T 1NC's

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

1/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 1Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Role

Topicality 1NC scripted violations

Suggestions: If you are not sure whether any particular violation applies to an affirmative

case you are debating and you just want to run T to get links to a case turn or

disadvantage, you might want to combine and shorten the first three violations into one.

Index

Topicality 1NC scripted violations ............................................................................................ 1

Index ................................................................................................................................................1

Plan Doesnt Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 1/2 ............................................... 2

Plan Doesnt Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 2/2 ............................................... 3

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 1/2 .................................................. 4

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 2/2 .................................................. 5

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size 1/2 ................................... 6

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size 2/2 ................................... 7

Should Requires Plan Advocacy ...............................................................................................8

Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 1/2 .........................................................................................9

Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 2/2 ....................................................................................... 10

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

2/10


Plan Doesnt Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 1/2

______ A. INTERPRETATION. The role of the US nuclear weapons arsenal is deterrence, preventing

attacks against the US or its allies.

The specifies a single role

CCNY Writing Center, 2004

City College of New York http://web.archive.org/web/20040412075454/www.ccny.cuny.edu/writingcenter/articles.html, Last updated 3/23/04

The is a definite article, and identifies nouns in a particular or specific way, or refers to someone orsomething that is one of a kind.

Give me the book on the table. (identifies a specific book)The sun rose at seven o'clock. (identifies something that is one of a kind)

The role is deterrence

U.S. Defense and Energy Departments, 2008National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21stCentury, September, http:www.defenselink.mil/news/nuclearweaponspolicy.pdf, pp. 3-4

Within this more flexible portfolio, nuclear weapons are less prominent, but the rolesthey play continue to be vital. The policies of successive U.S. administrations haveshown a marked continuity in the purposes assigned to nuclear forces. U.S. nuclearforces have served, and continue to serve, to: 1) deter acts of aggression involvingnuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction; 2) help deter, in concert withgeneral-purpose forces, major conventional attacks; and 3) support deterrence by holdingat risk key targets that cannot be threatened effectively by non-nuclear weapons. Becauseof their immense destructive power, nuclear weapons, as recognized in the 2006 NationalSecurity Strategy, deter in a way that simply cannot be duplicated by other weapons.

From the beginning, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has defended not only the United States andits military forces, but also, and importantly, U.S. allies in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.The role nuclear forces play in the deterrence of attack against allies remains an essentialinstrument of U.S. nonproliferation policy by significantly reducing the incentives of anumber of allied countries to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Nuclear forcescontinue to be a key element in U.S. alliances with other countries, for example, NATOallies, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. In general, U.S. nuclear forces act as a counterbalance to themilitary capabilities of hostile states that endanger international order.

Reduce and restrict means to decrease quantitatively and qualitatively.

Words and Phrases, 2002

Volume 36B, p. 80

The word reduce is its ordinary signification does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but todiminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state. Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363

Corpus Juris, 1931

Volume 54, p. 735

RESTRICT: To confine; to limit; to prevent (a person or thing) from passing a certain limit in any kind ofaction; to restrain; to restrain without bounds.

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

3/10


Plan Doesnt Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 2/2

B. VIOLATION. The plan increases or maintains the deterrence role of nuclear weapons, and does notdecrease it.

[Insert specific link such as: minimum deterrence claims submarine deterrence is as good or better than the triad;Reliable Replacement Warhead program simply replaces old warheads with better warheads].

C. BETTER INTERPRETATION

____ Better Preparation and Limits. Their interpretation unlimits the topic by allowing hundreds more cases thatmaintain or improve the current arsenal. Negatives cant be prepared with case specific positions given that anynuclear weapons policy changes could be topical. We learn less.

____Better Clash and Ground. The negative should have the counterplan and disad ground to maintain orimprove the arsenal. We can have a clear debate between decreasing and increasing force levels, which makesdecision-making clear.

____Communication. They moot the words reduce and restrict by maintaining full deterrence. The topic couldhave said just change its policies toward. Mooting words leads to misunderstanding, which blocks goodcommunication. Clear communication is needed for education, especially early in the debate season.

____ Bright Line Standard. Does the plan on its face decrease the deterrence role by eliminating weapons orsome possible use of them? Our test is fairer than their request that the judge make a subjective decision on thisissue.

