TopiKality

(The argument formerly known as framework)

Topicality
A. Interpretation: the AFF should advocate USFG economic engagement of
u!a" #ene$uela" or %e&ico.'
(e have definitional support:
The su!)ect is the central government in *.
+lac,'s -a. *ictionary /0
6
th
Ed., p. 695
In the n!ted " tates, go#ernment $ons!sts of the e%e$ut!#e, leg!slat!#e, and &ud!$!al
'ran$hes !n add!t!on to adm!n!strat!#e agen$!es . In a 'roader sense, !n$ludes the federal go#ernment and all
!ts agen$!es and 'ureaus, state and $ounty go#ernments, and $!ty and townsh!p go#ernments.
The ver! is 1increase2 and the o!)ect is 1economic engagement"2 .hich
includes trade" finance" energy" development" transportation" and
telecommunications.
U.S. *epartment of State" 300/
U.S. Department of State, What is Total Economic Engagement?, http://200!
200".state.go#/e/ee$/"2"%&.htm
Total E$onom!$ Engagement seeks to !ntegrate and $oord!nate all .". e$onom!$
!nstruments and programs !nto our reg!onal and $ountry strateg!es. The '(rea( of
Economic, Energ) an* '(siness +ffairs, -EE'. $roa* cross!section of economic *isciplines,
interagenc) contacts, an* e/pertise in s(ch areas as trade, f!nan$e, energy, de#elopment,
transportat!on, and tele$ommun!$at!ons help ensure th!s $oord!nat!on.
+. -I4K5S 678(97* AS 488SSA7:;:
<. The SU+=8T or agent is the )udge or the de!aters" not the USFG.
3. The #87+ is affirmation" not increasing an economic policy.
>. The 9+=8T is the de!ate itself" not economic engagement to.ard a u!a"
#ene$uela" or %e&ico.
. A*#A4TAG8S:
<. Infinite regression?disregarding resolutional synta& produces an endless
regression to small" trivial plans. An AFF a!out only the su!)ect" for
e&ample" opens the door to A4: philosophy that spea,s to !eing.'
3. -imits?resolutional limits encourage AFF innovation" predictive research
on a designated topic" and clash?a precursor to productive
education. Also" the inherent value of arguments .ithin limits is
greater" .hich lin, turns education arguments.
*. If our interpretation is net@!eneficial it means there's no reason to vote
affirmative. If the case is true then it de@)ustifies the resolution.
Teams are still signified !y AFF' and 48G'" so the resolution is a
reAuired measurement for affirmation.'
9vervie.?34
9ur argument is 49T 1frame.or,"2 !ut rather a negotiation of stasis. The
<A's ac,no.ledgement of the resolution implicitly confirms
de!ate's orientation to.ard topic discussion.
The A*#A4TAG8 to our interpretation is -I%ITS" .hich is created !y
including a topical advocacy.
(hile 1frame.or,2 interprets *8+ATI4G" a -I%IT is an orientation
to.ards a topic. The AFF can include performance" radical politics"
rhetorical advantages" etc. These strategies should synergi$e .ith the
resolution" so that +9TB sides can engage in a productive discussion.
8sche.ing the topic e&cludes the 48G?our arguments are dismissed as
irrelevant )ust !ecause they spo,e first. The -9GI of their
affirmative .ithin the de!ate space" then" is a dou!le turn .ith their
arguments: to un@limit the AFF is to confine the 48G.
Interpretation5#iolation?34
The AFF should affirm the resolution. Their AFF violates the resolution's
synta&.
The AFF must say that central government encouragement of energy
production is good.
There are CthreeD lin,s to the AFF:
6<; The su!)ect is the de!aters or the )udge" not the USFG.
63; The ver! is mere 1endorsement"2 not increasing economic policies.
6>; The o!)ect is de!ate itself" not economic engagement.
-imits overvie.
9ur interpretation solves limits:
First" the process of defending a case should include topical advocacyE limits
are derived !y the inclusion of a stasis point.
Second" their conceptuali$ation of the topic ma,es stasis impossi!le. A focus
on the su!)ectivity of the resolution" for e&ample" means any
F7878GUISIT8 argument to understanding the government or
democracy .ould !e topical: a discussion of !io@politics" capitalism"
eAuality" po.er" identity" realism" agency" psychoanalysis" gendered
language" etc.
Also" re@defining the 9+=8T of the resolution means the AFF .ould only
have to offer a communicative relationship to.ard the )udge li,e:
cultural e&changes" invitational rhetoric" ontology of difference"
rhi$omes" silence" etc.
