three part t

7/29/2019 three part t

1/13

3 Part T File 1/12

3 Part T Table of Contents

DADT Establish Policy 1NC.....2

DADT Substantial = 5% 1NC.......3

DADT Substantial = 5% Block...........4,5WIC Establish Policy 1NC........6

DADT Substantial = 5% 1NC.......7

DADT Substantial = 5% Block.......8,9In = throughout 1NC.........10

In = throughout Line-by-line blocks........11-13


2/13

3 Part T File 2/12

DADT ESTABLISH POLICY 1NC

A. INTERPRETATION: THE AFF MUST CREATE A NEW PLAN

FORMULATED OUTSIDE THE JUDICIARY THAT INCREASES THE

NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVING

Establish

To set up; found

Dictionary.com(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish)

Pol i cyPronunciation: 'p-l&-sE

Function: nounInflected Form:plural-cies

an overall plan, principle, or guideline; especially : one formulated outside of the

judiciary


B. VIOLATION: THEY HAVE THE COURTS/CONGRESS RULE THAT ONE

SPECIFIC BARRIER TO SERVING SHOULD BE REMOVED

C. STANDARDS

1. LIMITS: THERE ARE SO MANY MINOR REQUIREMENTS FOR

ENTRY TO THE MILITARY THAT THE AFF COULD MINUTELY CHANGE

OR ELIMINATE TO ALLOW INCREASED SERVICE: AGEISM, RELIGIOUSDISCRIMINATION, POLITICAL PROTESTS, EDUCATION RESTRICTION,

NON-CITIZEN RE-ENLISTMENT RESTRICTION, HANDICAPPED, AND

MANY MORE

2. PREDICATBILITY: THERE IS NO WAY THE NEG CAN PREPARE

FOR EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE CASE THAT CHANGES A SMALL

REQUIREMENT FOR ENTRANCE TO THE MILITARY

3. GROUND: DAS AND CPS ARE LOST SINCE THERE ARE NO

LINKS TO THESE TINY CASES

D. VOTING ISSUE: VOTE ON TOPICALITY OR EVENTUALLY EVERY

ROUND WOULD HAVE A NEW, UNBEATABLE CASE


3/13

3 Part T File 3/12

DADT 1NC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% 1NC

A. Interpretation the affirmative must make greater the number of people

participating in the Armed Forces by at least 5%.

Substantial equals 5% or more.Business Wire 06

We continued to make substantial improvements in profitability as operating

margins exceeded 5% in the fourth quarter, drive by expansion of our higher-margin offshore operations,growth in our value-added marketing and technology services and success in leveraging corporate infrastructure.

Increase equals to make greater

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish)

Increase

To make greater or larger

B. Violation: They do not on face increase enough people serving in the Armed

Forces.There are more than 2.6 million serving in the Armed Forces.

US Department of Labor 06August 4, Bureau of Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm

In 2005,more than 2.6 million people served in the Armed Forces. More than 1.4

million were on active duty in the Armed Forcesabout 487,000 in the Army, 350,000 in the Navy, 356,000

in the Air Force, and 185,000 in the Marine Corps. In addition,more than 1.2 million people served in theirReserve components, and the Air and Army National Guard. In addition, 33,000 individuals served in the Coast Guard,which is now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Table 1 shows the occupational composition of the 1.2 millionactive-duty enlisted personnel in February 2005; table 2 presents similar information for the 216,000 active-duty officers.

Also, 5% of 2.6 million is 130,000. The affirmative does not get an increase of atleast 130,000.

C. Standards

1. Limits: They allow for an infinite amount of policies that only increase a

minor amount, crazily underlimiting the topic.

2. Ground: The negative loses all arguments based off the number of people

increasing. This includes spending DAs, politics DAs, movement DAs, and

Kritiks based off a substantial event, and any CP that increases les than 5%.

3. Effects Topicality is an independent voter. Allowing the affirmative to create

a plan not solely based on an increase in the amount of people explodes the

negatives research burden by making us research anything that eventuallycan lead to an increase while unfairly lets them claim advantages that arent

based off an increase. Even if their plan decreases the amount of people

serving, they can still claim their advantages.

