for the negative. For example, one could run a disadvantage arguing that substantially increasing transportation infrastructure would be funded by expanding oil drilling. When the affirmative team argues that they only rely on private investment to fund the plan, your Topicality argument on "its investment" gains credibility. Concrete examples illustrate to the judge the importance of voting on Topicality to ensure fair ground for the negative team.

Finally, learn about the attitudes of the judge toward Topicality. Many tournaments now require judges to publish a judging philosophy before the tournament, and debaters and coaches have access to them. Read them. The best debaters always do, and they know which judges are likely to accept Topicality and which ones won’t. If your area doesn’t have judging philosophies, then read ballots from individual judges and see what they think of specific Topicality arguments. Talk to judges after the tournament to see what their reactions to your arguments were. Talk to your friends who had the judge in their round and see what the judge’s comments were on their ballot. Most judges are more than happy to engage debaters in discussions about their reactions to issues, and debaters would be foolish to ignore helpful advice and commentary from the very people who decide whether they won or lost a round.

If the judge wishes not to talk directly to you, read the judge’s ballots. It never ceases to amaze me how often debaters fail to do this, or just rationalize defeat with comments like, “Well, that judge just didn’t like us.” More often than not, it will be that the judge did not find your arguments persuasive. Make a file on the judges and find out their reaction to arguments like Topicality. That way, when you have the judge later in the year, you can determine their susceptibility to the Topicality arguments you are planning to make in the debate. Topicality, more than most arguments, is a question of judge adaptation, as some judges are unlikely to vote on Topicality. However, with a little extra work and preparation, debaters can best assess how (or if) to debate Topicality in front of a particular judge. RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

This next section contains Topicality arguments the Negative can use against many of the plans debaters are likely to argue this year. Each topicality argument will contain a definition of a term or terms in the topic that an Affirmative plan “violates.” It is important for debaters to explain how the specific plan they are debating violates a term or terms in the resolution that the Topicality arguments in this book are designed to make. Merely reading the violation is insufficient, showing the relationship between a plan plank and a specific violation is essential to winning debates on Topicality. The arguments in this book contain many of the standards discussed in the standards section and it is important for debaters to have an understanding of the relative merits of individual standards before debating these violations. Finally, an understanding of why Topicality is considered to be a voting issue is essential in maximizing debates about Topicality, so it is important for debaters to be familiar with the arguments previously discussed in this book before using these violations.

HOW TO USE TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS IN A DEBATE

You should begin a Topicality argument by first stating that the plan is not topical and then indicating the negative interpretation of the resolution. This is most often done by reading a definition of a term in the resolution. This definition is used to establish what the negative believes the affirmative must do to meet the wording of the resolution. For example, a debater may wish to begin an argument about the word “substantially” by introducing the definition “at least twenty percent.” In this book, the Topicality arguments are structured so that the “A” Sub-point of the argument establishes the negative interpretation of the resolution.

Next, it is important for debaters to explain why the specific plan they are debating fails to meet the interpretation established by the negative team. Much like a “link” to a disadvantage, debaters must explain why the specific affirmative plan fails to meet the criteria established by the negative interpretation of the resolution. For example, a negative debater would argue that a plan which increases the funding for transportation infrastructure by only five percent would not meet the definition established in Sub-point A of the violation. In this book, the

12 Topicality arguments are structured so that the “B” Sub-point of the argument establishes the “Violation” the Affirmative plan makes.

Additionally, the negative team must establish why their interpretation of the resolution is superior to the competing affirmative interpretation. This requires the negative to establish standards for their interpretation in contrast to the affirmative interpretation. While some debaters prefer to structure their Topicality violations with standards coming first, this book takes the approach of standards following the violation.

The reason for this is to make each Topicality argument an integrated whole. Often, when debaters argue standards first, they read a list of standards that have little to do with (or that patently contradict) the violation being utilized. By establishing the violation first, the negative avoids the possibility of this occurring, as well as allowing the negative to “tailor” the standards to incorporate the violation, keeping consistency and synergy within their Topicality argument. For example, the negative may wish to argue that the interpretation which argues that substantially means “at least twenty percent” is superior to competing interpretations because it provides a fair limitation upon affirmative and negative options in the debate round. In this book, the “C” Sub-point of the arguments establishes why the negative interpretation is superior to the affirmative interpretation. If you prefer to debate standards first, merely move the “C” Sub-point to the beginning of the violation.

Finally, the negative team must establish that Topicality is a voting issue. In some areas, this is easy, as a debater may merely have to state that the rules governing the tournament establish that Topicality is a voting issue. However, in anticipation of areas which do not contain these rules, each violation contains a brief discussion of why Topicality should be a voting issue. For example, a negative debater may wish to argue that Topicality is a voting issue, because Topicality is the best way to preserve fairness and the potential for argumentative clash in a debate. In this book, the argument is made in the “D” Sub-point of the Violation.

STRUCTURING YOUR OWN TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS

This structure is also useful in creating your own Topicality violations. It is wise to create Topicality violations throughout the year against teams and plans you are likely to debate. Thus, the sketch established by the arguments in this book follows:

I. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL

A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION [Here you should include definitions of relevant terms. Or, you may wish to include a brief discussion as to why an affirmative plan cannot be Effects or Extra-Topical.]

B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION [Here you should explain why the specific affirmative plan you are debating does not meet your interpretation of the resolution. It is helpful to include specific wording of the affirmative plan that does not meet your interpretation.]

C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.

[Here you should include between one and three standards that make the negative interpretation superior to the affirmative interpretation. Do not merely list standards from the standards section; pick only the standards from the standards section that are relevant to your violation.]

D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE. [Here you should include one or two reasons why Topicality is a voting issue. If your area requires Topicality to be a voting issue, just briefly recite that fact and move on to other arguments in the debate.]

This structure is easily adaptable to almost any type of Topicality argument you may wish to construct throughout the year. Keep in mind, however, that this is only a structure, and the violations and standards employed will require a great deal of work and thought on your part.

VIOLATION #1: INFRASTRUCTURE IS THAT WHICH SUPPORTS TRANSPORTATION--NOT THE VEHICLES THEMSELVES.

This topicality argument states that the Affirmative plan must increase investment in the underlying structures which support transportation, not vehicles themselves. Infrastructure refers to the support structure for vehicles like bridges, roads, airports, etc. Many affirmative teams will be tempted to try to merely fund different kinds of

13 vehicles, especially those with military utility like new kinds of aircraft or ships. However, these approaches are not topical, because while they may deal with transportation, they do not deal with transportation infrastructure.

First, the negative team should rely upon a fair limits standard. Allowing for the affirmative to develop vehicles allows a massive expansion of the topic to every kind of vehicle imaginable. This would put the negative team at a massive disadvantage with regards to preparation and research on these kinds of cases. The affirmative team should instead be limited to cases which invest in transportation infrastructure.

Second, the negative team should argue that the affirmative case undermines core disadvantage ground. Funding for vehicles avoids the dangerous effects to privatized infrastructure and the effects on state infrastructure spending, just as two examples. The judge should vote for an interpretation which preserves this core ground, and reject an affirmative interpretation which allows for cases which directly fund vehicles.

I. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.

A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.

1. Infrastructure refers to underlying foundations. Kathleen Thompson Hill, (Visiting Scholar, U. of Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies), FACTS ON FILE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN POLITICS, 2001, 147. Infrastructure: Substructure or underlying foundation.

2. Infrastructure does not include motor vehicles or aircraft. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 6. Our definition of infrastructure distinguishes between the structures of infrastructure systems and the equipment of the organizations using the infrastructure to deliver public services, such as private motor vehicles and aircraft.

B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.

Transportation infrastructure are streets and highways, not the vehicles that move on them.

AmosWeb, A PEDESTRIAN’S GUIDE TO THE ECONOMY, Dec. 6, 2011. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=pdg&c=dsp&k=47. We usually think about transportation in terms of vehicles -- like cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, and boats. Vehicles, however, are only part of any transportation system. You usually need depots, roadbeds, and other such capital goods that we refer to as infrastructure. Cars need streets and highways, trains need tracks, airplanes need airports, and boats need docks and ports.


1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic. Allowing for the affirmative to deal directly with vehicles allows the affirmative to invest in any kind of vehicle imaginable, massively exploding the topic.

2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to disadvantage and counterplan ground. The affirmative team wishes to avoid disadvantages and counterplans against investing in transportation infrastructure and instead skip that step and directly fund vehicles, avoiding disadvantages specific to investing in infrastructure.

D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.

1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash. Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.

2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution. The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it. If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution. Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.

14

VIOLATION #2: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE REFERS TO INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGNED FOR TRANSPORTING PEOPLE AND GOODS.

This topicality argument states that the Affirmative plan must deal with infrastructure designed for transporting people and goods, and not any kind of infrastructure. Many affirmative teams may be tempted to invest in infrastructure which does not deal directly with transportation, for example, improving the energy grid to better provide for alternative energy. While a valuable approach to improving infrastructure, the resolution requires that the affirmative deal with transportation infrastructure. Two standards bolster the claim that transportation infrastructure must deal with the transport of people and goods.

First, the negative should argue for the fair limits standard. Allowing the affirmative team to deal with any kind of infrastructure massively explodes the topic to include housing, electricity, telephone poles, internet connections, etc. The purpose of the topic is to deal with issues affecting transportation, not any kind of infrastructure imaginable.

Second, allowing the affirmative to evade the central requirement of transportation infrastructure allows them to avoid links to topic specific disadvantages and counterplans. Many disadvantages like oil prices deal with the question of how the affirmative interacts with the transportation sector. If the affirmative does not have to deal with transportation, there would be no link to these kinds of arguments. Instead, the negative should have the core ground of transportation disadvantages and counterplans, and not allow the affirmative to skirt the core requirements of the resolution.

II. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.


1. Transportation infrastructure is defined as any facility designed for transporting people and goods. City of Denver Public Works Department, COMPLETE STREETS, May 17, 2011. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2012 from http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/policy/cs-co-denver-policy.pdf. Transportation infrastructure is defined as any facility designed for transporting people and goods including, but not limited to, sidewalks, trails, bike lanes, highways, streets, bridges, tunnels, railroads, mass transportation, and parking systems.

2. Transportation infrastructure is any fixed physical asset designed for transporting people and goods.

Ryan Orr, (Dir., Collaboratory for Research on Global Projects), ENABLING USER-FEE BACKED TRANSPORTATION FINANCE IN CALIFORNIA, Jan. 2008. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2012 from http://crgp.stanford.edu/publications/working_papers/Orr_Keever_Enabling_User_Fee_Backed_Transportation_Finance_wp0041.pdf. Here transportation infrastructure is defined as “any fixed physical asset designed for transporting people and goods including highways, arterial streets, bridges, tunnels, and mass transportation systems.

3. Transportation is the way people and goods move from place to place

Elizabeth Raum, (Journalist), TRANSPORTATION: FROM WALKING TO HIGH SPEED RAIL, 2011, 4. Transportation is the way people and goods move from place to place. We travel on foot, by bicycle, or in a car. In cities, public transportation includes buses, trams, and trains. Ships, planes, and spacecraft make it possible for people and goods to travel great distances.


[Explain that the affirmative plan increases investment in non-transportation infrastructure].


1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic. Allowing for the affirmative to deal directly with any kind of infrastructure explodes the topic to all kinds of cases dealing with housing, power plants, telephone poles, manufacturing facilities, etc. It would be impossible for the negative to research all these kinds of cases.

15 2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to disadvantage and counterplan ground. The affirmative team wishes to avoid disadvantages and counterplans dealing with transportation and instead focus on another kind of infrastructure, adversely affecting negative ground.




VIOLATION #3: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE PHYSICAL AND NOT INTANGIBLE.

This topicality argument states that transportation infrastructure is a set of physical assets, not intangible ones. Some broader definitions of infrastructure include categories like economic and social infrastructure. In addition, protection from terrorism has been defined by some as a form of infrastructure. Further, education and enforcement are sometimes referred to as forms of infrastructure. This violation argues that infrastructure is a set of physical assets, and not a set of intangible properties.

When arguing this violation, the negative team should first argue for a bright line standard. The affirmative interpretation is abstract and unclear. One could never be certain that one had supported “social infrastructure.” However, it is clear if one has built a bridge, added a road, or built a railway system. Thus, the clarity of the definition is bolstered by the bright line standard.

Second, the negative should rely upon the fair ground standard. Arguably, changes in taxation, laws, or even funding for education could be considered topical under the affirmative interpretation. This would massively expand the topic and leave the negative team ill-prepared to debate such cases. Thus, infrastructure is best defined as physical systems.

III. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.


1. Infrastructure is defined as long-lived physical assets. Ronald Utt (Heritage Foundation Analyst) “Infrastructure 'Crisis' is About Socialism,” Dec. 13, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 21, 2012 at http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/12/infrastructure-crisis-is-about-socialism Infrastructure is defined as long-lived physical assets that provide a flow of valuable services to people over time. It includes such things as residential housing, roads, power plants, telephone poles, railroads, manufacturing facilities, office buildings, hotels, shopping centers, transit systems, water supply and treatment systems, airports, airplanes, cars, public housing, trucks, farms and buses, to name just a few.

2. Infrastructure includes only physical systems. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 5. The definition of infrastructure can seem abstract and apply to different types of systems. To avoid a fuzzy definition, the book focuses on the constructed assets in six systems: the built environment itself, transportation, communications, energy, water, and waste management systems. This definition leaves out nonphysical categories, such as economic and social infrastructure systems.

16 B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE

RESOLUTION.

Infrastructure is composed of the physical and technical structures that support the day-to-day functioning of society.