All of these arguments could !e made under our interpretation" !ut they
.ould also have to advocate the topic" .hich .ould provide stasis.
And" limits are good:
A. %ost logical?the significance of one@of@many issues is minimal. limits
inherently increases meaning.
+. It's a precursor?education is inevita!le" unfocused education isn't
productive. -imits shape the direction and productivity of learning.
. Studies prove?depth is !etter than !readth.
Arrington 0/ ((e'e$$a, )* Today, "tudy +!nds That "tudents ,enef!t +rom -epth, (ather Than ,readth, !n .!gh "$hool
"$!en$e /ourses 0ar$h 1)
* re$ent study reports that h!gh s$hool students who study fewer s$!en$e top!$s, 'ut study them !n greater
depth, ha#e an ad#antage !n $ollege s$!en$e $lasses o#er the!r peers who study more top!$s and spend less
t!me on ea$h. (o'ert Ta!, asso$!ate professor at the n!#ers!ty of )!rg!n!a2s /urry "$hool of Edu$at!on, worked
w!th 0ar$ ". "$hwart3 of the n!#ers!ty of Te%as at *rl!ngton and 4h!l!p 0. "adler and 5erhard "onnert of the
.ar#ard6"m!thson!an /enter for *strophys!$s to $ondu$t the study and produ$e the report. 7-epth )ersus ,readth8
.ow /ontent /o#erage !n .!gh "$hool /ourses (elates to 9ater "u$$ess !n /ollege "$!en$e /oursework7 relates
the amount of $ontent $o#ered on a part!$ular top!$ !n h!gh s$hool $lasses w!th students2 performan$e !n $ollege6
le#el s$!en$e $lasses. The study w!ll appear !n the :uly ;<<9 pr!nt ed!t!on of "$!en$e Edu$at!on and !s $urrently
a#a!la'le as an onl!ne pre6pr!nt from the &ournal. 7*s a former h!gh s$hool tea$her, I always worr!ed a'out whether
!t was 'etter to tea$h less !n greater depth or more w!th no real depth. Th!s study offers e#!den$e that tea$h!ng
fewer top!$s !n greater depth !s a 'etter way to prepare students for su$$ess !n $ollege s$!en$e,7 Ta! sa!d. 7These
results are 'ased on the performan$e of thousands of $ollege s$!en$e students from a$ross the n!ted "tates.7 The
=,>?< students !n the study were enrolled !n !ntrodu$tory '!ology, $hem!stry or phys!$s !n randomly sele$ted four6
year $olleges and un!#ers!t!es. Those who spent one month or more study!ng one ma&or top!$ !n6depth !n h!gh
s$hool earned h!gher grades !n $ollege s$!en$e than the!r peers who stud!ed more top!$s !n the same per!od of t!me.
The study re#ealed that students !n $ourses that fo$used on master!ng a part!$ular top!$ were !mpa$ted
tw!$e as mu$h as those !n $ourses that tou$hed on e#ery ma&or top!$.
*. Small schools?small topics minimi$e resource disparities. A narro.
research !ase allo.s a more level playing field.
A3 ase as offense
:ou should not presume to ,no. the AFF is true. (ho is to say they are
rightH =ust !ecause they have asserted it" .ithout providing an
opportunity for refutation" does not .ill it to truth.
An AFF outside the resolution should not !e presumed to !e true. The logic of
these ans.ers?they are only true !ecause they are not fair?is
antithetical to de!ate.
They also don't understand our idea of de!ate@ it's not a!out the acAuisition
of specific ,no.ledge" !ut rather debate is a process by which we
gather a conceptual understanding of how to approach knowledge.
This also pro!lemati$es their impact claims. %a,ing arguments .ithout a
fair opportunity for refutation *84I8S ideas@ it's li,e Stalin testing
the idea of the 1great purge2 against an opponent .ho is not allo.ed
to spea,.
A3 Grammar !ad
The gap !et.een thought and communication relies on shared convention to
!est translate meaningE grammar e&ists as a sta!le point to enhance
argument depth" clash" and creativity.
The a!ility to e&press arguments relies on grammatical function?distinctions
are actually essential for argument formulationE .ithout the minutia
the edifice .ould fall.
Strict adherence to grammar is the ,ey?it sets the ground for de!ate" ma,es
su!)ective agreements on the topic possi!le and is a pre@reAuisite to
limits.
An ungrammatical interpretation dilutes the meaning of .ords and ma,es
the AFF a functional moving target. It's a !lan, chec, to shift
semantic goal posts to ma,e any action topical.