1 / 16

Topicality (AKA “T”)

Topicality (AKA “T”). Sue Peterson CSU Chico. The Resolution.

paloma-hall
Download Presentation

Topicality (AKA “T”)

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Topicality (AKA “T”) Sue Peterson CSU Chico

  2. The Resolution Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and/or substantially expand beneficiary eligibility for its visas for one or more of the following: employment-based immigrant visas, nonimmigrant temporary worker visas, family-based visas, human trafficking-based visas.

  3. Major Types of “T” Arguments • Topicality • Effects Topicality • Extra Topicality • Specification

  4. Views of Topicality • View #1 – The Good • View #2 – The Bad • View #3 – The Ugly Moral of the story is KNOW YOUR JUDGE!

  5. Key Terms for 2010-2011 • expand beneficiary eligibility • its • employment-based immigrant visas • nonimmigrant temporary worker visas • family-based visas • human trafficking-based visas

  6. For more info on Status Quo Visas • US Department of State - Temporary Workers

  7. Competing Interpretations • Competitive Equity • Education Goal is to answer the question – What creates the best possible debates? But, in order to answer that, we have to know what makes a good debate..and in order to answer that, we have to KNOW YOUR JUDGE!

  8. Competitive Interpretations • Contextual – Terms of Art or Statutory Terms • Limiting the debate without overlimiting the debate • Providing for negative links to topic specific arguments AND solvency/advantage possibilities • Predictable, but also allows for some creativity • Provides for a variety of affirmatives, but limits out some of the extremes • Limits a HUGE topic to something that is researchable within the timeframe of our debate season

  9. Being Affirmative on “T” • Variety of answers – give yourself outs • Meet the interpretation • Offer a counter-interpretation (make sure you meet it) • Debate the Standards/Reasons to Prefer (RTPs) • Point out if their definition/interp doesn’t even meet their own standards • Explain why their standards are bad • Offer counterstandards • Compare standards to counterstandards • Debate the Impacts/Voting Issues • Similar to debating standards/RTPs

  10. Stop the Madness RVIs

  11. Specification DebatesAKA “Spec”

  12. Why argue Spec? • Solvency arguments • Links to disadvantages/case turns • Competitiveness of agent CPs

  13. Over-specification • Going beyond the three branches of government to identify executive agencies such as DHS, or Department of State.

  14. Spec – its love/hate! KNOW YOUR JUDGE!

  15. Some Stylistic Suggestions • Slow down if you are super-fast and expect to go for these arguments. • Make complete arguments. Claims AND warrants. • Make sure you have a good flow of all responses and clearly identify them in your speech. • If they drop it, go for it! But, you might give yourself another out in front of certain judges. • Use cross-applications to other flows – think big picture. • Don’t make it your winning strategy – make it a strategic op

More Related