D. VOTING ISSUE. For reasons of fairness, education and jurisdiction.

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

4/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 4Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Missions

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 1/2

______ A. INTERPRETATION. Nuclear mission is a specific type of task.

Oelrich, 2005, Director, Strategic Security Program, Federation of American Scientists

Ivan, Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War, January, http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/armscontrol/missionsaftercwrptfull.pdf, p. 15

Before proceeding, we need two definitions: mission is used here to mean a specific type of task such as destroyinga particular type of target. Why one might want to destroy the target, the effect, is the objective or, using theAdministration's terminology, the goal. The distinction between missions and goals is important but is oftenmuddled in discussions of nuclear weapons. In the following discussion, deterrence,for example, is not a mission of nuclear weapons. A mission for a nuclear system might be to be able to survive afirst strike and then launch against the striker, destroying its cities. The goal of this mission would be deterrence.

There are 15 missions of the US nuclear weapons arsenal.

Oelrich, 2005, Director, Strategic Security Program, Federation of American Scientists

Ivan, Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War, January, http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/armscontrol/missionsaftercwrptfull.pdf, p. 16

Table 2Nuclear Missions1 Survive and fire back after nuclear attack against homeland (for retaliation/deterrence)2 Survive and fire back after nuclear attack against allies (for retaliation/deterrence/assurance)3 Survive and fire back after chem/bio attack against homeland (for retaliation/deterrence)4 Survive and fire back after chem/bio attack against allies (for assurance/retaliation/deterrence)5 Survive and fire back after CBW use in military theater6 Deploying nuclear weapons to attack enemy nuclear weapons to increase their vulnerability, decreasingtheir value (to discourage their development in the first place)7 Deploying nuclear weapons to attack enemy chem/bio weapons to increase their vulnerability, decreasing

their value (to discourage their development in the first place)8 Damage limitation attacks against nuclear weapons in military theater9 Damage limitation attacks against CB weapons in military theater10 Damage limitation attacks against Russian/Chinese central systems11 Ready to inflict damage after regional conventional attacks (or to deter such attacks)12 Overawe potential rivals13 Provide virtual power14 Fight regional wars15 Apply shock to terminate a regional conventional war

Substantially reduce and restrict should be measured quantitatively. Reduce and restrict together mean todecrease and hold within a certain limit.

Words and Phrases, 2002 Volume 36B, p. 80

The word reduce is its ordinary signification does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but todiminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state. Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363

Corpus Juris, 1931 Volume 54, p. 735

RESTRICT: To confine; to limit; to prevent (a person or thing) from passing a certain limit in any kind of action; torestrain; to restrain without bounds

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

5/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 5Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Missions

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 2/2

The best contextual evidence proves that 30% decrease in missions is the standard for a substantial

reduction. The START I treaty decreased warheads by 31%.

Athanasopulos, 2000, attorney practicing in DCHaralambos,Nuclear disarmament in international law, p. 108 accessed via google books

The Legal Impact of the START I Treaty on the U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Disarmament Process. A legal evaluation of itsimpact on U.S.-Soviet bilateral nuclear disarmament clearly shows that the START I Treaty constitutes a significantdevelopment to this end. Indeed, the fact that both parties are obliged to reduce through elimination and conversiontheir lethal strategic offensive nuclear arms by approximately 7,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which at the time ofthe signature of the treaty numbered about 23,000 leads to the conclusion that the START I Treaty requires asubstantial reduction in the U.S.-Soviet strategic nuclear arsenals. Despite these reductions, both parties will stillhave deployed nearly 16,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which are more than enough to destroy not onlythemselves, but civilization itself many times over in a U.S.-Soviet nuclear war.

B. VIOLATION. The plan allows current missions substantially to continue.

[Insert specific link such as: minimum deterrence just shifts warheads from bombers to submarines but still has thesame target sets; or Reliable Replacement Warhead program simply replaces old warheads with better warheads].


____ Better Preparation and Limits. Their interpretation unlimits the topic by allowing hundreds more cases thatchange a couple of nuclear missions. Negatives cant be prepared with case specific positions given that any nuclearweapons policy changes could be topical. We learn less.

____Better Clash and Ground. The negative should have the PIC and disad ground to change fewer missionsthan the affirmative. We can have a clear debate between making minor and major changes in targeting doctrinesand declaratory policy.

____Communication. They moot the word substantially by their tiny reduction. Mooting words leads tomisunderstanding, which blocks good communication. Clear communication is needed for education, especiallyearly in the debate season.