D. Voting Issue: Topicality should be decided based on competing interpretations.

It is not what they do, but what their interpretation justifies. Vote negative for

fairness and education by preserving negative limits.


4/13

3 Part T File 4/12

DADT SUBSTANTIAL = 5% BLOCK

ALLOWING GAYS INTO THE MILITARY WOULD ALSO LOSE 38,000 IN

RECRUTING ANNUALYWHEREAS THEIR EVIDENCE JUST INDICATES A

TOTAL INCREASE OF 41,000 HOMOSEXUALS SERVING.

AIR FORCE TIMES 05October 10, Survey Casts Doubt on Recruits Reluctance to Serve with Gays,

http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressClips/05_1011_AirforceTimes.htm.

With recruiting at a low point, the fact that21 percent of service-age youths say they would not join

if there were openly gay service members might still be considered a powerful argument for maintaining the

status quo."If 21 percent of these individuals [would be] less likely to enlist following

repeal of the ban,this meansthat perhaps38,000 potential recruits.

YOU MUST NOT LOOK AT THEIR EVIDENCE OF THE 41,000 THEY CLAIM

WOULD ENLIST BECAUSE OVERALL, THEY MUST SUBSTANTIALLY

INCREASE AND WHEN 38,000 LESS WOULD JOIN EACH YEAR, AT THEMOST THAT WOULD BE ONLY A OF 1 PERCENT INCREASE.

THIS EVIDENCE SHOWS HOW THEY WILL NOT EVEN MEET THEIR OWN

INTERPRETATION WITH THAT INSIGNIFICANT INCREASE. ALSO

EXTEND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CARD SHOWING THAT THE

CURRENT NUMBER IS 2.6 MILLION.

NOW ONTO THE COUNTER INTERPRETATION DEBATE.

(Ground)

1. ON THE GROUND DEBATE, BECAUSE THEY DONT ACTUALLY

INCREASE A LARGE ENOUGH AMOUNT, WE LOST LINKS TO OURBUDGET DA, VOLUNTEERISM DA, ALL TRADEOFF DAS, AND ALL

CPS THAT WOULD CHANGE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT

ACTUALLY JOIN.

(C/I)

2. THEY DONT MEET THEIR OWN COUNTER-INTERPRETATION

SAYING THE INCREASE MUST BE COMPARED TO CURRENT

SERVICE LEVELS. I CHALLENGE THEM TO FIND SOMEONE THAT

WOULD HONESTLY SAY THAT SOMETHING LESS THAN 5% IS

SUBSTANTIALYOU MUST VOTE NEG TO PRESERVE LIMITS.

(Limits)

3. AS FOR OUR LIMITS, WE DONT LIMIT ARMED FORCES CASES

WITH PLANS THAT GET MORE THEN 130K PEOPLE INTO THE

ARMED FORCES. PLUS THERE IS ALWAYS THE DRAFT WHICH IS

TOPICAL WITH THAT INCREASE. THERE ARE ALSO TOPICAL

CASES THAT MEET A 5% INCREASE IN EVERY OTHER NATIONAL

SERVICE ORGANIZATION


5/13

3 Part T File 5/12

(Literature)

4. LITERATURE DOES NOT CHECKTHEY ARE ONLY RUNNING THIS

CASE BECAUSE THEY KNOW ITS SO UNTOPICAL THAT NOTHING

CAN BEAT IT THEREFORE WE HAVE TO WASTE TIME

RESEARCHING CASES THAT ARENT TOPICAL WHICH TAKES

AWAY FROM BETTER SPENT TIME.

