I DEFINITION “Substantial” means considerable or to a large degree --- this common meaning is preferable because the word is not a term of art
Arkush, 2002 (David, JD Candidate – Harvard University, “Preserving "Catalyst" Attorneys' Fees Under the Freedom of Information Act in the Wake of Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources”, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Winter,
37 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 131)
II VIOLATION
III STANDARDS A. Limits: The debate must be limited to interpretations that are predictable, fair, and debatable. 1. Predictability: The negative must be able to accurately predict what is to be debated. If we cannot, all fairness and educational value is lost. 2. Contextual: The definition is taken from a source, which represents an expert in the field. This is the definition we should look at to accurately interpret the meaning of the resolution.
IV VOTING ISSUES A. Topicality is a rule of the game. Life all games, rules are established to ensure fairness and integrity of the game. Topicality does this. B. Topicality is an affirmative burden. The affirmative plan must be topical. Otherwise, the negative team wins the debate. C. Topicality is A Priori and a jurisdictional issue. The judge has the right and responsibility to vote against the affirmative team if they are not topical. The judge should not look at any other argument or reason to vote for the affirmative if they are non-topical. D. Topicality maintains educational value. By requiring the affirmative team to be topical, the negative can prepare and requiring the affirmative team to be topical preserves the education value of debate. E. Topicality ensures clash. Debate cannot occur if the affirmative team is allowed to debate non-topical cases. It is the negative responsibility to clash, just as it is the affirmative teams to be topical.
I DEFINITION “Substantial” means considerable or to a large degree --- this common meaning is preferable because the word is not a term of art
Arkush, 2002 (David, JD Candidate – Harvard University, “Preserving "Catalyst" Attorneys' Fees Under the Freedom of Information Act in the Wake of Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources”, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Winter,
37 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 131)
II VIOLATION
III STANDARDS B. Limits: The debate must be limited to interpretations that are predictable, fair, and debatable. 3. Predictability: The negative must be able to accurately predict what is to be debated. If we cannot, all fairness and educational value is lost. 4. Contextual: The definition is taken from a source, which represents an expert in the field. This is the definition we should look at to accurately interpret the meaning of the resolution.
IV VOTING ISSUES F. Topicality is a rule of the game. Life all games, rules are established to ensure fairness and integrity of the game. Topicality does this. G. Topicality is an affirmative burden. The affirmative plan must be topical. Otherwise, the negative team wins the debate. H. Topicality is A Priori and a jurisdictional issue. The judge has the right and responsibility to vote against the affirmative team if they are not topical. The judge should not look at any other argument or reason to vote for the affirmative if they are non-topical. I. Topicality maintains educational value. By requiring the affirmative team to be topical, the negative can prepare and requiring the affirmative team to be topical preserves the education value of debate. J. Topicality ensures clash. Debate cannot occur if the affirmative team is allowed to debate non-topical cases. It is the negative responsibility to clash, just as it is the affirmative teams to be topical.