Jena Baker McNeill, (Policy Analyst @ Heritage Foundation) “Building Infrastructure Resiliency: Private Sector Investment in Homeland Security,” September 23, 2008. Retrieved Apr. 13, 2012 at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports /2008/09/building- infrastructure-resiliency-private-sector-investment-in-homeland-security

Defining Infrastructure Infrastructure is composed of the physical and technical structures that support the day-to-day functioning of society. Traditional infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, dams, and power plants, and non-traditional infrastructure, such as the Internet, work together to keep America moving. Although infrastructure is constantly changing in the face of new technology, politics, and security concerns, this is clear: Infrastructure is the lifeline of our financial institutions, emergency responders and health care system, military defense, and much more. Power generators only work so long, potentially compromising the ability of hospitals to provide medical care in the event of a power outage. Police, firemen, and medical teams must be able to communicate with each other.


1. The Negative Interpretation creates a bright line. It is clear what kinds of cases meet the negative interpretation and which ones do not. If the plan puts up physical infrastructure, it is topical. Meanwhile, the affirmative interpretation is arbitrary and unclear. The judge should prefer the bright line test created by the negative interpretation.

2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to fair ground. The affirmative team explodes the topic to include education, enforcement, changes in the tax code, changes in the law, etc. The negative interpretation better creates a reasonable limit on the topic.




VIOLATION #4: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT SPACE EXPLORATION.

This topicality argument states that transportation infrastructure deals with infrastructure on Earth, and not in space. A tempting interpretation of the topic is to rely upon the plethora of pieces of evidence that say the United States needs to develop a better infrastructure to go to space. If this interpretation is allowed, literally the entire space exploration and development topic from the 2011-2012 debate season becomes topical. However, this interpretation uses evidence from the United States Chamber of Commerce defining transportation infrastructure to mean transit, highways, airports, railways, waterways (ports), and intermodal links.

When arguing this violation, the negative team should first argue for a field context standard. The Chamber of Commerce is defining transportation infrastructure in the context of US governmental policy toward transportation. This definition should be preferred to mere dictionary definitions mentioning space exploration as a means to improve transportation infrastructure.

Second, the negative should rely upon a fair ground standard. If the entire space exploration and development resolution becomes topical under this year’s resolution, then a huge number of cases are accessible to the affirmative team. The affirmative team should instead be limited to transportation infrastructure in the way defined by the US Chamber of Commerce.

Finally, the negative should argue that there is a benefit to topic rotation, and that the affirmative should be required to defend new ideas every year. The high school community already gained the benefits of debating about

17 space exploration last year, and this year the debaters should learn about new ideas. Transportation infrastructure should be distinguished from space exploration so the community can learn about new ideas every year, and not merely recycle old affirmative cases and plans.

IV. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.


1. The US Chamber of Commerce definition excludes space exploration from the definition of transportation infrastructure.

Susanne Trimbath, (Prof., Economics, Bellevue U.), TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE: PAVING THE WAY, 2011, 9. The process, detailed in the [U.S. Chamber of Commerce] Technical Report last summer (US Chamber 2010), is basically this: Clearly define “transportation infrastructure” as the underlying structures that support the delivery of inputs to places of production, goods and services to customers, and customers to marketplaces. The structures are: transit, highways, airports, railways, waterways (ports), intermodal links.

2. Transportation infrastructure includes bridges, tunnels, and railways, but not space exploration. Laura Braden, (Staff, Building America’s Future Educational Fund), BUILDING AMERICA’S FUTURE, 2011. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.bafuture.org/. America's transportation infrastructure includes our highways, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, transit systems, ports, and freight goods movement.


[Explain that the affirmative plan increases investment in space exploration].


1. The Negative Interpretation meets the field context. The negative definition comes from the US Chamber of Commerce, meaning it is specific to how the federal government defines its transportation infrastructure. While the affirmative may have dictionary definitions defending its interpretation which includes space exploration, this definition is not contextualized to the resolution.

2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to fair ground. The affirmative team makes the entire space exploration resolution topical under their interpretation, meaning the negative must be prepared to debate two resolutions and not just one.

3. The Negative Interpretation preserves the benefits of topic rotation. The high school community just debated space exploration and gained all the educational benefits of debating space. The resolution should be interpreted in such a way that the same ideas are not repeated no matter what the resolution is.




18

VIOLATION #5: TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT ENERGY GENERATION.

This topicality argument states that transportation infrastructure deals with infrastructure for vehicles, and not for energy generation. Some broad interpretations of transportation infrastructure include the ability to create energy for transportation. However, as this interpretation would allow for cases that deal with any kind of energy generation, an interpretation which limits affirmatives to the physical infrastructure on which vehicles move is a superior interpretation.

When arguing this violation, the negative team should rely upon two standards. The first standard is a field context standard. The evidence for this violation comes from the Homeland Security Department, and is specific to how the United States federal government defines transportation infrastructure. It is thus superior to mere dictionary definitions of the term transportation infrastructure.

The second standard the negative should rely upon is the fair limits standard. Energy production could literally be (and has been) its own topic. There are a huge variety of methods to increase energy production from cap and trade systems for emissions to a carbon tax to ensure renewable energy production. When this is combined with the cases dealing with vehicles, the topic would be far too broad. It would be better to limit the affirmative to infrastructure dealing with moving vehicles than the broad array of cases that would be topical under energy production.

V. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.


1. Homeland Security officially distinguishes transportation from energy infrastructure. Stephen Caldwell, (Dir., Homeland Security and Justice Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office), SAFE PORT ACT REAUTHORIZATION: SECURING OUR NATION'S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, Senate Hrg., July 21, 2010, 25. Critical infrastructure are systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on national security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 divided up the critical infrastructure in the United States into 17 industry sectors, such as transportation, energy, and communications, among others.

2. Energy generation and distribution is not part of transportation infrastructure—it is part of utilities infrastructure.

Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 2. Much of the interest in infrastructure is focused on the construction industry, but infrastructure involves more than construction. One business letter, the Infrastructure Investor, wrote that infrastructure "covers the man-made facilities that ensure any economy can operate" and that it includes transportation (railways, roads, and airports), utilities (energy generation and distribution, water, and waste processing, and telecommunications), and social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, and state housing).


[Explain that the affirmative plan increases investment in energy production].


1. The Negative Interpretation meets the field context. The negative definition comes from the Homeland Security Department, meaning it is specific to how the federal government defines its transportation infrastructure. While the affirmative may have dictionary definitions defending its interpretation which includes energy production, this definition is not contextualized to the resolution.

2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to fair ground. The affirmative team makes the entire enterprise of energy production topical under their interpretation, allowing for cases dealing with coal, oil, solar, wind power, etc. The affirmative should instead be limited to infrastructure specific to moving vehicles.

19 D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.



VIOLATION #6: INVESTMENT REQUIRES MONETARY INVESTMENT.

This topicality argument states that investment refers to monetary investment, and not mere intangible support for a policy. Some teams may be tempted to avoid disadvantage links by having President Obama or the Congress state their support for a transportation infrastructure project, thus “investing” themselves in the project. However, investment refers to the actual use of monetary resources, and not mere rhetorical backing of an initiative.

When arguing this violation, the negative team should first argue for a bright line standard. Under the negative interpretation, it is clear which cases meet the resolution and which cases do not. If the plan provides for monetary support for transportation infrastructure, it is an investment, if the plan provides no such money it is not topical. Meanwhile, the affirmative interpretation is arbitrary. It is unclear what standard would constitute investing oneself in a transportation infrastructure project.

Second, the negative should rely upon a division of ground standard. If mere rhetorical shows of support for a program become topical, it is difficult to think of what negative disadvantages exist to such intangible measures to support projects. The affirmative should instead be limited to monetary support for such projects so the negative can argue against spending vast sums of money on needless transportation projects.

VI. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE INVESTMENT.


1. Infrastructure investment encompasses spending on projects.

Peter Orszag, (Dir., Congressional Budget Office), INFRASTRUCTURE: REBUILDING, REPAIRING AND RESTRUCTURING, 2009, 2-3. Under any definition, "infrastructure investment" encompasses spending on a variety of projects. Transportation networks and various utilities promote other economic activities: An adequate road, for example, facilitates the transport of goods from one place to another and thereby promotes economic activity; utilities that provide such services as electricity, telecommunications, and waste disposal are also essential to modem economies. (Appendix A describes spending on research and development and on education. Those categories form the basis for supporting intellectual and human capital, respectively, and can provide benefits that are similar to those generated by infrastructure spending.)

2. Investment refers to money.

Jean McKechnie, (Sr. Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED, 2nd Ed., 1979, 966. Investment: The laying out of money in the purchase of some kind of property.


[Explain that the affirmative plan increases investment in a way other than money].

20 C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE

AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.

1. The Negative Interpretation creates a bright line. It is clear what kinds of cases meet the negative interpretation and which ones do not. If the plan puts money into transportation infrastructure, the plan is topical. If the plan fails to put up money it is not topical. Meanwhile, the affirmative interpretation is arbitrary and unclear. The judge should prefer the bright line test created by the negative interpretation.

2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to disadvantage and counterplan ground. The affirmative team wishes to avoid disadvantages specific to spending money and counterplans that avoid the spending of federal money which solve the affirmative case.




VIOLATION #7: “ITS INVESTMENT:” CASES INVOLVING PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ARE NOT TOPICAL.

This topicality argument states that private contractors involved in transportation infrastructure are not agents of the United States federal government, and are thus not part of “its investment” in the resolution. A great deal of literature exists on the subject of whether or not transportation infrastructure should be conducted by private commercial entities or official government agencies. However, private corporations do not belong to the US government, and are therefore not topical. The affirmative team is restricted to investment by official government entities.

Three standards bolster this interpretation. First, this interpretation limits the resolution to cases that defend the increase of investment by the United States federal government, allowing the affirmative plenty of topical cases without making the resolution unmanageable by allowing for an enormous number of private agencies to be considered topical affirmatives.

Second, the division of ground standard bolsters the negative position. Simply, the affirmative team is trying to avoid disadvantages like spending and politics that stem from the bureaucracy and politicization of government transportation agencies, like those who oversaw the funding of the stimulus package. Indeed, one of the best disadvantage/counterplan combinations available to the negative is to argue that private agencies should undertake transportation infrastructure investment due to the inefficiencies and waste inherent to governmental actions. The judge should prefer an interpretation providing fair ground for the negative and reject the affirmative interpretation of the resolution.

Finally, the interpretation is bolstered by the grammatical wording of the resolution. If the topic had said that the US need only increase investment in transportation infrastructure, the affirmative interpretation would have more credence. However, because the resolution included the phrase “its transportation infrastructure investment” the topic refers to United States investment. Thus, the grammatical wording of the resolution bolsters the negative interpretation.

21 VII. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE ITS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.


1. “Its” is the possessive form—“its transportation infrastructure investment” is referring to investment by the federal government of the United States.

Carol-June Cassidy, (Managing Editor), CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd Ed., 2008, 464. Its: Belonging to or connected with the thing or animal mentioned; the possessive form of it.

2. Private industry is distinct from the United States federal government. Eban Goodstein, (Prof., Economics, Lewis & Clark College), ECONOMICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2008, 399. Photovoltaic power is so attractive that, in the long run, it is likely to be developed by private industry regardless of U.S. government policy. The question really is when and by whom?


[Explain that the affirmative plan deals with private industry].


1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic. Allowing for the affirmative to use private agencies to invest in transportation infrastructure explodes the topic by allowing for hundreds, if not thousands, of commercial entities to be topical.

2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to disadvantage and counter-plan ground. The affirmative team wishes to avoid disadvantages to government action by sub-contracting through private agencies. This cripples negative disadvantage ground to government action, and takes away one of the negative’s best counter-plans, which is to act through private agencies.

3. The Negative Interpretation preserves the grammatical precision of the resolution. The affirmative team would be right if the topic said to increase investment, but the topic says to increase “its” transportation infrastructure investment, limiting the affirmative to cases dealing with US investment.




VIOLATION #8: “ITS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT:" CASES INVOLVING JOINT PARTERNSHIPS ARE NOT TOPICAL.

This topicality argument states that the Affirmative plan must deal with US investment, and not engage in joint projects with private corporations or other nations. An extremely tempting affirmative option on this topic is to argue that joint “public-private partnerships” should invest in transportation infrastructure. However, the actions of agents outside the government are not part of the US federal government, and therefore run afoul of the resolution.

First, the negative team should rely upon a limitation standard. Allowing for cases that deal with other agencies or other nations explodes the topic to projects with literally any other corporation or nation on the planet. Because this would massively increase the size of the topic, the affirmative should be limited to unilateral actions by the United States federal government.

Second, the affirmative interpretation undermines negative disadvantage and counter-plan ground. Some of the best disadvantages on the topic deal with how governmental actions would squeeze out private efforts to invest in

22 transportation infrastructure. Because the affirmative interpretation deprives the negative of the ability to run such crucial negative arguments, the interpretation should be rejected.

Finally, the negative team should argue that their interpretation best draws a “bright line” on the topic. The affirmative team should not be allowed to enact policies that cooperate with private entities or other nations, they should instead be required to only deal with transportation infrastructure by the United States. By drawing a “bright line” against multi-lateral action, the negative adds clarity and precision to their interpretation.

VIII. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE ITS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.


Its means belonging to. Stuart Flexner, (Editor-in-chief), RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, UNABRIDGED, 2nd Ed., 1987, 1017. Its: The possessive form of it.


[Explain how the affirmative team deals with joint projects with other agencies or countries, and not investment belonging to the United States].


1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic. Multiple private corporations and countries could invest in transportation infrastructure in the United States, exploding the topic.

2. The Affirmative case undermines negative disadvantage and counterplan ground. The affirmative case avoids disadvantages premised off of the effects of investment on corporations or other nations, because they can merely include them in the plan. They also undermine international country counterplans for the same reason.

3. The Negative Interpretation draws a bright line. The negative interpretation draws a clear line between unilateral and multi-lateral cases, preserving topic precision.