(Arbitrary/Percents bad)

5. AS FOR THEIR ARBITRARY ARGUMENTTHEY DONT EVEN

INCREASE NEAR 5% BASED ON CURRENT FORCE LEVELS. WE

ARE GIVING THEM SO MUCH LENIENCY BY ONLY MAKING THEM

INCREASE 5%. ON THIS YEARS RESOLUTION WHICH SPEAKS OF

NUMBERS, A NUMBER VALUE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION UNLIKE

THEIR VAGUE DEFINITION

[EXTEND FX VOTER IF DROPPED OR ANSWERED BADLY]

YOU MUST ALSO LOOK AT OUT VOTER. WE MADE THE POINT THAT IT

IS MORE THAN JUST WHAT THEY DO, BUT WHAT THEY JUSTIFY. EVEN

IF YOU FEEL THERE IS NO ABUSE OR GROUND LOSS IN THIS ROUND,

YOU MUST STILL VOTE NEGATIVE ON TOPICALITY BECAUSE THEIR

AFF STILL JUSTIFIES THE CREATION AND RUNNING OF OTHER AFFS AS

MENTIONED EARLIER SUCH AS ALLOWING INCREASED SERVICE IN

THE MILITARY FOR AGEISM, RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND THE

OTHERS MENTIONED EARLIER.

Substantial definition extension

SUBSTANTIAL MEANS 5%

Treasury Regulations 05Subchapter A, Sec. 1.103-11, TaxAlmanac

(b) Substantial user. In general, a substantial user of a facility includes any nonexempt person who regularly uses a part of such

facility in his trade or business. However, unless a facility, or a part thereof, is constructed, reconstructed, or acquired specifically for

a nonexempt person or persons, such a nonexemptperson shall be considered to be a substantial userof a facilityonly if(1) the gross revenue derived by such user with respect to such facility is more than 5

percent of the total revenuederived by all users of such facilityor (2) the amount of area of the

facility occupied by such user is more than 5 percentof the entire usable area of the facility. Undercertain facts and circumstances, where a nonexempt person has a contractual or preemptive right to the exclusive use of property or a

portion of property, such person may be a substantial user of such property. A substantial user may also be a lessee or sublessee of all

or any portion of the facility. A licensee or similar person may also be a substantial user where his use is regular and is not merely a

casual, infrequent, or sporadic use of the facility. Absent special circumstances, individuals who are physically present on or in thefacility as employees of a substantial user shall not be deemed to be substantial users.


6/13

3 Part T File 6/12

WIC ESTABLISH POLICY 1NC

A. INTERPRETATION: THE AFF MUST CREATE A NEW PLAN

FORMULATED OUTSIDE THE JUDICIARY THAT INCREASES THE

NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVING

Establish

To set up; found


Pol i cyPronunciation: 'p-l&-sE

Function: nounInflected Form:plural-cies

an overall plan, principle, or guideline; especially : one formulated outside of the

judiciary


B. VIOLATION: THEY HAVE THE COURTS/CONGRESS RULE THAT ONE

SPECIFIC BARRIER TO SERVING SHOULD BE REMOVED

C. STANDARDS

1. LIMITS: THERE ARE SO MANY MINOR REQUIREMENTS FOR

ENTRY TO THE MILITARY THAT THE AFF COULD MINUTELY CHANGE

OR ELIMINATE TO ALLOW INCREASED SERVICE: AGEISM, RELIGIOUSDISCRIMINATION, POLITICAL PROTESTS, EDUCATION RESTRICTION,

NON-CITIZEN RE-ENLISTMENT RESTRICTION, HANDICAPPED, AND

MANY MORE

2. PREDICATBILITY: THERE IS NO WAY THE NEG CAN PREPARE

FOR EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE CASE THAT CHANGES A SMALL

REQUIREMENT FOR ENTRANCE TO THE MILITARY

3. GROUND: DAS AND CPS ARE LOST SINCE THERE ARE NO

LINKS TO THESE TINY CASES

D. VOTING ISSUE: VOTE ON TOPICALITY OR EVENTUALLY EVERY

ROUND WOULD HAVE A NEW, UNBEATABLE CASE


7/13

3 Part T File 7/12

WIC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% 1NC

A. Interpretation the affirmative must make greater the number of people

participating in the Armed Forces by at least 5%.

Substantial equals 5% or more.Business Wire 06

We continued to make substantial improvements in profitability as operating

margins exceeded 5% in the fourth quarter, drive by expansion of our higher-margin offshore operations,growth in our value-added marketing and technology services and success in leveraging corporate infrastructure.

