Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Westside | Judge: Seargent
A. Interpretation: The affirmative must present and defend a world where the United States federal government substantially increases its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
The aff can defend the federal government in any way they choose.
“Resolved” proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy.
Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.
The USFG is the government in Washington D.C.
Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2k http://encarta.msn.com
“The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington DC”
B. Violation: fill in why they don’t meet your interpretation.
And, even if they are a policy action, they don’t meet the resolution - insert T violation
C. This interpretation is best -
A. If we win this argument, the affirmative is not topical because they do not defend the resolution, that’s a voting issue to preserve competitive equity and jurisdictional integrity
B. Fairness – if the affirmative does not defend the resolution, there are an infinite number of non-falsifiable, unpredictable, totalizing, and personal claims they can make – it is impossible to be negative
C. Switch-Side Debate is Best – spending every round talking about the failure of the IR system is unproductive – you cannot know if your argument is true unless you consider both sides of it – there is no reason why voting affirmative is key to anything – you can run your kritik when you are negative
D. There is no risk of offense – you can read any argument you want as the negative, and even so, you can make an ethical justification for federal government action – make them show you why it is necessary for their criticism to be successful to not defend the resolution
E. Topicality before advocacy - you can vote negative to endorse their project – there is no reason why voting affirmative is important, and your vote signifies that you do not believe that they are topical, not that you don’t believe in their project
This is a prior question that must be resolved first – it is a pre-condition for debate to occur
Shively, 2k (Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas AandM, Ruth Lessl, Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2)JFS
The requirements given thus …basic agreement or harmony.
Limits are key – their interpretation would allow *limitless* contexts for advocacy that only tangentially relate to the topic. The breadth of political theory magnifies the importance of limits on discourse
Lutz 2k (Donald S. Professor of Polisci at Houston, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 39-40)JFS
Aristotle notes …and comparison of ac¬tual political systems.