VIOLATION #9: “INCREASE:” THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN MUST INCREASE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

This argument states that the affirmative plan must increase presently existing transportation infrastructure investments, and not come up with a new transportation policy not already funded by the federal government. Many affirmative teams may argue that existing infrastructure projects are inadequate for reasons that have nothing to do with the size or funding of the program itself. These affirmatives do not “increase” transportation infrastructure investment, but rather change the nature of transportation infrastructure investment in order to claim an affirmative advantage.

To defend this interpretation, the negative team should rely upon a limits standard. Allowing for any action that changes existing transportation infrastructure would make the topic essentially limitless, as the affirmative team could employ any kind of transportation infrastructure for any purpose. If the affirmative was instead required to

23 defend programs as they exist, merely defending an increase in the size or funding of such programs, the topic would be far more manageable for the negative team.

Second, the Negative Interpretation also best promotes the precise meaning of the terms in the topic. “Increase” is linguistically distinct from “create.” The Affirmative team is required to increase the size of existing transportation infrastructure investment, not to change existing programs to create a funnel for whatever the affirmative team would like to talk about.

IX. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

A. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution

“Increase” is distinct from “create”. WORDS AND PHRASES, 1960, 381. “Increased,” as used in West’s Ann.Cal. Const. art. 12, § 11, providing that the stock and bonded indebtedness of corporations shall not be increased without the consent of the person holding the larger amount of the stock, does not include or apply to the first creation of bonded indebtedness. To give it such meaning would be to inject into the provision the word “create.”

B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION:

[Explain how the affirmative plan CHANGES existing transportation infrastructure investment, and does not merely provide more funding or increase the size of existing programs.]

C. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution is superior to the Affirmative Interpretation of the Resolution

1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic: Allowing for any action that fundamentally changes the nature of transportation infrastructure would allow the affirmative to establish any kind of new transportation policy for any purpose. This would make the topic virtually limitless. The affirmative team should be required to defend existing transportation infrastructure policy, and merely alter the size of such programs.

2. The Negative Interpretation is supported by the precise wording of the resolution: Increase is fundamentally different than create. The affirmative team does not increase the size of existing transportation infrastructure programs, but instead fundamentally changes the nature of transportation infrastructure. The negative interpretation, conversely, limits out changes to the programs and requires the affirmative to defend the existing programs with the exception of the size of such programs.


1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash: Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.

2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution: The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it. If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution. Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.

VIOLATION #10: “INCREASE” MEANS A “NET INCREASE:” PLANS WHICH IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ARE NOT TOPICAL.

This argument states that the affirmative plan must increase the overall funding for transportation infrastructure, and not merely improve transportation infrastructure. Many teams may argue for a definition of increase which means to improve transportation infrastructure. For example, they may argue that existing funding for bridges is adequate, but the type or placement of such bridges is inadequate. However, this violation is designed to argue that increase means to make a net increase in funding, to deny the affirmative team the ability to make such an argument.

Two standards support this interpretation. The first is the division of ground standard. The affirmative should be required to be an increase above and beyond existing transportation infrastructure investment. This allows the

24 affirmative to defend a net increase in the amount of transportation infrastructure, while the negative team can attack the very idea of having such programs in the first place. This provides fair ground for both sides to debate.

The second standard which supports the negative interpretation is the bright line standard. By requiring the affirmative team to provide a net increase in the total amount of transportation infrastructure, it is clear which cases are topical and which cases are non-topical. Cases that merely improve transportation infrastructure or trade-off between types of transportation policies would not be topical, whereas cases that provided a net increase to the total amount of transportation infrastructure would be topical.

X. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCREASE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.


“Increase” means a net increase in transportation infrastructure investment not an improvement or a trade-off with existing programs. WORDS AND PHRASES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, Vol. 20A, 07, 309. Increase: 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 the plant. Department of Water & Power v. Energy Resources Conservation & Development Com., 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 289, 2 Cal.App.4th 206.

B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION:

[Explain how the affirmative plan merely trades-off with existing transportation infrastructure investments, but does not provide a net increase in transportation infrastructure investment.]


1. The Negative Interpretation provides the best division of ground: The affirmative team wishes to defend an interpretation that allows them to trade-off with existing transportation infrastructure investment. This potentially voids negative disadvantages related to expanding the amount of transportation infrastructure investment like disadvantages which rely on spending too much money. Instead, the affirmative should be required to defend a net increase in transportation infrastructure investment.

2. The Negative Interpretation provides a superior “bright line:” It is easy to determine the kinds of cases that are topical and cases which are non-topical under the negative interpretation—one merely needs to look at overall transportation infrastructure investment. The affirmative interpretation risks blurring the meaning of the word “increase” by allowing transportation infrastructure policies to merely “trade-off” with one another.




VIOLATION #11: “SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE:” AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT—AFFIRMATIVE PLANS THAT INCREASE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BY LESS THAN FIFTY PERCENT ARE NOT TOPICAL.

This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must increase transportation infrastructure investment by at least fifty percent compared to the current level of transportation infrastructure investment. One fear on this topic is that it will devolve quickly into affirmative teams increasing transportation infrastructure by a tiny amount, for example building one bridge or highway. Such “squirrel cases” will be difficult to defeat, as the negative team is

25 unlikely to have specific evidence on this small facet of transportation policy, and the affirmative will attempt to argue that negative disadvantages do not apply because the increase is so small. This violation attempts to rectify such situations by setting a standard by which the affirmative must increase transportation infrastructure investment.

This interpretation has two tangible benefits. First, it provides a clear meaning to the term substantially. This term has been in many high school topics, and many judges have come to believe the term is almost useless in limiting the topic, because the definitions of the term are so arbitrary. The evidence in this section defines substantially as meaning fifty percent in the context of transportation policy. In addition, by defining “substantially” as meaning fifty percent, much of the arbitrary nature of the term is eliminated. A “bright line” is drawn between affirmative cases which are topical and affirmative cases which are not topical. An affirmative plan that increases transportation infrastructure investment by forty-nice percent would not be topical, whereas an affirmative plan which increases the amount by fifty percent would be topical.

Second, the interpretation creates a reasonable limit on the scope of the topic. Affirmatives can still increase any kind of transportation infrastructure, but the plan must be an overall increase in investment by at least fifty percent. It is important for the negative team to remember the evidence in this section that argues that substantially must be measured in its overall context. Thus, the plan must be an increase in transportation infrastructure investment by at least fifty percent. This is vital to eliminating “squirrel cases” that provide minimal increases in transportation infrastructure investment.

XI. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.


1. In the context of transportation infrastructure, “Substantially” means at least fifty percent. Anthony Perl, (Dir., Urban Studies Program, Simon Fraser U.), THE POST CARBON READER: MANAGING THE 21ST CENTURY’S SUSTAINABILITY CRISIS, 2010, 348. "Substantial change" means one or both of the following: an ongoing transport activity increases or decreases dramatically, say by 50 percent, or a new means of transport becomes prevalent to the extent that it is made use of by 10 percent or more of the society's population.

2. Substantially must be measured in comparison to the entirety of the surrounding circumstances. Words & Phrases, 67, 759. “‘Substantial’ is a relative term, the meaning of which is to be gauged by all the circumstances surrounding the transaction, in reference to which the expression has been used. It imports a considerable amount or value in opposition to that which is inconsequential or small.”


The 2013 budget for transportation policy is $476 billion—the affirmative plan must be at least a $238 billion increase Edward Glaeser (staff writer) “Spending Won’t Fix What Ails U.S. Infrastructure,” Feb. 13, 2012. Retrieved May 12, 2012 at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-14/spending-won-t-fix-what-ails-u-s-transport-commentary-by-edward-glaeser.html President Barack Obama’s announcement yesterday of a six-year, $476 billion surface transportation reauthorization bill, as part of his 2013 budget, is the latest demonstration of a longstanding presidential propensity for transportation projects.


1. The Negative interpretation fairly limits the topic: Potentially thousands of cases could increase transportation infrastructure by a tiny amount—the plan could build a single bridge or highway. The negative interpretation requires that the affirmative case increase transportation infrastructure by 50% which creates a fair limit and eliminates “squirrel cases.”

2. The Negative interpretation draws a bright line: It is easy to determine which cases this interpretation makes topical and which cases are non-topical. As long as the affirmative plan can show an increase in transportation infrastructure investment by at least 50%, the plan is topical. If the affirmative increases transportation infrastructure by less than this amount, the plan is not topical.

3. The Affirmative interpretation makes the term “substantial” meaningless. Even if the negative interpretation is somewhat arbitrary, the affirmative interpretation risks writing the term substantially out of the topic completely. However, “substantially” must have meaning in the resolution:

26 Corpus Juris Secundum, 83, 765. “Substantially. A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance with the context in which it is used. While it must be employed with care and discrimination, it must, nevertheless, be given effect.”




VIOLATION #12: “SUBSTANTIALLY:” WITHOUT QUALIFICATION—PLANS WHICH ESTABLISH CONDITIONS ON THE INCREASE IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ARE NOT TOPICAL.

This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must unconditionally increase transportation infrastructure investment. Many affirmative teams may attempt to “condition” the increase in transportation infrastructure on the acceptance of a public-private partnership by private corporations, or if the states agree to provide shared funding. However such “qualifications” on the increase in transportation infrastructure are not topical according to this interpretation.

Two standards bolster this interpretation. First, the qualitative nature of the definition eliminates the arbitrary meaning of the term substantial. The difficulty with percentage based definitions is that percentage based definitions exist for a wide variety of definitions of substantially. Thus, the quantitative definitions tend to be somewhat arbitrary. However, the qualitative definition of substantially provides a clear meaning to the term.

Second, the interpretation creates a reasonable limit on the scope of the topic. Affirmatives can still establish policies that engage in highway construction, high speed rail construction, hydrogen plants for cars, etc., but the plan must merely be an unconditional increase in investment for such transportation infrastructure projects. This allows the negative predictability in terms of disadvantages and counterplans that argue that unconditional increases in transportation infrastructure are problematic.

When running this violation, the negative team should be prepared to aggressively defend against the “quantitative” interpretations of the word substantially that the affirmative will offer. Understanding that there are multiple different percentage based definitions of substantially will allow the negative team to argue that the affirmative interpretation is arbitrary and thus unfair to the negative team.

XII. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.


Substantially means “without qualification” DON BLEWETT, 1976 (Chairperson California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Young v. Laura Scudder’s Pet, Inc. January 29, 1976. www.cuiab.ca.gov/precedent/pb181.doc.) "Substantially. Essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially; in a substantial manner. Kirkpatrick v. Journal Pub. Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58, 59; Gibson v. Glos, 271 I11. 368, I11 N.E. 123, 124; McEwen v. New York Life Ins. Co., 23 Cal. App. 694, 139 P. 242, 243. About, actually, competently, and essentially. Gilmore v. Red Top Cab Co. of Washington, 171 Wash. 346, 17 P. 2d 886, 887."

B. The Affirmative plan violates the Negative Interpretation of the Resolution

[Explain that the affirmative plan conditions the increase in investment in transportation infrastructure].

27


1. The Negative Interpretation provides a clear meaning to the word substantially: The affirmative quantitative interpretation makes substantially meaningless, as percentage based definitions exist for almost any amount with the word substantially. The negative interpretation draws a clear meaning to the word substantially, by making the affirmative unconditionally increase investment in transportation infrastructure.

2. The Negative Interpretation provides fair ground to the Negative: Potentially thousands of cases exist to increase transportation infrastructure, from building a single bridge or highway to one hydrogen fueling plant. However, by requiring that such increases be unconditional, the negative team can be prepared to debate the unconditional nature of such increases. This would provide fair ground for both sides to debate.




28 I. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS A. Transportation infrastructure is defined.

1. Infrastructure isn’t vehicles. a. Infrastructure is the basic structural foundations (1). b. Infrastructure is long-lived physical assets that provide a flow of valuable services (2). c. Infrastructure refers to fixed assets (3).

2. Transportation means people and goods. a. Transportation means to be conveyed (4). b. Transportation means a means of conveyance (5). c. Transportation is the flow of people and goods (6).

3. Bikes aren’t transportation infrastructure. a. Bicycles aren’t transportation (7).

b. Infrastructure doesn’t include bicycles (8). 4. Transportation infrastructure is only physical a. Education and enforcement are not infrastructure

improvements (9-10). b. Transportation infrastructure doesn’t include the electrical grid (11). c. Infrastructure must be physical and organizational structures and facilities (12).

5. Infrastructure doesn’t need to be physical a. Infrastructure includes protection against terrorism

(13). b. Infrastructure includes the defense and economic

security of the United States (14). 6. Transportation infrastructure isn’t space. a. Transportation includes six different areas, but not

space (15). b. Infrastructure doesn’t include space (16). c. Infrastructure refers to connecting the United

States—wouldn’t include space (17). d. Transportation infrastructure excludes space

exploration (18). e. The CBO analysis of transportation infrastructure

doesn’t include space (19). 7. Transportation infrastructure includes space. a. Transportation infrastructure includes space (20). b. Transportation infrastructure includes space

exploration (21-23). c. Transportation infrastructure includes commercial

space exploration (24). d. Transportation infrastructure includes passenger

space exploration (25-28). e. Transportation infrastructure includes economic uses

of space (29-30). f. Official government definitions include space

exploration as part of transportation infrastructure (31-32).