Increase equals to make greater

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/establish)

Increase

To make greater or larger

B. Violation: They do not on face increase enough people serving in the Armed

Forces.There are more than 2.6 million serving in the Armed Forces.

US Department of Labor 06August 4, Bureau of Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm

In 2005,more than 2.6 million people served in the Armed Forces. More than 1.4

million were on active duty in the Armed Forcesabout 487,000 in the Army, 350,000 in the Navy, 356,000

in the Air Force, and 185,000 in the Marine Corps. In addition,more than 1.2 million people served in theirReserve components, and the Air and Army National Guard. In addition, 33,000 individuals served in the Coast Guard,which is now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Table 1 shows the occupational composition of the 1.2 millionactive-duty enlisted personnel in February 2005; table 2 presents similar information for the 216,000 active-duty officers.

Also, 5% of 2.6 million is 130,000. The affirmative does not get an increase of atleast 130,000.

C. Standards

4. Limits: They allow for an infinite amount of policies that only increase a

minor amount, crazily underlimiting the topic.

5. Ground: The negative loses all arguments based off the number of people

increasing. This includes spending DAs, politics DAs, movement DAs, and

Kritiks based off a substantial event, and any CP that increases les than 5%.

6. Effects Topicality is an independent voter. Allowing the affirmative to create

a plan not solely based on an increase in the amount of people explodes the

negatives research burden by making us research anything that eventuallycan lead to an increase while unfairly lets them claim advantages that arent

based off an increase. Even if their plan decreases the amount of people

serving, they can still claim their advantages.

D. Voting Issue: Topicality should be decided based on competing interpretations.

It is not what they do, but what their interpretation justifies. Vote negative for

fairness and education by preserving negative limits.


8/13

3 Part T File 8/12

WIC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% BLOCK

FIRST EXTEND ACROSS OUR DEFINITION THAT THEY MUST INCREASE

5%. NOT ONLY IS ANY INCREASE PROVISIONAL, AS IS SEEN HOW THEY

DONT HAVE EVIDENCE SHOWING IT, BUT THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY

THAT THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE OF 130K WHICH IS ONLY 5%.

ALLOWING WOMYN INTO THE MILITARY COULD ACTUALLY

DECREASE THE NET AMOUNT OF PEOPLE

Browne, 01[Kingsley R., Prof of Law @ Wayne State U Law School, Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective, 49 Buffalo L. Rev. 51,

lexis] bernick

A. Integration May Diminish the Attractiveness of Military Service to Men and May Affect What Kind of Men Join Throughout the

years,menhavejoinedthe militaryboth to test andto prove their manhood, attracted by thetraditionallymasculine lifeof the military. In an era in which we rely on volunteers to staff the armed services,

eliminatingone of

the primary attractionsof the military

to men may have negative effectsonthemilitary's ability to field a sufficientnumber of troops. Although some argue that female "participation incombat will not change the nature of our military," n746 that can only be true, if at all, if there are very small numbers of women.

Even now, it is fair to say that the military is a very different place from what it would be if women were not widely included. It is

difficult to measure the extent to which men might be less inclined to join the military because of the integration of women. People's

motivations for joining the military are not necessarily accessible to us, or, perhaps, even to themselves. Respondents to surveysasking military personnel why they joined tend to identify such factors as educational and economic opportunities, serving one's

country, and so forth. n747 Few say that they are joining to turn themselves into men or to make themselves feel manly. That would,

after all, be a very unmanly thing to say. Men who write about their decision to join long after the fact, however, when they do not feel

that their manhood must be proved, often identify the need to test their manhood as a major motivation. n748 Concerns about the

effect on the willingness of men to join the military were expressed during debate over the question of admitting women into the

service academies. Admiral Worth Bagley, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, testified before Congress as follows:The presentmale-dominated, sea-goingfacet of Navy lifeisone that isunderstoodand accepted by the country and

the men in the Navy. Menjoin the Navy for many different reasons; however, a certain portionjoinand remain in

the Navy because they enjoybeing ina jobwhich has been historicallyassociated with fellowship

among men in adifficult anddangerous endeavor. Changing the fabric of the Navy byintegratingwomen intoallcombatrolesmight well reduce the attractions of the Navy to this segment ofmankind, as well as to some of those men who might, in the future, join the Navy and make it a career. The services have recently haddifficulty attracting enough recruits, in large part because of the booming civilian economy and a smaller cohort of 18-to 22-year-olds.

