BAYLOR BRIEFS
THE NEGATIVE: CASEBOOKS ON SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING
U.S. DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE
Volume III
TOPICALITY OF SUBSTANTIALLY
CURTAILING U.S. DOMESTIC
SURVEILLANCE
RYAN GALLOWAY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE THEORY OF TOPICALITY ...............................................…………………….
1
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS ..................................................
2
TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE ……………………..………………………….
5
TOPICALITY IS NOT A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE ……..……………….………
6
CRITIQUES (KRITIKS) DO NOT PRECLUDE TOPICALITY
AS A VOTING ISSUE ………………………………….………….............………
6
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS ………………………………..
8
THE BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY …………………………
9
TOPICALITY IN PRACTICE ………………………………………………………...
9
HOW TO USE TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS IN A DEBATE ……….…….………..
11
STRUCTURING YOUR OWN TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS ……….…….……….
12
TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS ……….…….………………………………………….
12
Violation #1: “Surveillance” Means Monitoring People to Regulate Behavior:
Mere Supervision Is Not Topical ............................................................................
Violation #2: “Surveillance” Means Surveillance of People:
Monitoring Natural Resources, Arms Control, or Animal Species Is Not Topical
Violation #3: “Curtail” To Impose a Restriction On:
Cases Where the President Exercises Self-Restraint Are Not Topical …………..
Violation #4: “Curtail” To Limit, But Not Abolish:
Cases That Ban Surveillance Are Not Topical ………………………………….....
Violation #5: “Its Domestic Surveillance:”
Cases Dealing With State Or Local Surveillance Are Not Topical ..........................
Violation #6: “Domestic Surveillance:”
Cases Dealing With Other Nations Are Not Topical ..............................................
Violation #7: “Substantially” Means to Curtail by 20 Percent:
Cases Which Decrease Surveillance By Less than 20 Percent Are Not Topical ....
Violation #8: “Substantially” Means Without Qualification: Plans Which Condition or
Create a Balancing Test for the Curtailment of Surveillance Are Not Topical ........
Violation #9: “Federal Government” Means The Central Government in Washington,
Not the State Governments or Interstate Compacts ………………………………
Violation #10: “Framework:” The Affirmative Must Defend Topical Action
By the United States Federal Government ……………………………………….
12
14
15
16
16
17
18
20
21
22
INDEX TO EVIDENCE ...........................................................................……………..
25
EVIDENCE ................……………..................................................…………………..
27
RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
CURTAIL ITS DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
1
This book provides high school debaters with a variety of Topicality arguments to use during the 2015-2016
debate season. Topicality is an important argument for the negative. A negative team cannot be adequately prepared
to debate every potential affirmative case and plan. By being prepared to debate Topicality, the number of cases a
negative team must research in order to debate the topic is decreased. Additionally, Topicality provides another
weapon in the negative arsenal of arguments that will enhance the negative’s chances of winning debate rounds.
Finally, Topicality can often serve as a “wedge issue,” forcing the affirmative to defend interpretations of the
resolution that best link to negative disadvantages, counter-plans, and solvency attacks.
Topicality will be especially important on this year’s high school debate topic. Seemingly, any type of policy
dealing with surveillance of phone data, bank records, Muslim populations and even immigrant groups could fall
under a broad interpretation of the resolution. The negative will have to be aggressive to prevent such cases from
becoming commonplace on this year’s topic.
However, on a second glance, the topic contains enough limiting terms to allow the negative to effectively
challenge whether such cases actually affirm the topic. The key to make this topic manageable for the negative is to
aggressively use every term of the resolution in order to create a clear limit on the topic so that the negative need
not research plans that allow the affirmative team to provide tangential means by which to curtail domestic
surveillance. This book will provide the negative the tools with which to accomplish such a task.
Because of the potential for such a broad topic, it will be difficult if not impossible for debate programs with
many researchers and the best facilities to be well prepared to debate all elements of the topic. Additionally, debate
programs with fewer debaters and that lack access to large libraries will be at even more of a disadvantage when
debating this topic. Topicality can equalize the debate “playing field” because Topicality places more of an
emphasis on the in-round rhetorical and persuasive abilities of the debaters, and less emphasis on the amount of
evidence the debaters possess on a particular case.
THE THEORY OF TOPICALITY
This section of the book discusses the theoretical issues surrounding Topicality. First, there is a brief discussion
of the theoretical rationales underlying why Topicality should be considered a voting issue in a debate. Next, there
is a discussion of various standards that negative teams can use to evaluate definitions in a way favorable to the
negative side.
TOPICALITY AS A VOTING ISSUE
While it is obvious to most that the affirmative plan must be topical in order for the affirmative team to win the
debate, some debaters have been known to challenge this notion. Some debaters have even been brazen enough to
make the argument that Topicality is a “reverse voting issue,” meaning that if the negative team does not win the
debate on Topicality, all other negative arguments in the debate become irrelevant. This section of the book will
provide the negative with the ability to refute these affirmative claims.
Additionally, many teams are now arguing that Topicality can be superseded by other arguments, especially
critical arguments (kritiks/critiques). It is argued that the "performance" of the affirmative critique is more important
than Topicality in educating the judge and the debaters toward an emancipatory view of philosophy or rhetoric.
Thus, these teams will argue that their kritik simply “outweighs Topicality.” Many teams at the college level now
aggressively attack Topicality, arguing that the very requirement that the affirmative team be constrained in their
ability to argue whatever they wish "silences their voice" as a form of "discursive violence." Basically, they argue
that the very effort by the negative to argue a Topicality position denies them the ability to run their affirmative
critique. Arguing that the benefit provided to the debate activity provided by the critical method of inquiry
“outweighs” Topicality, this claim can make even the best Topicality violation irrelevant. Thus, this section now
includes a brief which answers the “Kritik of Topicality.”
First, Topicality must be an a priori voting issue because it is the burden of the affirmative to “affirm” the
resolution. Negative teams must negate the topic, while affirmative teams must affirm it. To affirm the resolution,
an affirmative plan must fall under the parameters of the resolution. If the plan does not fall under the resolution, it
is logically impossible for the plan to be an affirmation of the resolution.
2
Second, Topicality must be a voting issue, because without it, debate would be incredibly unfair to the negative.
Negative teams should not have to be prepared to debate any issue the affirmative chooses to discuss. Indeed, the
very reason why the framers choose specific resolutions and the reason the high school debate community voted to
select one resolution was to frame the scope of every debate. If affirmative teams could select whatever plan about
any issue they thought was relevant, it is impossible to imagine the negative team having adequate time to research
and prepare strategies against the affirmative case and plan.
Further, the negative ability to answer any critique run by the affirmative is grounded in whether or not the
negative can accurately predict and research the range of critical arguments available to the affirmative team. Much
like the ability to answer case advantages and to effectively run disadvantages, the negative ability to answer
critiques, and indeed, to run critiques of their own, is contingent upon the affirmative plan upholding the resolution.
The affirmative must be required to uphold a predictable “thesis,” so that the negative team can create a viable
“antithesis.” It is through this exchange that the best hope for creating the conditions to critique society, philosophy,
or rhetoric can take place. By denying the ability of the negative team to create an “antithesis” to the affirmative
“thesis,” the affirmative team renders the point of debate itself moot.
If Topicality was not a voting issue, debates would not be won by the team doing the better debating, instead
debates would be won by whichever team happened to be affirmative. The process of debate itself would be devoid
of meaning. Only by requiring the affirmative to uphold the resolution can there be adequate preparation and clash
by both sides.
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS
Having established that topicality is a voting issue, the negative must provide the judge with standards to
evaluate competing definitions of terms in the topic. As each word in the topic is subject to several different shades
of meaning, it is important for the negative team to convince the judge that the interpretation of the resolution
supported by their definition is superior to the affirmative interpretation. The negative must be prepared to refute the
affirmative claim that their interpretation need only be “reasonable.”
Only by convincing the judge that the negative interpretation is the better way to view the resolution can the
negative win a debate on Topicality. Simply reading any definition of one of the terms in the topic and arguing that
the affirmative team does not meet that definition is insufficient, because the affirmative will have a competing
definition proving they are topical. It is the debate about the comparison between the competing interpretations of
the resolution that is the essence of Topicality debates. The question is then, how do you prove your definition is
superior to the affirmative definition? The following standards will provide you with several means of doing so.
DIVISION OF GROUND
When you debate this standard, you must argue that an interpretation of the resolution must provide both the
affirmative and the negative ample opportunity to discuss issues surrounding the resolution adequately. A “skew” in
ground one way or the other risks making the debate process unfair. Debate places an emphasis on the team with the
most analytical and rhetorical skills being able to win the debate round, and an interpretation which makes the
resolution undermine rather than enhance this process should be rejected. For the negative, it is important to
emphasize that the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution does not adequately limit the topic to a reasonable
number of cases, while the negative interpretation of the resolution provides a fair number of cases and plans under
the topic. Many debate judges believe this is the only standard relevant in judging a Topicality debate.
LIMITATION
When you argue this standard, you must argue that it is better to limit the topic to a small number of cases than
a large number of cases. Limitation best enhances the in-depth nature and quality of discussion of complicated
issues, while a broad topic allows for only a cursory examination of a wide range of issues, leaving little time for
quality argumentation. Additionally, a limited topic equalizes the debate “playing field” by allowing squads with
fewer researchers and less adequate research bases the opportunity to fairly compete with larger squads with access
to university libraries. By limiting the topic, the Negative can research and prepare more in-depth attacks designed
to combat the affirmative advantages of in-depth research and discussion on a single area of the topic. Additionally,
a narrower topic allows the negative to research specific arguments against affirmative cases, allowing the negative
to overcome the judging community’s increasing unwillingness to vote negative on generic attacks. A limited topic
3
would enhance the negative’s ability to research specific arguments against each affirmative case, which would
increase the probability of the negative winning a fair number of debates.
PREDICTABILITY
When you argue this standard, you are arguing that the topic serves to limit the range of cases to those that are
predictable via the terms of the topic. Predictability is best served by looking at the literature surrounding the topic,
and investigating the policies advocated which would curtail domestic surveillance. The topic exists to provide the
negative with “fair warning” about what is reasonable for them to be prepared to debate. An interpretation that is
not supported by the bulk of topic literature is not predictable for the negative to be able to debate, and should thus
be rejected. This standard is especially useful against new cases and “squirrel cases.”
FIELD CONTEXT
When you argue this standard, you must argue that the best definitions of the resolution come from experts who
discuss issues relevant to the field from which the topic is drawn. Energy experts should define terms on an energy
topic, transportation policy experts should define terms on a transportation topic, and legal experts should define
terms on a surveillance topic. Obviously, these experts have a greater understanding of the usage of the terms as
applied to the topic than a standard dictionary definition, and thus their definitions are more relevant to issues that
debaters will actually find discussed in the literature surrounding the topic. Hence, definitions with “field context”
should be considered superior to other definitions in a debate round.
BRIGHT LINE
When you argue this standard, you must argue that the best definitions of the resolution are definitions that
clearly demarcate ground between the affirmative and the negative on the topic. Definitions that are arbitrary and
vague should be rejected in favor of definitions that clearly draw a “bright line” between what the affirmative is
allowed to discuss and not allowed to discuss under the topic. This standard has particular merit when the
affirmative is trying to claim that a vague definition of the resolution is sufficient to provide fair ground for both the
affirmative and negative team. The negative should point out that the arbitrary nature of the affirmative definition
makes the affirmative interpretation meaningless, and their interpretation should be rejected in favor of a clear
interpretation of the resolution.
LEGAL CONTEXT
When you argue this standard, you must argue that the best definitions of the resolution come from experts who
discuss legal issues. This is because of the many similarities between the legal process and the debate process.
Lawyers and judges are called upon to analyze terms in a statute, contract, or case closely in order to determine how
these terms affect legal issues. In a similar way, debaters are called upon to analyze terms in the resolution closely
to determine how these words affect the resolution under which the debate process operates. Because lawyers and
judges carefully scrutinize words, their opinions about the definitions of those terms should be considered superior
to another author who carelessly misuses a term of the topic in a sentence, or a mere dictionary definition. Hence,
definitions with “legal context” should be considered superior to other definitions in a debate round.
RESOLUTIONAL CONTEXT
When you debate this standard, you must argue that words must be defined in a way that emphasizes the way in
which they appear in the resolution “sentence.” The resolution should be presumed to be a well-crafted and
carefully constructed sentence, as it was carefully scrutinized by both the framers of the topic committee and the
high school debate community before being selected to be this year’s resolution. Hence, the interactions of the
words in the sentence should carry weight. An example would be the phrase "red herring." When considered
individually, the terms might be construed to mean a maroon colored fish, but when considered together, "red
herring" generally refers to a deceptive or misleading clue. It is important to define terms collectively to gain the
proper "context" of the resolution.
TOPICAL VERSION OF THE AFFIRMATIVE
4
When you argue that there is a “topical version of the affirmative case,” you are explaining to the judge that
even a slight modification of the case could make the affirmative topical. This holds persuasive value to the judge in
that you are not trying to over-limit the resolution, but merely provide fair ground for the negative. So, for example,
“a topical version of their affirmative would be to allow for them to curtail surveillance of immigrant populations,
they must merely be a 20% decrease in surveillance” is a way to utilize this standard.
GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY
When you debate this standard, you must argue that the words in the resolution should be construed in a way to
emphasize proper rules of grammar and sentence construction. The resolution should be thought of as a carefully
crafted, grammatically correct sentence. Indeed, the framers of the resolution choose each word in the resolution
extremely carefully to achieve just such a result. An example from this resolution would be the phrase “substantially
curtail its domestic surveillance.” Some teams may wish to argue that their plan has a substantial advantage in that
it stops terrorism or bolsters the US economy. However, the resolution says that the United States federal
government must substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. The size of the advantage is simply not relevant to
the size of the surveillance. Because of the grammatical context of the resolution, definitions and interpretations
which emphasize the grammatical rules of construction of the English language should be considered superior to
definitions which fail to provide grammatical accuracy.
PRECISION
When you argue for this standard, you argue that having a precise interpretation of the topic is more important
than having an interpretation that provides adequate ground for both teams. Often, an interpretation of the resolution
may provide fair ground for both teams without being precise in some fundamental way. Many affirmatives wish to
talk solely about how their interpretation of the resolution provides adequate “ground” for both sides. The
affirmative team may be tempted to argue that the nature of their case is one that the negative team should be
prepared to refute, even if they fail to meet the precise meaning of the topic. For example, they may argue that even
if their plan does not meet the precise wording of the topic, that the negative team should be prepared to debate
against affirmatives which claim to solve terrorism or which bolster US leadership. With this standard, you can
argue that Topicality is fundamentally about a precise definition, even prior to considerations of equity in debate.
INTENT TO DEFINE
When you argue for this standard, you argue that evidence which intends to define a term in the resolution is
superior to evidence that merely uses the words of the topic in a sentence. Often, a writer will use a phrase in a
sentence, without having the “intent” to either define or provide a precise usage of the term. Many affirmative teams
will use evidence like this as “contextual evidence” to prove they are topical. A powerful way to indict this type of
evidence is to argue that the author of the evidence did not intend to define the term in the resolution, and that
evidence intending to define terms is superior to mere casual usage of the terms in a sentence.
FRAMERS’ INTENT
When you argue this standard, you should argue that the words in the resolution should be construed to serve
the spirit and intent of the “framers” of the resolution in the best way possible. Obviously, the authors of the
resolution had certain ideas and concepts in mind when they wrote the resolution, much as the authors of a statute or
law had certain ideas when they wrote the instrument. Indeed, courts and other bodies which interpret statutes place
a great deal of weight on the meaning of the words that the framers of the law had in mind when the law was
written. Debaters are well advised to read The Forensic Quarterly and the topic paper for this resolution in order to
glean additional insight to the “framers’ intent” behind the resolution.
EACH WORD HAS A MEANING
When you argue for this standard, you should argue that there is a presumption that each word in the resolution
was designed to have a meaning that adds to the resolution as a whole. Otherwise, the word would not have been
placed in the resolution. This interpretation also gains insight from the rules of statutory construction, that if two
interpretations of a statute exist, one which would provide each word of the statute with meaning, and one which
5
would leave even a single word in the statute devoid of meaning, there is a heavy presumption that the interpretation
which provides meaning to each word in the statute is the correct interpretation. Thus, if an affirmative
interpretation risks “writing a word out of the resolution,” it should be considered inaccurate.
BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY
Many affirmative teams will claim their interpretation of the resolution needs only to be a “reasonable”
interpretation of the resolution. Negative debaters must refute this standard, and argue that Topicality debates center
around which of the competing definitions is the “best definition” for the debate. When you argue the “best
definition” standard you must argue that judges are looking for the best interpretation of the resolution, not one that
is merely a “reasonable” interpretation of the resolution. Many teams also say that the judge should look at
“competing interpretations” instead of reasonability, which is a way of saying “good is not good enough” and the
better definition should be used.
TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE
1. TOPICALITY IS A RULE OF THE GAME.
Dale Herbeck & John P. Katsulas (profs. of speech communication @ Boston College), Jrnl. of the American Forensic
Assoc., Win., 85, 136-37. “Similar to the rules which govern the time limits and the number of speeches for a debate, the
rule that topicality is a voting issue remains nondebatable. For equity reasons, the participants of all competitive games
arrive at some consensual agreement on the rules prior to the start of the contest.”
2. TOPICALITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE BURDEN: THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN MUST BE TOPICAL OR THE
NEGATIVE WINS THE DEBATE.
David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “Unless the affirmative
demonstrates that the plan does implement the resolution (i.e., that it is a topical plan), they have not fulfilled their prima
facie burden, and the negative can charge, they should lose.”
3. TOPICALITY IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.
David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “If the plan in non-topical, then
the judge has no province, or no jurisdiction, over the plan and therefore must, regardless of the societal merits of the plan,
reject it.”
David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “Since the question of
jurisdiction is one of fact, it emerges as an either-or issue; it is nonsensical to appeal to the judge to accept a plan on the
‘risk’ that at some point it ‘might be’ topical. Certainly district courts do not decide to listen to cases on the ‘risk’ that they
might have jurisdiction.”
4. TOPICALITY IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF DEBATE.
David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-4. “The fact that a body of
educators selects the resolution suggests that they find educational value in the discussion of that resolution, perhaps
because of its timeliness, its social importance, or its unique high-lighting of relevant sub-issues such as the opposition of
federal actions versus state or local actions.”
David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-4. “Part of the educational value of
debate derives from its method of argument from, for example, the use of evidence and personal knowledge in the
discussion of a particular issue. Before this issue can be fulfilled, both teams must be prepared, both in terms of knowledge
and in terms of evidence, to debate the same issue. Without this common ground, much of the educational value of debate
evaporates, and ultimately, it is only through adherence to a resolution that some degree of common ground is guaranteed.”
5. THE FACT THAT WE SELECT A SPECIFIC TOPIC MAKES TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE.
David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-3. “If the final resolution is not
binding, if it has no meaningful relation to the actual debates, then why go through the bother and expense of topic
selection? It makes little sense, and the negative can argue that the fact that such a selection process exists suggests that
topicality should be a voting issue in a given round.”
TOPICALITY IS NOT A REVERSE VOTING ISSUE
6
1. TOPICALITY IS A BURDEN FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE NOT THE NEGATIVE.
The burden of the affirmative is to prove the resolution true, to “affirm” the resolution. Merely because the affirmative
proves their plan falls under the resolution does not prove the resolution is justified. The resolution must still be proven to
be advantageous. Merely meeting one level of a two-part test does not mean the affirmative should win the debate.
2. A “GOOD FAITH” TOPICALITY VIOLATION SHOULD NOT COST THE NEGATIVE THE ENTIRE
DEBATE.
Merely because we honestly believed there was a legitimate Topicality concern with the affirmative plan and are now
convinced that such is not the case should not cost us the entire debate. For example, if we ran two disadvantages and
discovered that one did not link to the affirmative case, the judge should not disregard the other disadvantage merely
because we chose to concede that the first did not link to the case.
3. TOPICALITY IS NOT A “TIME WASTER.”
If the affirmative truly thought this topicality violation was designed to get them to spend too much time on the argument,
then the appropriate response is to run three or four of their best answers and move on to other issues in the debate. Merely
because the affirmative chose to make multiple topicality answers is not a reason to vote against the negative team.
4. THE NEGATIVE TEAM SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXTEND EVERY ARGUMENT.
The essence of quality debate is the ability to pick and choose the best possible arguments and extend only those in the last
rebuttal. Our admission that this is not the best argument we have in the debate only enhances the quality of the debate.
5. NO INTELLECTUAL PURPOSE IS SERVED BY MAKING TOPICALITY A VOTING ISSUE AGAINST
THE NEGATIVE TEAM.
The purpose of Topicality is to provide a check on the scope of the discussion initiated by the affirmative. No such purpose
is served by punishing the negative for running a Topicality violation.
CRITIQUES (KRITIKS) DO NOT PRECEDE TOPICALITY AS A VOTING ISSUE
1. TOPICALITY ESTABLISHES THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE ENTIRE ROUND.
Either side’s ability to make any kind of argument, including critical arguments, stems from the necessity for the
affirmative plan to be topical.
2. TOPICALITY IS A CENTRAL AFFIRMATIVE BURDEN.
Merely because the critical performance of the affirmative is beneficial in some sense does not obviate the affirmative of
the burden to “affirm” the resolution.
3. ALLOWING CRITICAL ARGUMENTS TO SUPERSEDE TOPICALITY ADVERSELY AFFECTS
NEGATIVE GROUND.
By lifting the affirmative burden to uphold the resolution, the affirmative can merely pick to critique any aspect or element
of society, regardless of what the topic wording said.
4. ALLOWING CRITICAL ARGUMENTS TO SUPERSEDE TOPICALITY HINDERS THE NEGATIVE’S
ABILITY TO ANSWER THE AFFIRMATIVE’S CRITICISM.
By allowing the affirmative to critique whatever they wish, the judge gets a false sense of the validity of the affirmative
critique. Because the negative is ill-prepared to answer critiques on issues other than the topic, the judge may falsely buy
into the affirmative criticism without adequate understanding of the arguments against such a critique.
5. TOPICALITY IS AN “A PRIORI” ISSUE.
Topicality happens “above the board,” meaning it is an argument that takes place prior to when the “debate game” begins.
Entering a critical argument into the debate game may be beneficial, but the affirmative must first meet certain burdens
before the game begins.
6. ACCEPTING THEIR STANDARD LEADS TO “HOLLOW” CRITICISMS.
7
The affirmative would be allowed to critique society at the most basic level with which the negative could never disagree.
Critiques arguing that racism or sexism is bad are obvious comments that no one would disagree with. To deal with
complex issues like those posed by the resolution, the affirmative team should be required to present a topical course of
action.
7. ARGUMENTATION REQUIRES A “DIALECTIC” OR FAIR ABILITY FOR THE NEGATIVE TO CREATE
AN “ANTITHESIS” TO THE AFFIRMATIVE “THESIS.” FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THIS RECIPROCAL
OBLIGATION LEADS TO VIOLENCE, STRIFE, AND THE SEPARATION OF PERSON FROM PERSON
AND NATION FROM NATION.
Douglas Ehninger, prof. of speech communication at the University of Iowa, 1970, (Speech Monographs, vol. 37; 110).
But this process also is reflexive, for insofar as we treat the “other” as a person rather than as an “object,” we become
persons ourselves; while insofar as we fail do so, our own “personhood” is to that extent diminished. The attributes of
freedom and responsibility that are defining of the “person” are not absolutes with respect to the “other,” but are states that
are only reached in “relationship.” Relation, inclusion, experience from the opposite side, the capacity to comprehend the
contradiction which opposition entails, these are not merely descriptive of the human condition; they are constitutive. The I
attains to its full potential only when, and only to the extent that, it meets the “other” as a Thou. Argument as a way of
“living through a common experience from the other side” as a reciprocal honoring of the “person” rather than a unilateral
exploitation of the biological or economic individual, is, therefore, a way of gaining “freedom” and “responsibility;” a way
of achieving “personhood” for oneself by bestowing “personhood” upon another. Johnstone has remarked that the creature
who refuses to argue or to listen to arguments must, of necessity, remain something less than human. Because [sic] man is
by nature a social animal [sic] he attains complete humanity only when [sic] he enters into such relationships as argument
provides. The ultimate justification of argument as method, therefore, lies not in any pragmatic test of results achieved or
disasters avoided. Rather it lies in the fact that by introducing the arguer “into a situation of risk in which open-mindedness
and tolerance are possible,” it paves the way toward “personhood” for the disputants, and through them and millions like
them opens the way to a society in which the values and commitments to “personhood” may some day replace the
exploitation and strife which now separate [sic] man from [sic] man and nation from nation.
8. TOPICALITY IS A NORM THAT ENCOURAGES PLURALITY AND DIVERSITY OF OPINION IN
DEBATE.
Star Muir, prof. of speech communication @ George Mason University, 1993. (Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 26; pg. 290291). A final point about relativism is that switch-side debate encourages fairness and equality of opportunity in evaluating
competing values. Initially, it is apparent that a priori fairness is a fundamental aspect of games and gamesmanship [sic].
Players in the game should start out with equal advantage, and the rules should be construed throughout to provide no
undue advantage to one side or the other. Both sides, notes Thompson, should have an equal amount of time and a fair
chance to present their arguments. Of critical importance, he insists, is an equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity
is manifest throughout many debate procedures and norms. On the question of topicality—whether the affirmative plan is
an example of the stated topic—the issue of “fair ground” for debate is explicitly developed as a criterion for decision.
Likewise, when a counterplan is offered against an affirmative plan, the issue of coexistence, or of the “competitiveness”
of the plans, frequently turns on the fairness of the affirmative team’s suggested “permutation” of the plans. In these and
other issues, the value of fairness, and of equality of opportunity, is highlighted and clarified through constant disputation.
The point is simply that debate does teach values, and that these values are instrumental in providing a hearing for
alternative points of view. Paying explicit attention to decision criteria, and to the division of ground arguments (a function
of competition), effectively renders the value structure pluralistic rather than relativisitic.
9. TESTING POINTS OF VIEW FROM BOTH SIDES IS CRITICAL TO MORAL EDUCATION.
Star Muir, prof. of speech communication @ George Mason University, 1993(Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 26; pg. 291).
Sound conviction, a key element of an individual’s moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasoned assessment of both
sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues. It does
seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two opposing accounts are present on everything, and then to
allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. Debate might be rendering students a disservice insofar as
moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength
of a reasoned moral conviction.
8
10. RULES FOR DISCUSSION ARE NECESSARY FOR BENEFICIAL DECISION-MAKING AND TO AVOID
DOMINATION OF OTHERS IN DISCUSSION.
Hugh Duncan, 1993 (Landmark Essays on Kenneth Burke, ed. Barry Brummet; pg. 196-197). Nothing better illustrates the
power of form in social relationships than rules. In play, games, manners, and all moments of pure sociability we are bound
to each other by the form of the game. Such forms function as bounds and determinants of conduct. As Mead taught us, in
games we play our positions in terms of assumptions about how other players will play theirs. But these assumptions,
however internalized, are objectified in forms of play which must be followed if the game is to be played fairly. Once rules
are made and codified so that all concerned may know them, we appoint an umpire to serve as guardian of the rules we
ourselves have made or accepted. His power is derived from his knowledge of the rules and his ability to apply them
quickly and surely in all moments of play. He “speaks from the book (of rules)” and can “throw the book at us,” as we say
in America. Like the judge in common law, the umpire must remember that he applies, but does not interpret or create,
rules. Reason in democratic society is born in discussion that depends on disputants who remain loyal to the rules of
discussion. In a society based on discussion there are no “revealed truths,” any more than there are “laws” (physical,
biological, or historical) of social process which “determine” human conduct. Nor, for that matter, are there fixed logical
canons of inquiry. What we do try to fix, and make binding on all, are rules for discussion. Opponents not only tolerate but
honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound
decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk,
among free and informed people who subordinate themselves to rules of discussion, are the best ways to decisions of any
kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reach agreement that binds us to a common cause. We assume also
in democracy that the highest kind of human relationship is friendship, because friendship among people of very different
ranks and capacities enlarges our understanding and thus strengthens the “will” of our social bonds. If we are to be equal,
and if we believe discussions among equals is a way to truth, relationships among equals must find expression in many
formal and informal institutions. Equals agree, inferiors obey, superiors command. Democracy lives in agreement and it
remains strong so long as there are many ways of reaching agreement.
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING DEFINITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS MUST PROVIDE A FAIR DIVISION OF GROUND.
Donn W. Parson (U. of KS), Dimensions of Argument (2nd SCA Conf. on Argumentation), Oct. 15, 81, 537. “[As
Campbell notes] a proposition so broad that its function is lost, or so defined that it prevents negative teams from preparing
against innumerable cases is unreasonable.”
Edward A. Hinck (U. of KS) et al., Argument in Transition, Oct. 15, 83, 809. “This criterion [grammar and syntax]
eliminates overly strategic interpretations of topics by rewarding arguments which define the resolution fairly. Overly
narrow or broad meanings for the resolution will be criticized on the ground that they are unfair in allocating argumentative
ground. Hence, the best definitions will be ones which fairly divide negative and affirmative ground.”
2. DEFINITIONS SHOULD EMPHASIZE FIELD CONTEXT.
Dale A. Herbeck (prof. of speech communication @ Boston College) et al., Jrnl. of the American Forensic Assoc., Win.,
85, 138. “The first way to prove that the affirmative’s definitions are unreasonable is to prove an absence of field context.
The negative must establish that the affirmative is incorrectly importing definitions from one context into another context.”
Steve Mancuso (former director of debate @ Univ. of Michigan), Debater’s Rsch. Guide (Arms Sales), 82, 31. “To defend
this standard [field context] one would argue that these professionals have an interest in accuracy, rigor and timeliness in
defining their field of study. Their definitions, therefore, would be especially useful in determining what is a reasonable
example of the topic.”
3. LEGAL DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE USED.
Steve Mancuso (former director of debate @ Univ. of Michigan), Debater’s Rsch. Guide (Arms Sales), 82, 31. “A defense
of this standard could begin by noting that the interpretive function of the courts is very similar to that of debaters. It is
explicit, and it must balance competing notions of specificity, breadth and relevance. Additionally, the courts often deal
with words in their context in policy discussions or applications; therefore, the parallel with debate is even stronger.”
4. DEFINITIONS SHOULD EMPHASIZE RESOLUTIONAL CONTEXT.
Donn W. Parson (U. of KS), Dimensions of Argument (2nd SCA Conf. on Argumentation), Oct. 15, 81, 537. “Individual
words may have several meanings, not one of them more ‘true’ than any other. Words may also be combined into
adjectival clauses or phrases in which the interanimation of individual words changes or enhances the possible meaning of
the word cluster. Taking the words ‘minimum,’ ‘educational,’ and ‘standards’ with separate, possibly multiple meanings
and linking them into ‘minimum educational standards’ created a new configuration of meaning separate from individual
meanings of words.”
9
David Williams (U. of KS) & Frank Cross, U. of KS Handbook on Foreign Trade Policies, 79, 1-10. “The type of
combination [of semantic meanings] is determined by the type of grammatical relations obtained between the constituents
whose readings are to be combined. This process of combination must also weed out unacceptable readings.”
5. DEFINITIONS SHOULD EMPHASIZE GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY.
Edward A. Hinck (U. of KS) et al., Argument in Transition, Oct. 15, 83, 809. “Arguments which present the most accurate
reflection of grammar and syntax for the resolution should be regarded superior to those arguments which are less accurate
reflections of correct usage.”
Edward A. Hinck (U. of KS) et al., Argument in Transition, Oct. 15, 83, 809. “Since language is a system of symbolic
expression possessing rules of usage, and given the fact that the resolution is expressed linguistically, the interpretation of
the resolution should conform to the rules of usage. Incorrect usage vitiates language’s power to express meaning in ways
which other individuals may grasp; it distorts the meaning of terms preventing a clear apprehension of a term’s meaning by
various individuals in an argumentative encounter. Close adherence to rules of usage will prevent distortion of the
resolution.”
6. EACH WORD HAS A MEANING.
Corpus Juris Secundum, 53, 551-52. “There is a presumption that every word, sentence, or provision was intended for
some useful purpose, has some force and effect.”
THE BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY
I. “REASONABILITY” IS A POOR STANDARD.
A. “REASONABILITY” IS INHERENTLY AMBIGUOUS.
James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 3-4.
“[Reasonability] itself is extremely vague and ambiguous. As a court once put it: ‘Any attempt to give specific meaning to
the word “reasonable” is trying to count what is not number and measure what is not space.’ In short, one man’s
reasonability is another’s irrationality.”
B. “REASONABILITY” DOES NOT ADEQUATELY LIMIT THE TOPIC.
James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 4.
“Reasonability as a limitation upon definitional excess is both ineffective and counterproductive. It means that the actual
words of the proposition will play a minimal role in actually formulating the nature of the subject matter under discussion.”
II. THE “BETTER DEFINITION” SHOULD BE USED.
A. THE BETTER DEFINITION STANDARD ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF DEBATE.
James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 5.
“[With the better definition standard] the quality of substantive public policy arguments would also be substantially
improved. By requiring a search for the ‘best’ definition rather than one which is merely ‘reasonable,’ the possible range of
affirmative cases would be inevitably restricted to those considered most meaningful and relevant to the subject matter area
itself.”
B. THE BETTER DEFINITION STANDARD IS SUPERIOR TO THE “REASONABILITY” STANDARD.
James J. Unger (Former Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.), Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 4, 81, 5. “Such
an approach totally eliminates the current emphasis upon a single standard of acceptability, i.e., ‘reasonability,’ and puts in
its place a comparative assessment which requires both teams to discover the superiority of one of their definitions through
a process of argumentative comparison and contrast. In so doing, it places topicality argumentation on a more rational and
equitable level with all other portions of the debate.”
TOPICALITY IN PRACTICE
This section begins with advice about how to argue Topicality most effectively in practice. Further, this section
provides advice about how best to utilize the violations and standards in this book.
HOW TO DEBATE TOPICALITY EFFECTIVELY
Topicality can be a powerful weapon, but it is also one that many judges, and even many debaters, have grown
disenchanted with in recent years. Because of the emphasis on semantics and procedural issues over substantive
issues like disadvantages and solvency, