Topicality---Increase

1NC Topicality
A. Interpretation Should is used to predict Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 2002, Merriam-Websters Inc., Tenth Ed., http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected

B. Violation the plan doesnt guarantee an increase in research/development beyond the earths mesosphere C. Reasons to prefer 1. Limits they make the topic bidirectional they can concede the USFG says no debate to get out of our disad links 2. Ground all negative arguments are centered on increases in r&dbudget tradeoff, spending, politics, perception disads, kritiks 3. Extra-T at best the demand in the plan text is extra-topical its not part of the resolution and the abuse isnt potential 1ac claims advantages off something not in the topic D. voter for fairness and education evaluate T in a competing interpretations - most objective framework

2NC Overview (Long)

Our interpretation is that the aff needs to be a net increase in democracy assistancethey dont meet our interpretation because they dont increase democracy assistance directlyvote neg 1. They allow for an infinite amount of affs that lift barriers and restrictions on assistance, coupled with all topic countries they make predicting affs impossible. 2. We lose core arguments, politics and trade-off DAs compete off the plans increase, so does the offsets CP and any topic kritik on increasing the amount democracy assistance. 3. Extra Tindependent reason to vote neg A. Proves the resolution is insufficientthey dont prove that democracy assistance is good, vote neg on presumption B. Magnifies all other neg impactsgives the aff way too much ground by allowing for a near infinite amount of advantages and solvency mechanisms, that crushes topic-specific education, skews fairness and hurts predictability. Theres also a topical version of their aff[insert]

***OVERVIEWS***

2NC Overview (Short)

Our interpretation is that the aff needs to be a net increase in democracy assistancethey dont meet our interpretation because they dont increase democracy assistance directlyvote neg 1. They allow for an infinite amount of affs that lift barriers and restrictionsunlimits the topic and undercuts predictability 2. DAs, offsets CPs and any topic K no longer applythey compete off the plans increase. 3. Extra Tindependent reason to vote negthey allow any amount of steps to be topical, that gives affs advantages off the steps, not the implementationtoo much aff ground and crushes topic specific education, skews fairness and hurts predictability. Theres also a topical version of their aff[insert]

AT: Counter-Interpretation (Long)

Their interpretation is a worse view of debate, multiple DAs First is limitsimagine the proliferation of tiny affs at the NDT if teams only needed to remove a barrier or lift a restriction to be topical. The sheer amount of bans that the U.S. has on granting any level of aid paints a nightmare picture for the negative. This opens the flood gates and kills negative research ability that also devastates topic education because teams will have an incentive to race to the margins in order to shield themselves from any generic DA, CP or K. Evaluate limits firstits the only real world impact Science Daily, 09 [Science Daily, Students Benefit From Depth, Rather Than Breadth, In High School Science
Courses,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090305131814.htm] A recent study reports that high school students who study

fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each. Robert Tai, associate professor at the
University of Virginia's Curry School of Education, worked with Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington and Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics to conduct the study and produce the report. The study relates the amount of content covered on a particular topic in high school classes with students' performance in college-level science classes. "As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that

teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science," Tai said. "These results are based
on the performance of thousands of college science students from across the United States." The 8,310 students in the study were enrolled in introductory biology, chemistry or physics in randomly selected four-year colleges and universities. Those who spent one month or more studying one major topic in-depth in high school earned higher grades in college science than their peers who studied more topics in the same period of time. The study revealed that students in courses that focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched on every major topic. The study explored differences between science disciplines, teacher decisions about classroom activities, and out-of-class projects and homework. The researchers carefully controlled for differences in student backgrounds. The study also points out that standardized testing, which seeks to measure overall knowledge in an entire discipline, may not capture a student's high level of mastery in a few key science topics. Teachers who "teach to the test" may not be optimizing their students' chance of success in college science courses, Tai noted. "President Obama has challenged the nation to become the most educated in the world by having the largest proportion of college graduates among its citizens in the coming decade," Tai said. "To meet this challenge, it is imperative that we use the research to inform our educational practice." The study was part of the Factors Influencing College Science Success study, funded by the National Science Foundation.

And, any risk of the limits DA means you vote negit triggers every impact and independently causes people to quit Rowland, 84 (Robert C., Baylor U., Topic Selection in Debate, American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Parson, p. 53-54) PDF
The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is the decline in participation in the National Debate Tournament (NDT) policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction with academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are oriented toward debating the national policy debate proposition, so-called NDT programs, are diminishing both in scope and size. This decline in policy debate is tied,

many in the work group believe, to excessively broad topics. The most obvious characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is
extreme breadth. A resolution calling for regulation of land use literally and figuratively covers a lot of ground. National debate topics have not always been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular policy change. The move from narrow to broad topics has had, according to some,

the effect of limiting the number of students who participate in policy debate. First, the breadth of topics has all but destroyed novice debate. Paul Gaske argues that because the stock issues of policy debate are clearly defined, it is superior to value debate as a
means of introducing students to the debate process. Despite this advantage of policy debate, Gaske believes that NDT debate is not the best vehicle for teaching beginners. The problem is that broad topics terrify novice debaters, especially those who lack high school debate experience. They are unable to

cope with the breath of the topic and experience negophobia, the fear of debating negative. As a consequence, the educational advantages associated with teaching novice through policy debate are lost: Yet all of these benefits fly out the
window as rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caught without evidence or substantive awareness of the issues that confront them at a tournament. The ultimate result is that fewer novices participate in NDT, thus lessening the educational value of the activity and

limiting the number of debaters who eventually participate in more advanced divisions of policy debate. In addition to noting the effect on novices, participants argued that broad topics also discourage experienced debaters from continued participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is that it takes so much time and effort to be competitive on a broad topic that students who are concerned with doing more than just debate are forced out of the activity. Gaske notes, that broad topics discourage participation because of insufficient time to do requisite research. The final effect may be that entire programs wither cease functioning or shift to value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable research burdens. Boman supports this point: It is this expanding necessity of evidence, and thereby research, which has created a competitive imbalance between institutions that participate in academic debate. In this view, it is the competitive imbalance resulting from the use of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel their programs.

***AT: COUNTER-INTERPRETATIONS***

Second is groundtheir interpretation incentivizes squirrelly affs that erode any remote discussion over the topic to the point next to zero DA links applymarginal increases crush perception-based links and spending or trade-off DAsthese are all core negative generics. Their interpretation also justifies advantages based off the restriction or barrier they remove, not off democracy assistance. Each of these collapse negative ground because it gives too much wiggle room to the aff while suffocating the negs ability to argue. Negative ground outweighs aff groundthey choose the discussion of the debate, get repeated debates to perfect 2AC blocks, have the most persuasive speech in debate, win the majority of debates by the end of the year and Obamas meddling in the Middle East now non-uniques a lot of links, only net increases from baseline aid gives the neg a fighting chance. The impact is lack of topic education and fairnessthese outweigh and turn their impactstopic education is the one of the only reasons to debate, thats why the topic changes from year to year. Fairness controls uniqueness for their impactsif debaters feel they cant win enough using topic-specific args theyll shift their focus to generics Thirdtheir aff isnt substantial Substantial means $2.5 billion in the context of democracy assistance Carothers, 09 - Vice President for Studies at Carnegie and Founder and Director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Program at Carnegie (Thomas, 2009,
"Revitalizing US Democracy Assistance", p. 9) PDF Over the past 25 years, the United States has

built up a substantial body of democracy assistance and now devotes

approximately $2.5 billion a year to it (with about half of the assistance directed at Iraq and Afghanistan). Three organizations serve as the main funders of such aid: the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of State, and the private, nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Beyond USAID and the State Department,several other parts of the government also sponsor assistance programs that include efforts to support democratic institutions and practices abroad, including the Department of Defense, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the Department of Justice.1 U.S. democracy aid is only one part of a much larger pool of democracy-related assistance emanating from many governments, international organizations, and private foundations. Nevertheless, the weight of the United States as a geopolitical actor and the substantial amount of U.S. funding committed to this area ensure that the United States remains to many people around the world the single most important player in the democracy aid domain.

Thats an independent reason to vote neg Limitstheir interp on increase proves that they allow for any minor increase in democracy assistance which explodes the topic. Groundeven if their counter-interp is correct they increase too little to give us any DAs. They also dont meet their interpretation [insert]

AT: Counter-Interpretation (Short)

Their interpretation is a worse view of debate, multiple DAs First is limitstheir interpretation blows the lid off the topic, allows for any removal or repeal of a restriction or barrier on U.S democracy assistance. There are thousands of possibilitiesthe impacts are predictability, topic education and negative research burden. Second is groundDA links are obsolete because they dont take into account the minute increases they allow for and they can claim unpredictable advantages based off the removal of the restriction. The impacts are topic-specific education and fairness. They also dont meet their interpretation [insert]

AT: Education
1. Core of the topic education outweighstheir definition is a broad take on increase, our definition defines it in a limiting sense and says that increase means a net increase from a baseline. Everything is educational, but learning about the key issues on increasing democracy assistance is more. 2. Limits turns educationeven if they win that it is important to learn about some assistance the lid that it blows off the topic means that we arent even ready to debate these affs so we default to shallow debates like consult cp. 3. Depth outweighs breadthit is more important to get a deep understanding about an area of democratization than to just shallowly acknowledge that the US has random assistance projects on the side.

***ANSWERS TO***

AT: Extra T Not a Voting Issue

Extra T is a voting issue 1. No risk optionteams would be encouraged to put extra topical planks in the plan to screw over the negative and force us to go for a bad strategy and extra topicality. 2. Underlimitsif only part of the plan needs to be topical it explodes the range of possible affirmatives, the impact to underlimiting will be discussed elsewhere. 3. It allows for unpredictable plan mechanisms and advantagesthis also demonstrates in round abuse their aff could not solve the advantages if it increased democratic assistance only. [AT: CPs Check] Counterplaning out of the extra topical part of the plan usually fails to make sense and also forces the negative to counterplan or waste a counterplan which the affirmative should never be able to dictate [AT: Increases ground/Education] Extra Topicality might increase ground and education but it does not increase predictable ground and education because none of it stems from the resolution which is what we look to when we do research [AT: Sever] Severance is not a good enough remedyit must be a voting issue otherwise it becomes a no risk option for the affthey would have an incentive to put extra topical planks in the plan to make us go for extra T. Severing the plan is a voting issue because it is the focus of debate and allows the affirmative to escape the link to all DAs.

AT: Lit Checks

1. Just because you can find words in the resolution in an article about your plan doesnt make you are topical under our interpretationtopicality is about a case list that provides good ground for both sides 2. Not a good standardsome people dont have access to all of the recourses others have for finding information 3. Mixes Burdenstopicality is determined by looking at the plan text alone, not the literature about the plan. Mixing burdens is illegitimate and an independent voting issue A. Unlimitslooking to solvency evidence to determine topicality allows for more cases then just looking at the plan alone b. Looking at a plan provides a better bright line then having to subjectively determine the quality of evidence read in a debate

AT: Offsets CPs

1. Key to test the word increase in the rez 2. Even if they win these CPs are badour interp doesn't justify it, even if it did the aff will win on theory 3. Regardless of the CP we should test the increasespending, trade-off and spending all based on the increase 4. Lose perception DAsthe neg would always lose to the aff doesnt cause that much backlash arg

AT: Only Our Case

1. Our argument isnt that the best limit should determine what is topical, rather the most predictable limittopicality must be grounded in the resolution, to say only our case is topical has no resolutional predictability. 2. Underlimitsevery aff can say counter interpretation only our case is topicalit would be impossible for the negative to win with the topic

AT: Our Case Plus Your Interpretation

1. Unlimitsthis is functionally the same as only our case is topical and every team in the country could use this to avoid debating the topic and run anything they want. 2. Unpredictablethey arent topicaladding it to our list only justifies debating cases that have nothing to do with the topic. 3. Our interpretation alone limits bettereven if their interpretation adds one more case it still sets a worse limit on the topic.

AT: Overlimiting Bad

1. We don't overlimitwe allow for any net increase of democracy assistance, virtually every aff on the topic meets our minimal threshold for what is topical. 2. Overlimiting is good A. In-depth clashallows for preparation. B. Only internal link to topic specific educationunder their interpretation negatives would resort to reading uber-generic arguments like the Nihilism K and Consult NATO every round, which worsens debates. C. Good policy testinga small topic allows us debate out issues, and come to informed conclusions about specific policy initiatives. [AT: Causes Stale Debates] 1. A small topic forces aff innovationchecks stale debates. 2. Generic negative arguments lead to stale-er debates. [AT: Creativity] 1. No impact to creativity. 2. We control the internal linkon a larger topic only the aff can innovate, but less cases forces the aff to innovate, and allows the negative to. 3. Switch-side debate solves. [AT: Aff Fairness] 1. Aff side biassolvency advocates, 2AR persuasion, 2AC block perfection and higher winning percentage proves. 2. Innovation solves.

AT: No Impact to Fairness

Fairness outweighs 1. Its the nature of the game everything is educational in some respect, but debate is fundamentally a competitive activity with winners and losers fairness is key to preserve debates integrity. 2. Prerequisite to education if people feel like they have no chance to win, they will quit debate entirely that means even if they win superior educational quality, we access better quantity.

AT: Reasonability
1. If our interpretation establishes a better predictable limit, vote negativejust like every other argument in debate 2. It's not a race to the bottom if you can prove that other standards o/w limits or that overlimiting is bad. 3. The aff always has the advantage when it comes to T definitionsthey can find specific evidence pertaining to their aff 4. Reasonability is arbitrary and legitimizes judge interventionif the plan only has to be reasonably topical, one team will be in for a huge surprise when we discover the judges crazy version of reasonability. 5. Theyre not reasonablean entire set of extra resolutions is NOT reasonable for the neg to prepare for.

AT: Plan Text in Vacuum Bad

Evaluating the plan text in a vacuum is good 1. Most objectiveno other alternative exists and would open the flood gate for unpredictable assessments of the aff because in one way or another the aff could be topical. 2. If we win any of our DAs to their interpretation of the topic it proves evaluating the aff their way is worse for debate.

AT: Potential Abuse Not a Voting Issue

Potential abuse is a voting issue 1. Deterrenceif you vote them down theyll stop running this aff and send a signal to the community this aff should be rejected. 2. 1NC strategy skewthe negative shouldnt have to waste 1NC time running disads that dont link. 3. Overstretches the negative research burden which undermines our preparedness for all debates.

Definition XTBaseline Growth

Increase is an immediate growth from a status quo baseline. Rogers, state of New York judge, 5
(Judge, state of new York, et all, petitioners v. US epa, respondent, nsr manufacturers roundtable, et al, intervenors, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12378, **; 60 ERC (BNA) 1791, p.LN) According to government petitioners, the lack of a statutory definition does not render the term "increases" ambiguous,

but merely compels the court to give the term its "ordinary meaning." See Engine Mfrs.Ass'nv.S.Coast AirQualityMgmt.Dist., 541
U.S. 246, 124 S. Ct. 1756, 1761, 158 L. Ed. 2d 529(2004); Bluewater Network, 370 F.3d at 13; Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 342 U.S. App. D.C. 7, 215 F.3d 7, 10 [*23] (D.C. Cir. 2000). Relying on two "real world" analogies, government petitioners contend that the ordinary

meaning of "increases" requires the baseline to be calculated from a period immediately preceding the change. They maintain, for example,
that in determining whether a high-pressure weather system "increases" the local temperature, the relevant baseline is the temperature immediately preceding the arrival of the weather system, not the temperature five or ten years ago. Similarly, [**49] in determining whether a new engine "increases" the value of a car, the relevant baseline is the value of the car immediately preceding the replacement of the engine, not the value of the car five or ten years ago when the engine was in perfect condition.

***DEFINITION EXTENSIONS***

Definition XTNet Increase

Increase requires evidence of the preexisting condition Ripple, 87 (Circuit Judge, Emmlee K. Cameron, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Company, State Automobile Insurance Association, and Glassley Agency of Whitley, Indiana, DefendantsAppellees, 824 F.2d 570; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 9816, 9/24, lexis) Also related to the waiver issue is appellees' defense relying on a provision of the insurance policy that suspends coverage where the risk is increased by any means within the knowledge or control of the insured.

the term "increase" connotes change. To show change, appellees would have been required to present evidence of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued. See 5 J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, 2941 at 4-5 (1970). Because no such evidence was presented, this court cannot determine, on this record, whether the risk has, in fact, been increased. Indeed, the answer to this question may depend on Mr. Glassley's knowledge of the condition of the building at the time the policy was issued, see 17 J. Appleman & J.
However, Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, 9602 at 515-16 (1981), since the fundamental issue is whether the appellees contemplated insuring the risk which incurred the loss.

Definition XTPre-Existing
Increase necessarily requires something to be pre-existing in order to be made greater. Buckley, et al, Kolar LLP, 2006
[Jeremiah, Joseph Kolar, Matthew Previn, Thomas, counsel of record Kolar LLP, Thomas Hefferon, Richard Wyner, and Joseph Yenouskas, Goodwin Procter LLP, Brief of Amici Curiae mortgage insurance companies of America and consumer mortgage coalition in support of petitioners http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf, p.25-6, accessed 9-2-10, TP]

First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word increase is to make something greater, which it believed should not be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged. 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because increase means to make something greater, there must

necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edos actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an increase
occurred. Congress could have provided that ad-verse action in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an increase. That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) ([a] defin-ition which declares what a term means . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words existing or applied for, Congress intended that an increase in any charge for insurance must apply to all insurance transactions from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy. 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words existing or applied for in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a cancellation, reduction, or change in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term increase also should be construed to apply to increases of

an already-existing policy.

Definition XTQuantitative
Increase means to become bigger or larger in number, quantity, or degree. Encarta World English Dictionary, 7 (Increase, 2007, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741)
Increase transitive and intransitive verb (past and past participle increased, present participle increasing, 3rd person present singular increases) Definition: make or become larger or greater: to become, or make something become, larger in number, quantity, or degree

Viola

tion XTMake Available

The aff makes assistance available this isnt an increase, they just distribute existing funds Legal Information Institute No Date
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/171/2, retrieved Oct 3, 2011 (2) The term for use , sell, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver, to any person. However, the term excludes transactions solely between persons who are pesticide producers, registrants, wholesalers, or retail sellers, acting only in those capacities.

make available

means to distribute