n750 Given the current orientation of military recruiting, which is to compete essentially on civilian-labor-market terms, these

difficulties are not surprising. When the military is perceived as just another job, it lacksthe

special attributes that have traditionally attractedyoung recruits. It may not be a coincidence that the Marine Corps - themost "masculine" of the services, the only service to retain sex-segregated basic training, and the service accused of being the most

"disconnected" from civilian society - is the only service that has continued to be successful at meeting its recruiting goals. n751

Indeed, a study of recruiting practices commissioned by the Pentagon found that only the Marine Corps, among all the services,

articulates a clear image. n752 That image, most clearly, is one of masculine toughness.Sexual integration may not affect just the

numbers of men who join; it may also negatively affect which men join. One major criticism of the volunteer force is that it hassubstituted an occupational orientation for an institutional orientation; it has come to compete with the civilian sector on civilian

terms. n753 Thus, there is substantial focus on compensation competitive with the civilian sector and [*198] training that will have

value outside the military. Diminishing the sense of "warrior spirit" that is associated with the military would predictably enhance thatshift. n754 This may hold true even for men who are not in combat MOSs, and, indeed, it may be even more true of them. Under the

current Marine Corps ethos, for example, "every Marine is a rifleman." n755 Thus, even Marines in combat service support enjoy thecachet of "warrior." But when they work side by side with women, who are not eligible to participate in rifle companies, that mystique

may diminish.


9/13

3 Part T File 9/12

WIC SUBSTANTIAL = 5% BLOCK

THIS EVIDENCE SHOWS HOW THEY WILL NOT EVEN MEET THEIR OWN

INTERPRETATION BECAUSE THE ONLY THING WE CAN BE SURE OF IS PEOPLE

WILL LEAVE THE MILITAY POST PLAN. ALSO EXTEND THE DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR CARD SHOWING THAT THE CURRENT NUMBER IS 2.6 MILLION.

NOW ONTO THE COUNTER INTERPRETATION DEBATE.

(Ground)

6. ON THE GROUND DEBATE, BECAUSE THEY DONT ACTUALLY INCREASE

A LARGE ENOUGH AMOUNT, WE LOST LINKS TO OUR BUDGET DA,

VOLUNTEERISM DA, ALL TRADEOFF DAS, AND ALL CPS THAT WOULD

CHANGE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY JOIN.

(C/I)

7. THEY DONT MEET THEIR OWN COUNTER-INTERPRETATION SAYING

THE INCREASE MUST BE COMPARED TO CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS. I

CHALLENGE THEM TO FIND SOMEONE THAT WOULD HONESTLY SAY

THAT SOMETHING LESS THAN 5% IS SUBSTANTIALYOU MUST VOTE

NEG TO PRESERVE LIMITS.(Limits)

8. AS FOR OUR LIMITS, WE DONT LIMIT ARMED FORCES CASES WITH

PLANS THAT GET MORE THEN 130K PEOPLE INTO THE ARMED FORCES.

PLUS THERE IS ALWAYS THE DRAFT WHICH IS TOPICAL WITH THAT

INCREASE. THERE ARE ALSO TOPICAL CASES THAT MEET A 5%

INCREASE IN EVERY OTHER NATIONAL SERVICE ORGANIZATION

(Literature)

9. LITERATURE DOES NOT CHECKTHEY ARE ONLY RUNNING THIS CASE

BECAUSE THEY KNOW ITS SO UNTOPICAL THAT NOTHING CAN BEAT

IT THEREFORE WE HAVE TO WASTE TIME RESEARCHING CASES

THAT ARENT TOPICAL WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM BETTER SPENT

TIME.(Arbitrary/Percents bad)

10. AS FOR THEIR ARBITRARY ARGUMENTTHEY DONT EVEN INCREASE

NEAR 5% BASED ON CURRENT FORCE LEVELS. WE ARE GIVING THEM

SO MUCH LENIENCY BY ONLY MAKING THEM INCREASE 5%. ON THIS

YEARS RESOLUTION WHICH SPEAKS OF NUMBERS, A NUMBER VALUE

IS THE ONLY SOLUTION UNLIKE THEIR VAGUE DEFINITION

[EXTEND FX VOTER IF DROPPED OR ANSWERED BADLY]

YOU MUST ALSO LOOK AT OUT VOTER. WE MADE THE POINT THAT IT IS

MORE THAN JUST WHAT THEY DO, BUT WHAT THEY JUSTIFY. EVEN IF YOU

FEEL THERE IS NO ABUSE OR GROUND LOSS IN THIS ROUND, YOU MUST STILLVOTE NEGATIVE ON TOPICALITY BECAUSE THEIR AFF STILL JUSTIFIES THE

CREATION AND RUNNING OF OTHER AFFS AS MENTIONED EARLIER SUCH AS

ALLOWING INCREASED SERVICE IN THE MILITARY FOR AGEISM, RELIGIOUS

DISCRIMINATION AND THE OTHERS MENTIONED EARLIER.


10/13

3 Part T File 10/12

Topicality IN: Cant Specify a Program 1NC Shell

A. Interpretation Topical affirmatives increase persons serving in the entirety of a

national service agency, not just in one aspect of it:

Westers Third New InternationalDictionary of the English Language Unabridged

In (prep.)throughout the whole of a place or object

B. Violation The aff doesnt increase persons in the _______ broadly, just in the

_________ program.

C. Standards:

1. Ground- It is impossible to get critical links off of the [insert specific branch

here ]. This will undermine our ability to begin to understand the

assumptions of the resolution. Additionally it is impossible to run planinclusive Counterplans when they pick a certain actor within the topic.

2. Limits- Their interpretation will blow up the resolution by allowing for

countless actors who are under the military, like NSA, Navy, Air Force,

Marines as well as potential JAG cases[if not armed forces, insert specific

subsets examples], while also allowing infinite number of cases with the other

agencies in the resolution.

3. Extra Topicality- This is an independent reason to vote neg, by specifying

their subsets actor in plan text they are generating extra defense by being

able to put no links on all of our disadvantages. Additionally they can also

generate extra offense by being able to criticize most of the military.


11/13

3 Part T File 11/12

In = Throughout: Line-by-line Blocks

Extend our interpretation that in means throughout. This means they must actuallyincrease throughout an entire national service program, not just a small subset of one.

They specify the increase of a subset.

Their interpretation doesnt resolve any of our offensive arguments:

First is the defense against their interpretation.

A. Still explodes limits Ill answer this in more detail later.B. We still get stripped of ground under their interpretation an aff that only affects

say the automotive training aspect of learn and serve can no link our disads and

solvency arguments for why learn and serve is ineffective by saying they dont

apply to their specific sector. We should be able to get disads to the program inits entirety otherwise we are forced to resort to hypergenerics.

C. This interpretation would let affirmatives violate the word substantial because a

part of the national service agency that is not very important could be acted upon

by the affirmative.Within just means not exceeding, doesnt mean they can be a subcomponentDictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/within

Within: at or to some amount or degree not exceeding: within two degrees of freezing.

This means that their interpretation is not competitive we can permute and argue thattopical affs must affect the entire agency without exceeding the mandate of the agency

solves all of their offense.

Now for our offense.First extend across ground; all of our literature is specific to increases in the whole

[insert main program]. Look to all of their no link arguments on the flow as individual

instances of abuse. Also, they undermine education because when we have no specificliterature for our offcase arguments we are forced to debate with generic links.

Next onto limits; allowing the affirmative to work within a subset program allows forthousands of cases as these subsets. They also allow for smaller subsets to be created

which gives the Aff infinite limits when creating a case. [If not citizen corps, insert

specific evi]

There are over two thousand different divisions of citizencorps thats 2,000 affs

just in the Citizen Corps.

CitizenCorps Online 2006(http://www.citizencorps.gov/ We all have a role in hometown security)

Citizen Corps asks you to embrace the personal responsibility to be prepared ; to gettraining in first aid and emergency skills; and to volunteer to support local emergency responders, disaster relief, and communitysafety.

Currently there are : 2,116 Councils which serve 210,862,216 people or 73 % ofthe totalU.S .population.


12/13

3 Part T File 12/12


On the defense:We allow way more than six cases there are a wide variety of different solvency

mechanisms that affs can choose from when determining how to get more people into

each branch that provides flexibility. We would still allow cases like DADT, immigrantrestrictions, age restrictions, end strength, etc. so long as the solvency mechanism applies

to the national service program in entirety.

The aff can still claim advantages based upon the variety of different programs. For

example an aff could increase funding for the peace corps then read cards saying that a

specific program of the peace corps would be beneficial if it had more funding. There is

virtually no limit to the potential advantage area making limits on plan texts critical.

Its better to overlimit than to underlimit you must look to our limits evidence showing

there are thousands of potential cases. Even if theyre right that we only allow six topical

affs that is still far better than literally thousands of them.

You should prefer the education internal link of depth because learning a lot about alimited number of issues is far more valuable than is gaining cursory knowledge about a

lot of random subjects.

[Only read if dropped Extra-T]Finally extend across the independent voter for extra-topicality. We put an independent

voter on this; them not answering is an automatic reason to vote down the affirmative.

Topicality must be evaluated before anything else including theory. The violation is thatbecause they specifically put their non-resolutional actor in the plan text, they are using

to gain ground off. Do not allow any new arguments on this because the 2NR should be

a time to finish up the round, not answer new arguments.

[If they answered Extra-T, read below]

1. Unpredictable- No way to predict actions or agencies outside of the resolution.2. Jurisdiction- Can vote for anything outside of resolution

3. Promotes lazy debate- XT turns into just a way of escaping clash

4. Loss of ground- We lost all CP ground when they blur the distinction by acting

beyond the resolution5. Kills education- makes us debate issues we are not prepared for; this leads to

more breadth with no depth


13/13

3 Part T File 13/12


AT: We Meet The Total # of People in the whole Agency is Higher

They dont meet our Websters definition says that you have to affect the agency

throughout its whole. They only affect certain components of the agency.

Even if the number of persons serving in the entire agency is made greater by the sum ofits parts, that still doesnt resolve the throughout element throughout means that every

part of the agency must be affected.

AT: Not Real World Specific Programs Get Funded Independently

Thats not true each year when an agencys funding is renewed every part of the agencyis allocated an amount of money. If this argument were true then parts of agencies

wouldnt have any funding and would just dissolve away.

Debate isnt real world plan texts are fifty words long but legislation is fifty pages long

and congress doesnt have a resolution. The competitive nature of debate means that youshould always default to questions of fairness so that the game can be played equitably

even if doing so makes it not as realistic as it could be.

AT: You Exclude Education About the Specific Programs

This claim is bull.

A. PICs negatives can counterplan out of specific programs and the net benefit debate

allows debate over the specific programs.

B. Advantages affs can claim advantages based on the benefits of the specific

programs so their merits can be discussed BUT the neg will still have predictable groundagainst the plan mechanism since the plan will affect the agency broadly.

C. Disads the neg can read disads to specific programs that the aff has to answer andwe can learn about those programs that way.

D. They have no impact to why this education is so critical learning about the core

functions of the agency within the context of the debate surrounding how to get morepeople involved is the heart of the topic.

E. There is no depth to this education their interpretation encourages program of theweek affs where each week you write a new aff that funds some obscure program in one

of the agencies so there is no true education about the intricacies of these programs.

F. Their interpretation hurts education because it forces us to resort to hyper generics if

every week theres a new aff about a random national service program well be stuck

going for things like statism or veto cheato every round which is anti-educational.

Documents

three part t