8. Affirmative definitions of transportation infrastructure. a. Transportation infrastructure is a broad term (33). b. Air traffic control systems are transportation

infrastructure (34). c. Ocean shipping, ports, and harbors are part of

transportation infrastructure (35). d. Information based solutions are part of

transportation infrastructure (36). e. Railway structures are part of transportation

infrastructure (37-38).

f. Multiple types of transportation infrastructure (39-41).

g. Intracoastal waterways are part of transportation infrastructure (42).

h. A National Infrastructure Bank is investment in transportation infrastructure (43).

i. A carbon tax could be used for infrastructure investment (44).

j. The US Interstate system represents transportation infrastructure investment (45).

k. The stimulus package is an example of transportation infrastructure investment (46).

l. High speed rail is a topical affirmative (47). m. Bicycle trails are transportation infrastructure (48). n. Bicycles and walking trails are transportation

infrastructure (49). o. Airports are part of transportation infrastructure (50-

51). p. CO2 Sequestration is topical (52-53). q. Infrastructure includes power plants (54). r. A hydrogen refueling station would be transportation

infrastructure (55-56). B. Increase is defined.

1. An increase must be a net increase (57). 2. One can increase from zero (58). 3. To add time to an action is considered an “increase”

(59). 4. Increase means to improve the quality of (60).

C. Investment is defined. 1. Transportation infrastructure investment requires

monetary funding (61). 2. Investments for transportation infrastructure are

money (62). 3. Transportation infrastructure investments are money

(63). 4. Investment refers to money (64). 5. Invest means to put money into (65). 6. Funds for bicycling are investments (66). 7. Funds for hydrogen are infrastructure investments

(67). 8. Investment means to put effort into (68).

D. “Its” is defined. 1. Its means belonging to the United States (69). 2. Its refers to itself (70).

E. “Federal government” is defined. 1. Interstate compacts constitute the federal government.

(71) 2. A government with divided powers is a federal

government. (72) 3. A government with independent states is a federal

government. (73) 4. A federal government has divided but overlapping

responsibilities. (74) 5. A federal government has states give up some power to

a federal authority. (75) 6. The federal government is a union where states give up

some power. (76) I. “Substantially” is defined.

1.The federal government spends $87 billion on infrastructure now. (77)

29 2. Substantial means to a large degree. (78) 3. Substantial means having substance. (79) 4. Substantial means material. (80) 5. Substantial means real, not imaginary. (81) 6. Substantial means real and tangible. (82) 7. Substantial means strong or firm. (83) 8. Substantial means considerable or ample. (84) 9. Substantial means ample or large. (85) 10. Substantial means of considerable worth or value.

(86) 11. Substantial means to a great or significant extent. (87) 12. Substantial means of considerable importance or

worth. (88) 13. Substantial means to a considerable or large degree.

(89) 14. Substantial means important or worthwhile. (90)

II. THEORY OF TOPICALITY

A. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE 1. Topicality is a jurisdictional issue. (91) 2. Topicality is essential for education. (92-93)

B. APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS

1. Division of ground should be used in determining appropriate definitions. (94)

2. Field contextual definitions should be used. (95) 3. Definitions emphasizing proper grammatical context

should be used. (96-101) 4. Each word should have a meaning. (102-107) 5. Common usage is an appropriate standard for

definitions. (108-110) 6. Reasonability is a legitimate standard. (111-116)

C. INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION

1. Field context is an inappropriate standard. (117-118) 2. Legal context is an inappropriate standard. (119-122) 3. Common usage is an inappropriate standard. (123-124)

D. BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY 1. Reasonability is an inappropriate standard. (125-132) 2. The better definition should be used. (133-145)

E. “PERFORMANCE” AND KRITIKS DO NOT SUPERSEDE TOPICALITY.

1. “Coercive Correction” proves that topicality is important to cause social change.

a. Unilateral, one-sided arguments are a form of “coercive correction.” (146)

b. Coercive correction undermines social change and causes resentment. (147)

2. Bilateral argumentation with fair ground for each side better causes social change.

a. Bilateral exchanges focus on efforts to get people to change their mind of their own free will—not because they feel boxed in. (148)

b. The switch-side model solves otherization—refusing to debate the affirmative side because it is politically unpopular only otherizes the voices that support resolutional action. (149)

c. The dialectical model of preparing for arguments from both sides allows for better argument understanding. (150)

d. Bilateral exchanges best avoid tension and resistance to efforts at social change. (151)

3. Limits are necessary to make debate meaningful and intelligible. (152)

4. Arguing only from personal conviction leads to hedonism and the silencing of marginalized points of view—a switch-side model best promotes positive values and diversity of opinion. (153)

5. Requiring teams to debate both sides of the topic increases tolerance—the affirmative version of debate sows the seeds of bigotry and dogmatism. (154)

6. Full confrontation of ideas is the best method to construct alternative avenues for thought. (155)

7. The switch-side debate model solves otherization—refusing to debate unpopular sides of a topic creates otherization and narrow-mindedness (156)

8. Switch-side debate is crucial to critical thinking (157) 9. Requiring teams to debate both sides of the topic

increases tolerance and empathy as opposed to bigotry and dogmatism (158-159).

10. Limits are necessary to make debate intelligible (160-161).

11. Dialectical models of debate allow for preparing arguments from both sides—this bolsters argument understanding (162).

12. Dialogic models create social change—unilateral stating of hypotheses do not (163-164).

13. Dialogic argument creates a praxis for conflict resolution—a two-way transaction is needed to solve this end (165).

30

1. Erin McKean, (Sr. Editor), THE OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2003, 765 Infrastructure: The basic structural foundations of a society or enterprise; substructure or foundation. 2. Ronald Utt, (Senior Research Fellow in Economic Policy Studies @ Heritage Foundation) “Infrastructure 'Crisis' is About Socialism,” Dec. 13, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 13, 2012 at http://www.heritage.org/ research/commentary/2011/12/infrastructure-crisis-is-about-socialism Infrastructure is defined as long-lived physical assets that provide a flow of valuable services to people over time. It includes such things as residential housing, roads, power plants, telephone poles, railroads, manufacturing facilities, office buildings, hotels, shopping centers, transit systems, water supply and treatment systems, airports, airplanes, cars, public housing, trucks, farms and buses, to name just a few. 3. Jay M. Shafritz, (Editor), THE HARPERCOLLINS DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 1992, 296. Infrastructure: A general term for a jurisdiction’s fixed assets, such as bridges, highways, tunnels, and water treatment plant. 4. Erin McKean, (Sr. Editor), THE OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2003, 1626. Transportation: The act of conveying or the process of being conveyed. 5. Jean McKechnie, (Sr. Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED, 2nd Ed., 1979, 1941. Transportation: A means of conveyance. 6. U.S. Department of Transportation, COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES: APPLICATION TO TRANSPORTATION, Dec. 28, 2008. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/land/ncrst/dot_nasa_brochure.pdf. Transportation is the flow of people and goods between geographically separated locations. 7. Mary Peters, (U.S. Secretary of Transportation), PBS NEWSHOUR, Aug. 15, 2007. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html. There's about probably some 10 percent to 20 percent of the current spending that is going to projects that really are not transportation, directly transportation-related. Some of that money is being spent on things, as I said earlier, like bike paths or trails. 8. Mary Peters, (Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation, being interviewed by PBS journalist, Gwein Ifill), PBS NEWSHOUR, Aug. 15, 2007. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec07/infrastructure_08-15.html. GWEN IFILL: Explain what you mean when you say earmarks. MARY PETERS: Well, an earmark is a project that's designated by a member of Congress specifically to a project generally in his or her district or state. And the level of earmarking has increased substantially over the last couple of decades in terms of the highway bill. The last highway bill that was passed, in the summer of 2005, contained over 6,000 of those marks, those specially designated projects. And the cost of those projects just in that bill alone was $24 billion, almost a tenth of the bill. GWEN IFILL: Aren't many of those projects, even though they're special interest projects, aren't they roads and bridges, often? MARY PETERS: Gwen, some of them are, but many of them are not. There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure. 9. National Center for Safe Routes to School, FEDERAL SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM: PROGRESS REPORT, Aug. 2011, 19. SAFETEA-LU established that not less than 70 percent and not more than 90 percent of allocated funds were to be spent on infrastructure projects such as sidewalk improvements and pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, and that not less than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent was to be used to conduct non-infrastructure activities including education, encouragement and enforcement measures (2005). Some states offered funds for planning and this was considered non-infrastructure as well.

10. Anne Moudon, (Prof., Urban Planning, U. Washington), Safe Routes to School (SRTS): Statewide Mobility Assessment, Jan. 2010, A-3. To ensure that disadvantaged schools were not underfunded, SAFETEA-LU established a 100 percent federal share for SRTS projects — no matching state or local funds are required. The National Safe Routes to School Task Force, however, recommended that future SRTS legislation allow matching funds for infrastructure projects to stimulate state and local spending while maintaining the full federal funding for projects that serve disadvantaged schools or schools in areas where child pedestrians are at a higher risk. Funds are to be split between infrastructure, such as street crossing improvements and sidewalk installation, and non-infrastructure activities, such as bicycle education programs and increased traffic enforcement in school zones. No less than 10 percent and no more than 30 percent of funds are to be spent on non-infrastructure activities Infrastructure improvements must be located within bicycling and walking distance of school, defined as 2 miles 11. Alex Tabarrok, (Prof., Economics, George Mason University), INFRASTRUCTURE: ROADS AND THE SMART GRID, Dec. 9, 2008. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2012 from http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/12/infrastructure.html. Even more valuable than transportation infrastructure would be greater investment in electricity infrastructure, a smart grid. Consider that in 2003 a massive, widespread, power outage threw 50 million people in the Northeastern states and Ontario, Canada out of power – disrupting lives and the economy. 12. Pamela Collins, (Prof., Homeland Security, Eastern Kentucky U.), HOMELAND SECURITY AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 2009, 5. The term "infrastructure," as defined by the Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, and power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise. 13. Pamela Collins, (Prof., Homeland Security, Eastern Kentucky U.), HOMELAND SECURITY AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 2009, 5. After the World Trade Center (WTC) and Oklahoma City Federal Building terrorist attacks in the 1990s there was an increased interest on the Nation's infrastructure, and discussions went beyond the concern regarding the adequacy of these systems to a focus on how to better protect them. The term infrastructure was broadened to include this new domestic threat of international and domestic terrorism. 14. Pamela Collins, (Prof., Homeland Security, Eastern Kentucky U.), HOMELAND SECURITY AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 2009, 5-6. On July 15, 1996, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13010, which established the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) and expanded the definition of infrastructure to include: "A framework of interdependent networks and systems comprising identifiable industries, institutions (including people and procedures), and distribution capabilities that provide a reliable flow of products and services essential to the defense and economic security of the United States, the smooth functioning of government at all levels, and society as a whole."

31 15. Pamela Collins, (Prof., Homeland Security, Eastern Kentucky U.), HOMELAND SECURITY AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, 2009, 95. The Transportation Systems Sector consists of six key subsectors, or modes: 1. Aviation includes aircraft, air traffic control systems, and approximately 450 commercial airports and 19,000 additional airfields. This mode includes civil and joint use military airports, heliports, short takeoff and landing ports, and seaplane bases. 2. Maritime Transportation System consists of about 95,000 miles of coastline, 361 ports, more than 10,000 miles of navigable waterways, 3.4 million square miles of Exclusive Economic Zone to secure, and intermodal landside connections, which allow the various modes of transportation to move people and goods to, from, and on the water. 3. Highway encompasses more than four million miles of roadways and supporting infrastructure. Vehicles include automobiles, buses, motorcycles, and all types of trucks. 4. Mass Transit includes multiple-occupancy vehicles, such as transit buses, trolleybuses, vanpools, ferryboats, monorails, heavy (subway) and light rail, automated guideway transit, inclined planes, and cable cars designed to transport customers on local and regional routes. 5. Pipeline Systems include vast networks of pipeline that traverse hundreds of thousands of miles throughout the country, carrying nearly all of the nation's natural gas and about 65 percent of hazardous liquids, as well as various chemicals. 6. Rail consists of hundreds of railroads, more than 143,000 route-miles of track, more than 1.3 million freight cars, and roughly 20,000 locomotives. 16. Jeffrey W. Monroe, (Editor), DICTIONARY OF MARITIME AND TRANSPORTATION TERMS, 2005, 223. Infrastructure: System of roads, waterways, airfields, ports, and/or telecommunication networks in a certain area. 17. Kathleen Thompson Hill, (Visiting Scholar, U. of Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies), FACTS ON FILE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN POLITICS, 2001, 147. 147. Infrastructure: The American network of highways, bridges, rail systems, and anything else that connects parts of the vast United States, its utilities, and economies. 18. David Kerr, (Sr. Vice President, Special Investments, Government of Singapore), THE HANDBOOK OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTING, 2010, 19. Transportation-related infrastructure—roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, canals, seaports, and airports—is such a fundamental cornerstone of the modern economy that we hardly think of the central role it plays in our global society. 19. Nathan Musick, (Economist, Congressional Budget Office), PUBLIC SPENDING ON TRANSPORTATION AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, 2010, 2. For the purposes of CBO's analysis, "transportation infrastructure" includes the systems and facilities that support the following types of activities: Vehicular transportation: highways, roads, bridges, and tunnels; Mass transit: subways, buses, and commuter rail; Rail transport: primarily the intercity passenger service provided by Amtrak; Civil aviation: airport terminals, runways, and taxiways, and facilities and navigational equipment for air traffic control; and Water transportation: waterways, ports, vessels, and navigational systems. 20. Jeff Krukin, (Staff, NewSpace Nation), SHOULD THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF SPACE?, Feb. 23, 2009. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.jeffkrukin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=1. The paper lays out the deficits of NASA's implementation of the Vision for Exploration (VSE) announced by President George Bush in January 2004, and explains why NASA cannot possibly succeed in building an affordable space transportation infrastructure and open the space frontier. 21. Michael Lembeck, (Dir., Northrup Grumman’s Space Exploration System), WHY SPACE EXPLORATION IS IMPORTANT TO THE UNITED STATES, June 15, 2006. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.space.com/2481-space-exploration-important-united-states.html. So maybe space exploration is important because of Teflon, Velcro, and Tang after all. But not because they are rightly or wrongly identified as spin-offs from the space program. Tomorrow, new Teflons, Velcros, and Tangs will follow along with the other new discoveries enabled by NASA's transportation infrastructure. And they will ultimately be important because we can sell them.

22. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, ARES I UPPER STAGE, Aug. 8, 2007. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~9~9~58917~162762. Under the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration, Ares I is a chief component of the cost-effective space transportation infrastructure being developed by NASA's Constellation Program. This transportation system will safely and reliably carry human explorers back to the moon, and then onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system. 23. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, CONSTELLATION PROGRAM, 2007. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/constellation/ares/a5_factsheet.pdf. Under the goals of NASA’s exploration mission, Ares V is a vital part of the cost-effective space transportation infrastructure being developed by NASA’s Constellation Program to carry human explorers back to the moon, and then onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system. 24. Patricia Smith, (FAA Commissioner for Commercial Space Transportation), MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FAA AND NASA, May 8, 2002. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/FAA_NASA_MOA_Final_Signed_c.pdf. The objective of this MOA [Memorandum of Agreement] is to establish an expanded working relationship between NASA and the FAA, and to provide a mechanism for the most effective use of limited resources in advancing the development of the national commercial space transportation infrastructure. For the purposes of this MOA, commercial space transportation infrastructure development includes activities associated with the research, design, development, demonstration, and/or technology transfer of technologies, systems, equipment, processes, operating concepts, and facilities associated with spaceports and ranges. 25. Patrick Collins, (Prof., Azabu U., Japan), SPACE FUTURE, July 17, 2003. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_market_demand_and_the_transportation_infrastructure.shtml. It is a great pleasure and a great privilege to be invited to contribute to the Centenary celebration of one of the truly world-changing inventions of the 20th century -- Orville and Wilbur Wright's development of controlled, powered flight. It is also a particular pleasure to speak at the session on space tourism, of which I am confident the theme will be recognized in coming years as the most significant at this Symposium. The topic I was invited to discuss is the market demand and transportation infrastructure for space tourism, but it seems only appropriate to begin by giving some thought to the relation of this subject, passenger space travel, to the Wright brothers' achievement and vision. 26. Patrick Collins, (Prof., Azabu U., Japan), SPACE FUTURE, July 17, 2003. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_market_demand_and_the_transportation_infrastructure.shtml. If the actual cost of developing the transportation infrastructure required for passenger space travel was even ten times higher, this would be only of the same order of magnitude as the international space station ( ISS ), which has little measurable economic value (particularly since its future depends on an unreliable transportation system). 27. Paul Spudis, (Planetary Scientist, Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD), THE SPACE REVIEW, Jan. 22, 2007. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/791/1. The Vision for Space Exploration is different from any previous space policy. By design it is incremental and cumulative. We make “steady progress” no matter how slowly we may be forced to proceed at any given time by fiscal constraints. Small steps that build upon each other create new capability over time. Our activities will teach us not merely how to survive, but how to thrive off-planet. Such a task includes inhabiting planetary surfaces, doing useful work while we are there, and extracting what we need from the material and energy resources we find. We will use these new skills and techniques to build a space transportation infrastructure that permits routine access to the Moon and all of cislunar space.

32 28. Paul Spudis, (Planetary Scientist, Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD), THE SPACE REVIEW, Jan. 22, 2007. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/791/1. We are going to the Moon for one clear and understandable reason—to be able to do everything else that we want to do in space. The Moon is our school, laboratory, and foundry. The Vision begins by building a highway through the heart of cislunar space, creating a transportation infrastructure for diverse users: scientists, miners, sellers and buyers, and ultimately, settlers. 29. Paul Spudis, (Staff), SPACEREF, Sept. 15, 2009. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1349. We can make space part of our economic sphere of activities; indeed, this is the exact phrase used by Dr. John Marburger, one of the architects of the VSE, in several speeches on space and to the Augustine Commission. The idea that NASA needs to excite the public with a big space spectacle misreads history (Apollo never had that), misunderstands the present (most of the public doesn't follow space), and does not comprehend the future (we need to develop a true space transportation infrastructure; railroad building doesn't excite people.) NASA's constant attempt to become an exciting entertainment venue, rather than the technological R&D entity it should be, has resulted in fifty years of spinning our wheels in space. 30. Paul Spudis, (Staff), SPACEREF, Sept. 15, 2009. Retrieved Mar. 8, 2012 from http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1349. Routine access to these satellites and sensor platforms will revolutionize the spaceflight paradigm from one-off satellites, launched on expendable rockets and then abandoned when worn out, to the development and use of maintainable, upgradeable, and extensible systems. The creation of this space transportation infrastructure can be scaled to needs and available resources. 31. U.S. CODE, 2012; Title 51, Subtitle V, Chapter 511. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2012 from Lexis. §51101. Definitions: In this chapter [51 USCS §§ 51101 et seq.]-- (1) the definitions in section 50501 of this title [51 USCS § 50501] apply. (2) "commercial space transportation infrastructure development" includes--(A) construction, improvement, design, and engineering of space transportation infrastructure in the United States; and (B) technical studies to define how new or enhanced space transportation infrastructure can best meet the needs of the United States commercial space transportation industry. 32. U.S. CODE, 2012; Title 51, Subtitle II, Chapter 201, Subchapter I, Paragraph 8. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2012 from Lexis. The strengthening and expansion of the Nation's space transportation infrastructure, including the enhancement of launch sites and launch site support facilities, are essential to support the full range of the Nation's space-related activities. 33. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 66. One way to think about the transportation sector is as a combination of all related infrastructures (roads, bridges, airports, ports, waterways, rail lines, transit hubs, and pipelines) and all transportation service organizations, such as those listed in the Dow Jones Transportation Average. 34. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 84. The infrastructure for air transportation comprises airports and air traffic control systems for commercial, military, and civil aviation. 35. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 91. The water transportation system comprises ocean shipping, ports and harbors, the Intracoastal Waterway, and navigation along river systems. Increasing international trade requires ports and harbors as intermodal nodes where goods can pass to rail or truck systems. Ports are important for military and economic reasons, and cities compete for traffic. Ports require infrastructure for berthing of ships, loading and unloading, and transportation of goods inland.

36. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 94. While all infrastructures are adapting smart management systems, transportation, with its massive infrastructures and demands, is the focal point for implementation of information-based solutions to overcome capacity bottlenecks and improve efficiency. 37. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), ECONOMICS AND FINANCE FOR ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS: MANAGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 2010, 63. Transportation infrastructure can be classified into road, air, mass transit, rail, and water transportation subsectors for the different modes. Each of these has its own industry and unique facilities. Examples of facilities for various modes are: roads and highways: all rural and urban highways, roads, and streets; air: all airports, airways, and the associated infrastructure; mass transit: all intracity bus and rail lines; rail: intercity passenger and freight rail lines; water: rivers and waterways, maritime shipping, and ports and harbors; pipeline: pipelines to transport liquids and slurries; bicycle, pedestrian: bicycle lanes and trails, sidewalks, and paths; and „ intermodal: terminals to facilitate transfer between modes. 38. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 6. In the case of rail companies, infrastructure includes structures and railcars. 39. Neil Grigg, (Prof., Environmental Engineering, Colorado State U.), INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE: THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, 2010, 66. The publicly provided transportation infrastructure comprises roads, airports, ports, and waterways. 40. Chris Edwards, (director of tax policy studies at Cato Institute) “PPPs and Privatization for Infrastructure,”Nov. 17, 2011 Retrieved Apr 13, 2012 at http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/ppps-and-privatization- for-infrastructure/ I testified to the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday regarding infrastructure, which means roads, bridges, pipelines, railroads, and other such assets. 41. Anne Moudon, (Prof., Urban Planning, U. Washington), Safe Routes to School (SRTS): Statewide Mobility Assessment, Jan. 2010, A-30. The California legislature created a state-level SRTS program in 1999 to address the decline in numbers of children walking or bicycling to school and the potential risk of injury for those who do. It created competitive grants for roadway improvement projects designed to reduce child injuries and fatalities near schools and increase walking and bicycling activity among students at elementary, middle, and high schools. Five types of infrastructure projects were funded: sidewalk improvements, traffic calming devices, traffic signal installation, pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, and bicycle path and facility construction. Initially, funding was only available for construction projects. 42. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, INLAND WATERWAY NAVIGATION: VALUE TO THE NATION, Jan. 2010, 7. The nearly 12,000 miles of U.S. inland and intracoastal waterways maintained by the Corps include 191 commercially active lock sites with 237 operable lock chambers. Some locks have more than one chamber, often of different dimensions. These locks provide the essential infrastructure that allows tows to "stair-step" their way through the system and reach distant inland ports such as Minneapolis, Chicago and Pittsburgh. 43. Clifford Winston, (Sr. Fellow, Brookings Institution), LAST EXIT: PRIVATIZATION AND DEREGULATION OF THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, 2010, 164. Policymakers, however, are currently focused on national fundraising strategies for infrastructure investments—particularly for highways—that include a National Infrastructure Bank, grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (popularly known as the stimulus bill), and taxes on vehicle-miles traveled. As noted, $8 billion of stimulus funds has already been appropriated to expand high-speed rail service without conducting any serious economic analysis. Such spending would do little to address the vast inefficiencies in the system and would entail considerable waste.

33 44. JayEtta Hecker, (Dir., Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office), SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: INFRASTRUCTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SAFETY, 2010, 98-99. Some transportation stakeholders have suggested exploring the potential of using a carbon tax, or other carbon pricing strategies, to help fund infrastructure investments. In a system of carbon taxes, fossil fuel emissions would be taxed, with the tax proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide released in its combustion. Because a carbon tax could have a broad effect on consumer decisions, we have previously reported that it could be used to complement Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which require manufacturers meet fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks to reduce oil consumption. A carbon tax would create incentives that could affect a broader range of consumer choices as well as provide revenue for infrastructure. 45. James Oberstar, (Former Chair, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure), TOO BIG TO FALL: AMERICA’S FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE WAY FORWARD, 2010, xi. Nearly sixty years after much of the interstate highway system was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, we are now seeing many facilities become stretched to the limit of their design life and beyond. The world-class surface transportation system passed on by previous generations of Americans has reached the age of obsolescence and now needs to be rebuilt. Mounting costs just to maintain these assets are consuming a growing share of the nation's overall investment in surface transportation infrastructure. Meanwhile, the demands placed on the network and the cost to address new challenges continue to grow more rapidly each year. 46. Clifford Winston, (Sr. Fellow, Brookings Institution), LAST EXIT: PRIVATIZATION AND DEREGULATION OF THE U.S. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, 2010, 7. Certain government regulations and expenditures appear to single out transportation as the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. For instance, Congress passed the Railway Labor Act in 1926 and later amended it in 1936 to force airline and railroad workers to resolve labor disputes by engaging in arbitration instead of significantly disrupting interstate commerce by going on strike. The federal government's recent investments in transportation infrastructure and services have been a critical component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (popularly known as the stimulus bill) to spur the nation's growth. 47. U.S. Department of the Treasury, AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, Oct., 11, 2010, 12. The business and labor communities have also expressed a desire for more transportation infrastructure investment. Proposals from the American Public Transport Association (APTA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO call for greater infrastructure investment. APTA advocates for nearly $15 billion of investment for federal public transportation programs, and at least $2.5 billion to be put towards high speed and intercity rail systems. 48. Kristen Swanson, (Analyst, Alliance for Biking and Walking), BICYCLING AND WALKING IN THE UNITED STATES, 2012, 184. Building infrastructure for bicycling and walking is also affordable. For the cost of 1 mile of four-lane urban highway, hundreds of miles of pedestrian and bicyclist facilities can be built. This investment, approximately $50 million, could complete the active transportation network of a mid-sized city. 49. Kristen Swanson, (Analyst, Alliance for Biking and Walking), BICYCLING AND WALKING IN THE UNITED STATES, 2012, 95. Just as road infrastructure has been implemented to facilitate safe and accessible routes for motorized vehicles, so to is appropriate infrastructure critical for safe and accessible routes for bicycling and walking. 50. Milan Janic, (Prof., Engineering, Delft U. of Technology), AIRPORT ANALYSIS, PLANNING AND DESIGN, 2009, 12. Airports represent a part of the air transport system's infrastructure. They can be of different size depending on the volume of traffic they accommodate in terms of the air passengers, airfreight shipments, and atm (air transport movements) during a given period of time (hour, day, year). Generally, each airport consists of the airside and the landside area.

51. Milan Janic, (Prof., Engineering, Delft U. of Technology), AIRPORT ANALYSIS, PLANNING AND DESIGN, 2009, 31. Airports are an essential component of the infrastructure of the air transport system. Regarding their actual function and according to terminology used in the theory of transport networks, airports are considered as the multimodal transport nodes facilitating the air mode and the other ground transport modes, thus enabling the users, i.e. passengers and freight shipments (air cargo), to change the transport mode during their door-to-door trips. 52. Clemens Cremer, (Prof., Energy Policy, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES, 2009, 194. Implementing CCS would create a whole new value chain of plants with CO2 capture, of CO2 transport and of CO2 storage. Carbon dioxide transport could be performed by pipelines on land or in the marine environment. For marine transport, ships could also be used. Creating a new CO2 infrastructure is a challenging task, similar to the build-up of a hydrogen infrastructure; that's why a combined build-up should be envisaged, where possible. 53. Ah-Hyung Alissa Park, (Prof., Engineering, Columbia U.), HYDROGEN FUEL: PRODUCTION, TRANSPORT, AND STORAGE, 2009, 588. Once the CO2 is captured and compressed, it needs to be transported to the sequestration or utilization locations, unless the capture and sequestration processes are located at the same site. A CO2 transportation infrastructure could be done with a rather conventional approach. 54. William Safire, (Staff, New York Times), SAFIRE’S POLITICAL DICTIONARY, 2008, 344. Infrastructure: A political entity’s skeleton: the roads, communication systems, schools, power plants, and other facilities on which a modern community depends. 55. Jeff Wise, (Staff, Popular Mechanics), RENEWABLE ENERGY: OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS, 2009, 111. When assessing the State of the Union in 2003, President Bush declared it was time to take a crucial step toward protecting our environment. He announced a $1.2 billion initiative to begin developing a national hydrogen infrastructure: a coast-to-coast network of facilities that would produce and distribute the hydrogen for powering hundreds of millions of fuel cell vehicles. Backed by a national commitment, he said, "Our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free." 56. John Ogden, (Prof., Environmental Science, U. of California, Davis), THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES, 2009, 464. To design and cost hydrogen infrastructure, it is necessary to specify where hydrogen demand would occur. We assume that early hydrogen infrastructure is likely to be built in a phased or regionalised manner where hydrogen vehicles and stations are initially introduced in selected large cities, beginning with those cities like Los Angeles and New York (with interest and motivation to implement hydrogen) and moving to other cities over time.

57. WORDS AND PHRASES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, Vol. 20A, 07, 76. Increase: Within insurance company’s superintendent’s employment contract, “increase” meant net increase in premiums generated by agent calculated by subtracting “lapses” or premiums lost on policies previously issued. Lanier v. Trans-World Life Ins. Co., 258 So.2d 103.

58. WORDS AND PHRASES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, Vol. 20A, 07, 76. Increase: Salary change of from zero to $12,000 and $1,200 annually for mayor and councilmen respectively was an “increase” in salary and not merely the fixing of salary. King v. Herron, 243 S.E.2d36, 241 Ga. 5.

59. WORDS AND PHRASES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, Vol. 20A, 07, 76. Increase: A durational modification of child support is as much an “increase” as a monetary modification. State ex rel. Jarvela v. Burke, 678 N.W.2d 68.

34 60. Elizabeth Jewell, (Editor), THE OXFORD DESK DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2nd Ed., 2007, 415. Increase: Advance in quality, attainment, etc.

61. Neil Planzer, (Vice President, Boeing Aircraft Management), NEXTGEN: A REVIEW OF THE RTCA MID-TERM IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE REPORT, House Hrg., Oct. 28, 2009, 176-177. Leadership also includes accountability. Clear metrics must be established to measure the progress of the government as it quickly introduces NextGen. Without such measurable responsibility, we put at grave risk the necessary speed and effectiveness in bringing NextGen on line within the next few years. Finally, leadership means a very serious commitment to infrastructure investment. That is something we're all familiar with on the ground; now it needs to be applied to equipping aircraft to take advantage of NextGen technology. Given the cost of equipage and the length of time it could take for an individual user to see a payback in such an investment, such funding is crucial. This is infrastructure investment that can pay off in the next few years; that payoff is within our reach. To place this in perspective, were Congress to provide a level of funding comparable to its funding for high-speed rail projects in this year's stimulus legislation, NextGen would be an early reality. Without this leadership and funding, implementation of NextGen will drag on, and our nation will suffer even more from airport and airway congestion. 62. Phillip Herr, (Dir., Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office), CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS, Mar. 29, 2012. Retrieved Apr. 6, 2012 from Nexis. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) expenditures are budgeted to continue to exceed forecasted revenues from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in future years. FAA operation expenditures not covered by trust-fund revenues are projected to be paid for by general revenues from the U.S. Treasury. According to the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, roughly 20 percent of FAA's total annual expenditures for about the next 10 years might have to be paid for by general revenues. As the federal budget continues to be constrained, Congress may face difficult choices regarding reducing FAA's appropriations, which could increase FAA's total costs and delay the benefits associated with investments such as NextGen. 63. Randolph Babbitt, (Administrator, FAA), CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS, NOV. 7, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 6, 2012 from Nexis. Between 2007 and 2011, approximately $2.8 billion has been appropriated for NextGen. The FAA estimates the development of NextGen will require between $15 and $22 billion from 2012 to 2025. These figures represent important investments with substantial returns. Our latest estimates show that by 2018, NextGen air traffic management improvements will reduce total delays, in flight and on the ground, by approximately 35 percent, compared with what would happen if we maintained our current system. This delay reduction will provide $23 billion in cumulative benefits through 2018 to aircraft operators, the traveling public, and the FAA. Additionally, we will save about 1.4 billion gallons of aviation fuel during this period, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 14 million tons. 64. Ian Brookes, (Sr. Editor), THE CHAMBERS DICTIONARY, 10th ed., 2006, 784. Investment: Any placing of money to secure income or profit. 65. Jean McKechnie, (Sr. Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED, 2nd Ed., 1979, 966. Invest: To put money into business, real estate, stocks, bonds, etc., for the purpose of obtaining an income or profit.

66. Heidi Garrett-Peltier, (Analyst, Political Economy Research Institute, U. Mass.), PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE: A NATIONAL STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS, June 2011, 3. As noted by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences: Transportation planning and policy efforts at all levels of government aim to increase levels of walking and bicycling. To make the best use of limited transportation funds there is a critical need for better information about two important considerations relating to bicycle facilities. The first of these is the cost of different bicycle investment options. The second is the value of the effects such investments have on bicycle use and mode share, including the resulting environmental, economic, public health, and social benefits. 67. Frank Marscheider-Wiedemann, (Dir., Business Unit, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research), THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES, 2009, 375-376. The pressure to act is much greater here as well, owing to oil scarcity, pollutants from vehicles, noise nuisance, etc. Compared with stationary applications, the alternative technologies in the mobile sector are also much poorer. This is why fuel-cell vehicles remain a possibility, despite the enormous sectoral changes that accompany this alternative. The question is when will they achieve market penetration? One of the main obstacles that will have to be overcome is the attendant position of both the automobile industry and the infrastructure industry concerning the investment. Which one is prepared to make the first large-scale investment and thus enable the market penetration of the other? This is a classical example of the chicken-and-egg dilemma. 68. Sidney Landau, (Sr. Editor), CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd ed., 2008, 460. Invest: To put money or effort into something to make a profit or achieve a result. 69. Augustus Stevenson, (Editor), NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 3rd Ed., 2010, 924. *Its: Belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. 70. Erin McKean, (Sr. Editor), THE OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2003, 798. Its: Of itself.

71. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06, 519-520. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) federal: of or formed by a compact; designating or of a union of states, groups, etc. in which each member agrees to subordinate its governmental power to that of the central authority in certain specified common affairs.

72. Bryan Garner, (Editor-in-chief), BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 3rd Paperback Edition, 06, 283. Federal: Of or relating to a system of associated governments with a vertical division of governments into national and regional components having difference responsibilities.

73. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 501-502. (NY: Sparks Publishing) Federal: Having or relating to a system of government in which several states form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs.

35 74. Susan Ellis Wild, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD LAW DICTIONARY, 06, 141. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley) Federal: Pertaining to a system of government such as that adopted in the United States, in which a national government oversees a federal of local governments, with distinctly designed but overlapping responsibilities.

75. Carol-June Cassidy, (Editor), CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd Ed., 08, 308. Federal: A system of government in which states unite and give up some of their powers to a central authority.

76. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4th Editon, 06, 647. Federal: Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.

77. Nathan Musick, (Economist, Congressional Budget Office), PUBLIC SPENDING ON TRANSPORTATION AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, 2010, 5. In 2009, the federal government spent $87 billion on transportation and water infrastructure, an increase of $6 billion over the amount spent in 2007. Adjusted for inflation, that spending represented the first annual increase in federal outlays for such infrastructure since 2002. Of those expenditures, about $4 billion was fromappropriations contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

78. Carol-June Cassidy, (Editor), CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd Ed., 08, 873. Substantially: To a large degree.

79. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06, 1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: of or having substance.

80. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4th Editon, 06, 1727. Substantial: Of, relating to, or having substance; material.

81. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06, 1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: real; actual; true; not imaginary.

82. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks Publishing) Substantial: Real and tangible rather than imaginary.

83. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06, 1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: strong; solid; firm; stout.

84. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4th Edition, 06, 1727. Substantial: Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin.

85. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06, 1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: considerable; ample; large.

86. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06, 1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: of considerable worth or value.

87. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks Publishing) Substantially: to a great or significant extent.

88. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks Publishing) Substantial: of considerable importance; size; or worth

89. WORDS AND PHRASES CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, Vol. 40B, 07, 95. The term “substantially” in the ADA means considerable or to a large degree. Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank.

90. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks Publishing) Substantial: Important in material or social terms

91. David Williams (U. of KS) & Frank Cross (Harvard U.), U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-3. Topicality is an issue which, like the question of jurisdiction, must be decided prior to the evaluation of other arguments.

92. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), SPEECH COMMUNICATION ASSOC. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 1-2. Imagine if you will, the Supreme Court suddenly declaring that it will adjudicate any and all cases to which it takes a fancy. Constitutionality or federal questions are no longer “voting issues” to them. Or the typical college professor assigned to teach Advanced Calculus who amazes his eager students by informing them that their intellectual breadth will be better served if he offers them a course in Introductory Russian. Let us not even mention the impertinent high school kid you hired to mow your lawn who decided that his First Amendment free expression rights were being infringed upon and chopped down all your trees instead.

93. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-4. The argument that the educational value of debate is enhanced without a topic seems very weak. Initially, it pre-supposes not only that the purpose of debate is educational but also that all of the educational value of debate stems from examination of a diversity of social problems. This latter assumption is without foundation.

94. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-12. Clash is necessary for debate, and the definitional standard must be one which encourages, or at least preserves, clash.

95. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), SPEECH COMMUNICATION ASSOC. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 4-5. A careful examination of relevant sources of expertise should indicate the strength of each approach among the communities of scholars and public policymakers directly affected.

96. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS), DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 539. Debaters need to be guided by meanings commonly held by the field where key terms are familiar and commonly used.

97. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-4. Arguments grounded in the applicability of semantic or syntactical principles to the interpretation of a sentence (or resolution) are undeniably educational, and any argument which says that the only legitimate educational goal of debate is to maximize policy analysis has a seemingly insurmountable burden of proof.

36 98. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-3. The ignoring of contexts in any part of interpretation is at best a stupid practice.

99. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-10. The interpretation must contain all the ingredients of a complete sentence (e.g., subject, noun, verb) and must use the definition of a term that is consistent with its grammatical use in the sentence.

100. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS), DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 538. Whether a word is used as a noun or a verb will substantially alter the meaning of the proposition.

101. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS), DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 538. Definitions of terms must be consistent with their grammatical use in the propositional sentence.

102. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win., 85, 139. Another way that the negative could prove that the affirmative’s definitions are unreasonable is to demonstrate that there is an absence of grammatical context.

103. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. One would defend the standard [each word must have meaning] by arguing that without adherence to this rule, debaters could moot out a term in the resolution through definition and fundamentally change the meaning of the topic. This would inevitably prevent adequate preparation, because the topic could be different each round.

104. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-10. The interpretation must preserve a discrete meaning or function for each term.

105. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS), DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 538. The affirmative usually responds that other words in the topic, such as the federal government, limit the topic so that the resolution is indeed limited. This response begs the question that a single key term may be defined in such a way to avoid rather than encourage clash. The negative need not prove that the topic becomes limitless to sustain the claim that the affirmative definitions are unreasonable.

106. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, 53, 689. Exclusion of words from statute is not permissible, unless no other construction is reasonably possible.

107. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, 53, 638. Where words are used in a series in a legislative act, effect must be given to every word, and it must be presumed that legislature did not use three words where one would do, and that each was intended to have an individual meaning of its own different from meaning of the other two words.

108. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. With some words it may not be deleterious when they were mooted if the impact on the breadth of the topic would not be significant.

109. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-12. The second approach to limiting scope is to argue for a “common man” standard. The “common man” approach is drawn from both judicial and linguistic approaches to defining meaning.

110. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. It could be argued that common usage would limit the scope of debate since the writers of the topic were intending common language uses, not obscure interpretations, when they worded the resolution in this particular way.

111. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-13. No one determines whether an act fits under the proscriptions of a statute according to the language that the common world understands.

112. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-12. Proving topicality is an affirmative burden, and it follows that proving reasonableness is also an affirmative burden. The negative need not prove the affirmative unreasonable if the affirmative is incapable of mustering-up an initial statement of their reasonableness which appears acceptable “at first look.”

113. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS), DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 541. Three minimum standards were essential to establish reasonability of definition: intent, grammatical context and field context.

114. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 1. Reasonability has become the preferred standard for evaluating the topicality of affirmative cases. Most debaters and judges work from the assumption that if the affirmative offers definitions that are reasonable, then the affirmative case is topical.

115. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 1. Since most debate resolutions can be defined in various ways, the affirmative definition need only be a reasonable one. It need not be the only reasonable definition or even the definition that most readily springs to mind when scanning a proposition. Any affirmative plan that fulfills the criteria set forth by an reasonable interpretation of the resolution is legitimate: for affirmation of the plan would logically entail affirmation of the debate resolution.

116. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS), DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 541. The negative needs to realize that the burden of providing reasonable definitions rests with the affirmative. It is enough for the negative to prove that the affirmative definitions are not reasonable.

117. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS), DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 536-37. The basis for the “reasonable man theory” came from the argument of Oliver Wendell Holmes: “It does not disclose one meaning conclusively according to the laws of language. Thereupon we ask, not what this meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used, and it is to the end of answering this last question that we let in evidence as to what the circumstances were.”

118. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. The standard [field context] could be challenged on the grounds that many of these sources may not have interests identical to debaters in defining their terms. Some may not be accountable for their use of language or may be motivated by political interest toward arbitrary definition.

37 119. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Many of the different expert definitions are often contradictory, which calls into question the “expert” or exclusive nature of the sources.

120. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Legal definitions may reflect personal political biases of the judges, or may have to consider legal questions of fairness and equity to certain individuals or groups, which are extraneous to linguistic rigor. In other words, definitions may be rationalizations for decisions that judges make, not carefully balanced interpretations. This is reflected in the multiple definitions of terms that even the legal dictionaries produce, where a word may be defined in numerous and sometimes contradictory ways.

121. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Courts don’t have exactly the same purpose in defining terms, and the distinctions between their function and topicality convention is significant.

122. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 29. Topicality argument is distinct from the function of jurisdiction for courts or legislators. Their different purposes and needs are reflected in the situational nature of their conventions. Courts may use strict interpretation of language or jurisdiction, broadly in another. In either instance, their reasoning may be completely nonanalogous to the principles we should use to establish our topicality conventions.

123. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 29. It seems senseless to try to pattern topicality conventions exactly after Congressmen, judicial bodies or scientists, etc., merely for the sake of analogy alone. Our efforts to devise topicality conventions should keep in mind the goals of high quality debate, not false or meaningless analogies or intuition.

124. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. How could anyone ever prove a definition did or did not meet a common man standard? One could even argue that the judge is a common man, and if someone could persuade the judge that the definition was acceptable, that would be enough to meet this standard.

125. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. It is not clear why we should use common language, which is often more ambiguous than technical language, as the standard for reasonability.

126. WORDS AND PHRASES, 64, 406. An attempt to give a specific meaning to the word “reasonable” is trying to count what is not number, and measure what is not space.

127. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 6. One man’s reasonability is another’s irrationality.

128. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 6. Theoretically, “reasonability” provides a clear, objective standard to judgment against which each and every affirmative approach can be compared and weighted. Practically, it is less than useless in offering such guidance.

129. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 6. Many judges conscious of the immense reach of “reasonability” are forced to support definitional approaches which they intellectually despise simply because the affirmative is able to offer some shred of evidence or analysis sufficient to meet this all too broad standard.

130. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct. 81, 6. Reasonability as a limitation upon definitional excess is both ineffective and counterproductive.

131. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, 53, 636. What may and may not be reasonable cannot be stated with any preciseness of definement.

132. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-11. A reasonable interpretation of a sentence is not that the sentence means whatever the reader chooses for it to mean. I. A. Richards has suggested that definitions “are applicable over a restricted field or universe of discourse.” The same is true of affirmative interpretations, and unless the interpretation excludes possible readings, it is arguably unreasonable.

133. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Standards to judge reasonability should be grounded in the promotion of good debating.

134. Roger Solt (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 34. The search for the best definition leads to interpretations of the terms of the topic which are analytically rigorous and contextually accurate.

135. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 5. Elementary principles of statutory construction require a delicate balance of legislative intent and actual factual outcomes. The goal is consistency and rationality. Such a definitional model as suggested here would force precisely those goals upon the debaters.

136. Roger Solt (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 34. [Advocates argue that] requiring the affirmative to meet the best definition standard narrows the range of cases, permitting more thorough negative preparation, encouraging better debate, and greater competitive balance.

137. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 8. The quality of argument surrounding topicality would be greatly enhanced. Both sides would not be forced to explain and defend specific definitional positions. In contrast to the bombast, irrelevancies, and plastic briefs which too often surround the artificial dispute over the ‘reasonability’ of affirmative positions, the approach offered here would require both sides to engage in specific, relevant argumentation. Topicality arguments could succeed only if they were clearly related to the opposition’s actual definitions or applications.

138. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 5. [With the better definition standard, there is] the superior educational concentration upon the use and meaning of words.

139. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 8. [With the better definition standard] both sides would now be forced to examine the proposition, not in an attempt to discover the most esoteric or individualistic of definitions, but rather to uncover and build upon the most central, reasonable, and acceptable approaches. Such linguistic inquiry would be of immense value to all of the students therein engaged.

38 140. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 5. The quality of argument surrounding topicality would undoubtedly be enhanced. Both sides would now be forced to explain and defend specific definitional positions. In contrast to the bombast and plastic briefs which too often surround the artificial dispute over “reasonability,” the approach offered here virtually mandates that both teams engage in specific, relevant argumentation. Topicality arguments could succeed only if they were clearly related to the opposition’s actual definitions or applications.

141. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 140. As a way of combating the dreaded “squirrel” case, a growing number of judges endorse the application of “more” or “most” reasonable topicality standards.

142. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 140. The National Debate Tournament has adopted a rule which states: “The standard for the evaluation of topicality at the National Debate Tournament is that definition which obtains (enjoys) superior analytical and evidential support drawn from the (relevant) subject matter area(s) as introduced in the round of debate.”

143. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 9. One might see this as a hopeless quest and burden to arrive at the best definition possible. Despite the title of this article, that is not the affirmative obligation. Rather we are simply seeking the best definition from among those introduced in the specific round of debate. When seen in such a light the affirmative’s burden is not greater than that of any other issues. [Emphasis in original]

144. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 6. The affirmative must not offer the best possible definition, nor must the negative. Rather we are simply seeking the best definition from among those introduced in the specific round of debate. Thus this is simply a comparative superiority issue, no different from that of any other issue in the debate.

145. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 8. Some might be concerned that too many definitional alternatives might be introduced, thus confusing the debate process. On the contrary, since the negative would now be required to actually explain and defend its specific alternative, one would expect that only carefully thought-through positions would emerge.

146. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 9. It might also be argued that unbreakable “ties” might occur with both positions offering favorable and unfavorable aspects, yet this poses no real difficulty. The affirmative continues to enjoy definitional presumption. The negative must overcome that presumption by demonstrating the superiority of its own position. If it cannot, then its position will not prevail.

147. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U. of Iowa), 1970, Speech Monographs, vol. 37, 101. “Correction designed to coerce conformity with the corrector’s view takes a number of forms. The teacher point to the “facts” recorded in a standard textbook or reference work, the layman orders the skeptic to use his eyes and his ears, the father exercises the right of parental control, the propagandist employs psychic or social pressures, the bully resorts to threats and to physical force. In all of these cases in which the corrective act is designed to compel adherence, however, certain common characteristics are present. First, viewed as a process, the correction is unilateral. The lines of influence flow in a single direction from the corrector at one pole of the transaction to the correctee at the other. Not only does the corrector initiate the exchange and direct it throughout its history, but he [sic] also dictates the conditions under which it will terminate. His [sic] sole aim is to ensure compliance, with the correctee’s assent if possible, or without if necessary. Although the corrector may hope that the reasons for his [sic] directive become apparent, and that the response will, therefore, be voluntary rather than forced, under normal circumstance he [sic] will not hesitate to impose such penalties or offer such rewards as facilitate the achieving of his [sic] goal.”

148. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U. of Iowa), Speech Monographs,1970, vol. 37, 102. “Fourth, because coercive correction is by nature unilateral—because the lines of influence and control flow only from the corrector as agent to the correctee as object—though the corrector may under certain circumstances expose himself [sic] to physical danger or social opprobrium, he runs no risk to his [sic] own integrity as a “person”; no risk that as a result of his [sic] action his [sic] own orientation and outlook, his [sic] own constitutive pattern of attitudes and convictions, will have to be radically altered. If, in spite of his [sic] best efforts, the correctee stubbornly continues to resist, the corrector may attribute his [sic] failure to a breakdown in communication or to an inability to summon the necessary degree of authority; or he may write the correctee off as ignorant or incorrigible. At the worst, therefore the corrector will only experience frustration or anger; he [sic] will not be obliged to readjust in any fundamental way the particular configuration of beliefs and values that mark him [sic] out as a discrete and identifiable ‘person.’“

39 149. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U. of Iowa), Speech Monographs, 1970, vol. 37, 102-103. “Now by way of contrast, let us consider the case of the arguer who, convinced that another’s beliefs are invalid or pernicious, attempts to ‘set that party straight’ by engaging him [sic] in argument. In what ways does the arguer’s method of effecting correction differ from the coercive or constraining sort of correction described above? First, and of crucial importance, it should be observed that in this new situation the lines of influence, instead of flowing only in one direction, flow in two; that the corrective process, instead of being unilateral, is bilateral. In choosing to argue with another rather than employing some form of coercion to achieve his [sic] end, the protagonist enters into an agreement of a special sort; and this is to give his [sic] opponent an opportunity to correct him [sic], not only by presenting the other side of the issue but also by probing the pertinence or wisdom of the correction urged. Were this opportunity not offered and implemented by appropriate behavior on the antagonist’s part, the interchange would die aborning, and even though the protagonist might present an abundance of evidence to support his [sic] view, he still would be attempting to gain his end unilaterally. Because argument is bilateral—because as an essential aspect of its method the antagonist is granted an opportunity to weigh the case presented to him [sic] and to probe it for weaknesses or errors—the correctee, instead of resting entirely with one party, pass back and forth as each expounds his [sic] own view and criticizes the view of the other. Now would the protagonist as corrector have it otherwise. In selecting argument as his [sic] instrument he announces to his [sic] opponent and to the world that rather than seeking compliance on any terms, he [sic] seeks a particular sort of compliance—one which because it rests on understanding and honors the principle of free choice may properly be called “assent.” By employing only those facts and inferences for which he [sic] is willing to be held responsible and by granting his [sic] opponent an opportunity to consider and to reply, the protagonist hopes that this party will, in effect, come to correct himself [sic]; will, as a result of his [sic] own efforts, see why his [sic] present view is wrong or the proposed alternative superior.”

150. George Dell, 1958 (Speech Teacher, January, pg. 31) Mr. Murphy says debaters should really believe their own arguments, while Redding suggests "personal convictions are irrelevant" to the "analytical" debater.4 The contest debater, usually speaking before an expert critic judge, knows his auditor does not necessarily believe the debater is voicing his personal opinion. The writer would suggest that alternation of sides would more closely approximate reflective thinking for the speaker than intentional reasoning.1 Thus, the debater would be more likely to see the validity of the opposition's arguments and he would realize each side has somewhat of a "vested interest" in the respective position or case it upholds.

151. Gordon Mitchell & Takeshi Suzuki , 2004 (BEYOND THE DAILY ME: ARGUMENTATION IN AN AGE OF ENCLAVE DELIBERATION; Paper presented at the Second Tokyo Conference on Argumentation; AUGUST 2-5, 2004, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/MitchellSuzuki3.rtf)Panoramic argument vision. The competitive pressure of tournament competition encourages debaters view the world through a wide-angle lens. In preparation for tournament debating, it is crucial for debaters to anticipate their opponents’ moves. This requires learning a wide array of arguments that vary in both content and form. Further, the rigorous dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a panoramic style of critical thinking that elucidates subtle interconnections among multiple positions and perspectives on policy controversies. This same style of thinking is extremely useful in public debates, where students are in a good position to grasp and convey multifaceted controversies to public audiences. This requires debaters to expect and respect the heterogeneity of public argument, both horizontally (across different viewpoints) and vertically (in layers of depth on a single topic).

152. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U. of Iowa), Speech Monographs, 1970, vol. 37, 103-104. “Fourth, as contrasted with coercive correction, where the attitude of the corrector is irrelevant, in argument the attitude of the corrector is of crucial importance. In choosing argument as his instrument the protagonist at the outset sets himself off from the naked persuader, on the one hand, and from the neutralist, on the other, by assuming a posture of restrained partisanship. Because he [sic] believes that his [sic] opponent labors in error, and believes this so strongly that he [sic] is motivated to do something about it, he [sic] patently is a partisan. At the same time, by selecting the bilateral method of argument rather than the unilateral method of argument rather than the unilateral method of force or suggestion as his corrective tool, he [sic] voluntarily places upon his effort limits which curb its persuasiveness. In contracting to submit his [sic] directive to examination and rebuttal, he [sic] sets his [sic] case on its own legs—asks that it be given only that degree of credence which upon study it is found to deserve. Instead of avoiding or short circuiting the reflective process, the protagonist addresses it head on, and in this sense stands poised between the desire to control and the conviction that whatever control he [sic] achieves shall be achieved only in the right way and for the right reason. The antagonist also must play the role of a restrained partisan—must stand poised between the desire to maintain his [sic] present view and a willingness to accept the judgment which a critical examination of that view yields. Bilaterality, in brief, while a necessary condition for argument, is not a sufficient one. In addition, there must be a consciously induced state of intellectual and moral tension, precariously maintained in the face of strong drives to thwart it. When such tension is absent the motive to effect or to resist correction is lacking and no interchange occurs.

40 153. Tom Farrell, 1985 (Journal of Communication, August, pg. 114) Of course, there is more to be said about communicative action than that it is boundless and unpredictable; otherwise, it would be unintelligible as well. In practice, we (that is, the interactants in an episode) set certain bounds, or horizons for interpretation, so that a succession of utterances can be made into a “sequence” of utterances: so that we can understand what “went on.” And also, in practice, we try not so much to predict as to anticipate general themes, topics, and issues in the talk of others, for a multitude of reasons. As Kenneth Burke would probably say, there is form or coherence throughout communicative action partly because we expect that there will be. Much has been written from the so-called “rules approach” about the various sanctions and strictures that can be made relevant to natural discourse. We know, for instance, that some rules are encounter-specific, whereas others are rooted in the form-of-life assumptions of a culture. We know that some rules can be invented, invoked, or bracketed with the consent of interactants. Still others can carry considerable regulatory force. In general, the rules perspective has complemented the aesthetic understanding of communication texts with an appreciation of the ethical domain of communication practice (see, e.g., 6, 9, 22).

154. Darren Hicks & Ron Greene, 2000 (Argument at Century’s End: Reflecting on the Past and Envisioning the Future, ed. By Tom Hollihan, 2000; 303-304) Day’s rejection of the administrative logic and situational ethics underwriting the defenses of switch-side debating was in no way, however, an endorsement of the ethics of the platform. He argued that the “rhetoric of commitment” (Eubanks & Baker, 1962) animating Murphy’s and Ehninger’s attacks not only misunderstood the method of democratic decision-making but could engender anti-democratic prejudices. While sincerity criterion is appropriate for judging regarding the relationship between candidates and the issues they advocate, Day contended that it is wholly inappropriate for deciding the questions of value and social policy facing participants in deliberative forums. The only ethical norm intrinsic to deliberation over substantive issues, according to Day, is the full and free expression of ideas. Moreover, Day suspected that privileging an ethic of conviction would result in the covert suppression of minority views. Debaters required to argue from their personal convictions would have no duty to present views which differed from their own, in fact, they would be prohibited from doing so. Given the ego involvement accompanying personal conviction, Day feared that one-sided debating would further entrench the recalcitrance towards expressing unpopular opinions. Furthermore, a forensics pedagogy modeled on rhetoric of personal conviction, a pedagogy prioritizes an individual’s commitment to a particular vision of the good over the technology of democratic decision-making would inculcate a conception of citizenship grounded in self-interest and authoritative tradition.

155. Star Muir 1993 [professor of communication studies @ George Mason University. “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3] The values of tolerance and fairness implicit in t h e m e t a p h o r of debate as game, are idealistic in nature. They have a much greater chance of success, however, in an activity that requires students to examine and understand both sides of an issue. In his description of debating societies, Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion, and summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the rule stands, you are saddled with the side you disapprove, and so you are forced, by regard for your own fame, to argue out, to feel with, to elaborate completely, the case as it stands against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many new difficulties take form before your eyes! how many superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo, under the glance of your enforced eclecticism! ... It is as a means of melting down this museum of premature petrifactions into living and impressionable soul that we insist on their utility.

156. Darren Hicks & Ron Greene, 2000 (Argument at Century’s End: Reflecting on the Past and Envisioning the Future, ed. By Tom Hollihan, 2000; 303-304) If debate as a technology of decision-making and self-formation is imbued with ethical substance, it follows that its conditions, procedures, and results are also conceptualized in ethical terms. For instance, as Day (1966) argues, the "prime1 requisite which must be met if debate is to provide sound decisions is that it be thorough and complete, that all arguments and information relevant to a decision be known and understood" (p. 6). Day's commitment to free speech is based on a radical reading of Mill: Freedom of expression entails more than lifting prior restraints on argumentation. It necessitates that the construction of avenues of access for minority views within dominant media outlets and, if necessary, the restructuring of deliberative forums so minority views will not be rejected outright because they challenge hegemonic methods of interpretation. "Free speech is the necessary prerequisite of full debate [because] it guarantees that full debate can take place" (p. 6). Yet, freedom of speech does not guarantee that full debate will take place. In this gap between opportunity and outcome Day discovers the ethical demand of democratic debate: "A commitment to debate as the method of democratic decision-making demands an overriding ethical responsibility to promote the full confrontation of opposing opinions, arguments, and information relevant to decision. Without the confrontation of opposing ideas debate does not exist, and to the extent that the confrontation is incomplete so is debate incomplete" (p. 6).

41 157. George Dell, 1958 (Speech Teacher, January, pg. 31) It is not clear that a team's debating both sides has any connection with a policy of keeping inquiry free. One wonders whether free inquiry is better upheld by debating only one side of a question? Would it not be easier for the debater to take the popular side, which is usually the negative on a proposition of policy, since the presumption is in favor of the negative? This argument would seem to be pertinent to the 1954-1955 "Red China" proposition when some schools refused to debate the affirmative side. Mr. Murphy says debaters should really believe their own arguments, while Redding suggests "personal convictions are irrelevant" to the "analytical" debater.4 The contest debater, usually speaking before an expert critic judge, knows his [sic their] auditor does not necessarily believe the debater is voicing [sic their] his personal opinion. The writer would suggest that alternation of sides would more closely approximate reflective thinking for the speaker than intentional reasoning.1 Thus, the debater would be more likely to see the validity of the opposition's arguments and he would realize each side has somewhat of a "vested interest" in the respective position or case it upholds.

158. Star Muir 1993 [professor of communication studies @ George Mason University. “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3] [Star, “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3] The values of tolerance and fairness implicit in the metaphor of debate as game, are idealistic in nature. They have a much greater chance of success, however, in an activity that requires students to examine and understand both sides of an issue. In his description of debating societies, Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion, and summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the rule stands, you are saddled with the side you disapprove, and so you are forced, by regard for your own fame, to argue out, to feel with, to elaborate completely, the case as it stands against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many new difficulties take form before your eyes! how many superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo, under the glance of your enforced eclecticism! ... It is as a means of melting down this museum of premature petrifactions into living and impressionable soul that we insist on their utility.

159. Star Muir 1993 [professor of communication studies @ George Mason University. “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3] [Star, “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 291-2] Firm moral commitment to a value system, however, along with a sense of moral identity, is founded in reflexive assessments of multiple perspectives. Switch-side debate is not simply a matter of speaking persuasively or organizing ideas clearly (although it does involve these), but of understanding and mobilizing arguments to make an effective case. Proponents of debating both sides observe that the debaters should prepare the best possible case they can, given the facts and information available to them.52 This process, at its core, involves critical assessment and evaluation of arguments; it is a process of critical thinking not available with many traditional teaching methods.53 We must progressively learn to recognize how often the concepts of others are discredited by the concepts we use to justify ourselves to ourselves. We must come to see how often our claims are compelling only when expressed in our own egocentric view. We can do this if we learn the art of using concepts without living in them. This is possible only when the intellectual act of stepping outside of our own systems of belief has become second nature, a routine and ordinary responsibility of everyday living. Neither academic schooling nor socialization has yet addressed this moral responsibility," but switch-side debating fosters this type of role playing and generates reasoned moral posi-tions based in part on values of tolerance and fairness. Yes, there may be a dangerous sense of competitive pride that comes with successfully advocating a position against one's own views, and there are ex-debaters who excuse their deceptive practices by saying "I'm just doing my job." Ultimately, however, sound convictions are distinguishable from emphatic convictions by a consideration of all sides of a moral stance. Moral education is not a guaranteed formula for rectitude, but the central tendencies of switch-side debate are in line with convictions built on empathic appreciation for alternative points of view and a reasoned assessment of arguments both pro and con. Tolerance, as an alternative to dogmatism, is preferable, not because it invites a relativistic view of the world, but because in a framework of equal access to ideas and equal opportunities for expression, the truth that emerges is more defensible and more justifiable. Morality, an emerging focal point of controversy in late twentieth-century American culture. is fostered rather than hampered by empowering students to form their own moral identity.

160. Tom Farrell, 1985 (Journal of Communication, August, pg. 118) Although both conversation and rhetoric occur with the natural unfolding of encounter-time (the ongoing life-history of communicators), one of these communicative forms is presumed to be shaped, at least in part, by the prior preparation of an author. That form, obviously, is rhetorical. This prior “preparedness” is often misread as manipulation. But as I have tried to show elsewhere, we often consent to just such prepared direction of our collective “time” in many a social forum (11, pp. 277-279). I should add that there are many other relevant “phenomenal” differences among rhetoric and its generic counterparts. Rhetoric is typically disputational, positional, instrumental in its aims, presumptuous in its methods, and so forth. My point is only that these other characteristics actually reinforces the necessity for some “thinking ahead” throughout the process of rhetorical engagement.

42 161. Tom Farrell, 1985 (Journal of Communication, August, pg. 114) Of course, there is more to be said about communicative action than that it is boundless and unpredictable; otherwise, it would be unintelligible as well. In practice, we (that is, the interactants in an episode) set certain bounds, or horizons for interpretation, so that a succession of utterances can be made into a “sequence” of utterances: so that we can understand what “went on.” And also, in practice, we try not so much to predict as to anticipate general themes, topics, and issues in the talk of others, for a multitude of reasons. As Kenneth Burke would probably say, there is form or coherence throughout communicative action partly because we expect that there will be. Much has been written from the so-called “rules approach” about the various sanctions and strictures that can be made relevant to natural discourse. We know, for instance, that some rules are encounter-specific, whereas others are rooted in the form-of-life assumptions of a culture. We know that some rules can be invented, invoked, or bracketed with the consent of interactants. Still others can carry considerable regulatory force. In general, the rules perspective has complemented the aesthetic understanding of communication texts with an appreciation of the ethical domain of communication practice (see, e.g., 6, 9, 22).

162. Gordon Mitchell and Takeshi Suzuki 2004 (BEYOND THE DAILY ME: ARGUMENTATION IN AN AGE OF ENCLAVE DELIBERATION; Paper presented at the Second Tokyo Conference on Argumentation; AUGUST 2-5, 2004, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/MitchellSuzuki3.rtf) Panoramic argument vision. The competitive pressure of tournament competition encourages debaters view the world through a wide-angle lens. In preparation for tournament debating, it is crucial for debaters to anticipate their opponents’ moves. This requires learning a wide array of arguments that vary in both content and form. Further, the rigorous dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a panoramic style of critical thinking that elucidates subtle interconnections among multiple positions and perspectives on policy controversies. This same style of thinking is extremely useful in public debates, where students are in a good position to grasp and convey multifaceted controversies to public audiences. This requires debaters to expect and respect the heterogeneity of public argument, both horizontally (across different viewpoints) and vertically (in layers of depth on a single topic).

163. Rendall, 1977 (Philosophy & Rhetoric, Summer 1977; pg. 166) (This passage poses fundamental questions concerning the necessity, conditions, and method of philosophical dialogue, and I shall begin by examining Plato's response to them. The first point I should like to make has to do with the relation between the dialogue form and Plato's conception of philosophy. The reason Socrates must have an interlocutor is not, of course, that he literally cannot speak without replies, but because neither he nor his audience will benefit from his speaking if there are no replies. The purpose of philosophical discussion, for Socrates, is to inquire into truth, not to state it, and inquiry demands assent or correction: it is a cooperative enterprise.' From Socrates' point of view, the most important service an interlocutor can do him is to correct any false assertions he may make, while the interlocutor's assent is a partial confirmation of Socrates' opinions (487). On the other hand, the interlocutor's active participation and assent to each step of the argument — which make it his own argument as well - are essential to realizing the main goal of the dialogue, which is to change the participants, to convert them to a different view of the issues involved and of the world in general.4 As Socrates says to Polus, the second interlocutor, "If I fail to produce you yourself as my sole witness to testify to the truth of my statements. I shall think that I've accomplished nothing of importance toward solving the matter under discussion" (472). Solving the matter under discussion, it turns out, involves nothing less than a total reorientation of Polus' conception of reality.5 The implication of Socrates' view of philosophical activity is that the mere exposition of a thesis, however true, is of no benefit to either the expositor or the audience. If the thesis is not examined and accepted by both parties, nothing has been accomplished. ' Thus, later in the dialogue, Socrates tells Calliclcs that his purpose is to make Callicles change his mind and "choose a life that is ordered and content with what it has in place of one of insatiable self-indulgence" (472). The Socratic dialogue seeks not merely to formulate true propositions but also to change a way of life: it has, that is, an existential, ethical aim. The discussion of rhetoric in. the Gorgias becomes in Socrates' hands a discussion of the goals of human existence. "Our conversation," Socrates tells Callicles, "is on the subject which should engage the most serious attention of anyone who has a particle of intelligence: in what way should one live one's life?" (500). Dialogue and dialectic are for Socrates ethical as well1 as cognitive enterprises. The ethical focus of philosophical activity demands that it take the form of dialogue because it requires the total engagement of the interlocutor, not merely his respectful attention. "

164. Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990 (The Rhetorical Tradition; pg. 926) Bakhtin accepts Saussure's semiotic assumption that communication-takes place through arbitrary signs: There is, in other words, no inherent meaning in the sounds or symbols of language. But Bakhtin objects to Saussure's assumption that the sole purpose of linguistics is to analyze the way that these signs fit together into a system. Bakhtin charges (rather unfairly, to be sure) that the chief virtue of structural linguistics is to provide an object of scientific study for linguists. Structural descriptions, he complains, do not explain the way language is actually used. The individual utterance, in structural linguistics, is an isolated event rather than a social act.

43 165. Mendelson & Lindeman, Iowa State University, 2000 (Argument at Century's End: Reflecting on the Past and Envisioning the Future, ed. by Hollihan, 2000; 317) Dialogical argument is as old as rhetoric itself. Before Aristotle aligned rhetoric with logic, Protagoras and the Sophists identified knowledge with the interaction of opposing claims. For Protagoras, knowledge exists in relation to human subjects and their place in the world; and since all subjects inhabit different positions, our knowledge claims are bound to differ. Any effort at human understanding will therefore invoke the dialogue of conflicting opinions. The Protagorean approach to argument is known as anti-logic it was revised by Cicero, given a pedagogy by Quintilian, and persists today in rhetorical theory (Mendelson). Dialogical theory can also be traced to Existential philosophy, specifically the work of Martin Buber, who argues that genuine communication involves a two-way transaction rather than one-way transmission. For Buber, dialogue is the heart of the human condition, the means by which we acknowledge the authenticity of others. Similar theories were developed by Carl Rogers, whose approach to dialogue invites views at variance from one's own, whereas traditional argument concentrates on agreement with the speaker (Bator, Brent). The Existential perspective in turn has influenced scholars of speech communication. Richard Johannesen argues that agreement with a speaker's claim is less important to rhetoric than the "independent participation" of all parties. Douglas Ehninger adds the complementary notion that lines of influence in argument flow in all directions, not just from the rhetor. Other scholars theorize argument not as an object with formal properties but as a praxis intended for the resolution of conflict (Blair and Johnson). Formal logic is of little help in this process because the dynamics of dialogical exchange overwhelm static propositions.

topicality of substantially increasing u.s. transportation

Documents