____ Bright Line Standard. Does the plan on its face reduce the 15 current missions to 10? Our test is fairer thantheir request that the judge make a subjective decision on this issue. It also ensures enough links for case turns anddisads.


8/7/2019 T 1NC's

6/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 6Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shellArsenal Size

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size

1/2

______ A. INTERPRETATION. The US nuclear weapons arsenal is more than just the weapons

themselves; it includes delivery and support systems.

Wheeler, 1997, Director of the Center for Nuclear History Studies and Senior Defense Analyst at the

Strategies Group, SAIC, Virginia,

Michael, inNuclear Weapons in a Transformed World, ed. Michael J. Mazarr, pp. 133-134

It is worth recalling, as discussed earlier, that a nuclear arsenal includes much than the nuclear weapons themselves.It includes delivery systems, planning and targeting systems, reconnaissance systems, communications systems,procurement systems, maintenance and logistics support systems, highly trained personnel, and the like. Recentstudies suggesting that the U.S. nuclear arsenal cost about $4 trillion are seriously misleading because, in attributingall of the system costs to the nuclear arsenal, the suggestion is that these (or even greater) costs would not have been

incurred if the nuclear arsenal had not been assembled. Most of the military infrastructure within which nuclearforces fit are likely to be there in the absence of nuclear weaponsbombers, for instance, missiles, satellites devotedto reconnaissance, elaborate communications and planning systems, and the like. In the absence of nuclear weaponsthere is reason to suspect that some parts of the infrastructure (e.g., the size and requisite capabilities of the bomberforce) may be even more expensive.

The best contextual evidence supports that 30% decrease in the arsenal is the standard for a substantial

reduction.

Athanasopulos, 2000, attorney practicing in DC

Haralambos,Nuclear disarmament in international law, p. 108 accessed via google books

The Legal Impact of the START I Treaty on the U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Disarmament Process. A legal evaluation of itsimpact on U.S.-Soviet bilateral nuclear disarmament clearly shows that the START I Treaty constitutes a significantdevelopment to this end. Indeed, the fact that both parties are obliged to reduce through elimination and conversiontheir lethal strategic offensive nuclear arms by approximately 7,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which at the time ofthe signature of the treaty numbered about 23,000 leads to the conclusion that the START I Treaty requires asubstantial reduction in the U.S.-Soviet strategic nuclear arsenals. Despite these reductions, both parties will stillhave deployed nearly 16,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which are more than enough to destroy not onlythemselves, but civilization itself many times over in a U.S.-Soviet nuclear war.

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

7/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 7Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shellArsenal Size

Plan Doesnt Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size

2/2

B. VIOLATION. The plan ignores most of the nuclear arsenal.[INSERT PLAN-SPECIFIC LINK such as: minimum deterrence does not dismantle bombers or ground launchers,just the warheads; no first use and dealerting do not dismantle anything in the arsenal, or at most put warheads instorage; depleted uranium weapons are only a small part of the nuclear arsenal; CTBT only stops testing, doesntdisarm].


____ Better Preparation and Limits. Their interpretation unlimits the topic by allowing hundreds more cases thatreduce a few warheads or a particular class of weapons. Negatives cant be prepared with case specific positionsgiven that any nuclear weapons policy changes could be topical. We learn less.

____Better Clash and Ground. The negative should have the PIC and disad ground to make minor changes inthe overall nuclear arsenal. We can have a clear debate between making minor and major changes in the nuclearweapons arsenal as a whole.

____Communication. They moot the word substantially by their tiny reduction. Mooting words leads tomisunderstanding, which blocks good communication. Clear communication is needed for education, especiallyearly in the debate season.

____ Bright Line Standard. Does the plan on its face reduce the entire nuclear weapons arsenal by 30%? Our testis fairer than their request that the judge make a subjective decision on this issue, because it can be verified byexamining a list of warheads and delivery systems. It also ensures enough links for case turns and disads.


8/7/2019 T 1NC's

8/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 8Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shellCritical T Should

Should Requires Plan Advocacy

A. INTERPRETATION. Should primarily expresses a duty or obligation to act. A policy action statementmeets that duty, while speculation does not.

American Heritage Dictionary, 1996[1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company, www.dictionary.com, accessed 4/2/01]

should (shd) v. aux. Past tense of shall.

1.Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

B. VIOLATION. They read no plan of action or advocacy statement. They neglect their duty, whichundermines their relationship to the topic.


_____Better for clash. Their neglect of should makes it difficult for the negative to say anything competitive

with the aff. Clash is key to critical testing of claims in debate and an educational experience.

_____ Better for preparation. They disconnect from topic literature bases and open up an infinity of philosophicalspeculation. It is hard for their opponents to be prepared to debate, which hurts education and leads to unfaircompetition.

_____ Semantic accuracy. They moot the word should and try to substitute the word may. Mooting words outof the topic makes clear communication impossible.

D. Voting issue. For reasons of fairness and education.

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

9/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 9Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shellCritical T Resolved

Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 1/2

A. INTERPRETATION. Resolved: provides context for the topic sentence. It converts a sentence into aresolution. It means to fix, to settle, to make certain

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. [www.dictionary.com, accessed 4/2/01]

Resolve \Re*solve"\ (r?*z?lv"), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Resolved (-z?lvd"); p. pr. & vb. n. Resolving.] [L. resolvere,resolutum, to untie, loosen, relax, enfeeble; pref. re- re- + solvere to loosen, dissolve: cf. F. r['e]soudare to resolve.See Solve, and cf. Resolve, v. i., Resolute, Resolution.]

1. To separate the component parts of; to reduce to the constituent elements; -- said of compound substances; hence, sometimes, to melt, ordissolve. O, that this too too solid flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! --Shak.

Ye immortal souls, who once were men, And now resolved to elements again. --Dryden.

2. To reduce to simple or intelligible notions; -- said of complex ideas or obscure questions; to make clear orcertain; to free from doubt; to disentangle; to unravel; to explain; hence, to clear up, or dispel, as doubt; as, to

resolve a riddle. ``Resolve my doubt.'' --Shak.

To the resolving whereof we must first know that the Jews were commanded to divorce an unbelieving Gentile. --Milton.

3. To cause to perceive or understand; to acquaint; to inform; to convince; to assure; to make certain.

Sir, be resolved. I must and will come. --Beau. & Fl.Resolve me, Reason, which of these is worse, Want with a full, or with an empty purse? --Pope.In health, good air, pleasure, riches, I am resolved it can not be equaled by any region. --Sir W. Raleigh.

We must be resolved how the law can be pure and perspicuous, and yet throw a polluted skirt over these Eleusinian mysteries. --Milton.

4. To determine or decide in purpose; to make ready in mind; to fix; to settle; as, he was resolved by an unexpectedevent.

B. VIOLATION. Their relationship to potential actions of the United States Federal Government and to the

debate process remains unresolved in their advocacy. Their advocacy is that of a critical systems thinker, whichinherently leads to unresolvable arguments in actual debates. Our interpretation of resolved preserves the debatecontext.

Jackson, 1991, Professor of Management Systems and Science, University of Hull, UK

Michael C., Systemic Practice and Action Research, 1991, p. 611, Springer ecollection

The most remarkable claim in Flood and Ulrich's (1990) "Testament" is that they have founded an adequate epistemology for systems practiceupon a reconciliation of Kant's critical idealism and Marx's historical materialism (thus integrating systems and "sociological" epistemologies).This claim, to have brought together two apparently contradictory theoretical positions, is so outrageous as to suggest that the "Testament" will

itself contain certain contradictions. And, indeed, a close reading of "Testament" reveals it to be not so much an amicableconversation between two critical systems practitioners as an unresolved argument between two critical systems

thinkers. This argument keeps interrupting an otherwise straightforward account of positivist, interpretive, andcritical rationalities.

8/7/2019 T 1NC's

10/10

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 10Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shellCritical T Resolved

Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 2/2

C. BETTER INTERPRETATION.

____Better for decision-making. Our interpretation allows a comparison of action alternatives, even if the actiondiscussion is limited to the round. Their interpretation severs the connection between reflection and action, whichmakes it difficult for the judge to choose in a competitive activity.

____ Better for examining assumptions. Our interpretation requires that theorizing meet the test of practice. Weshould put our bodies where our thoughts are for critical testing purposes.

____ Better for fairness. Unspecified relationships to the topic make competitiveness too difficult to predict orarticulate in the round. Our interpretation tethers the discussion to some form of proposed action.

D. VOTING ISSUE. For reasons of fairness, education, and decision-making.

Documents

T 1NC's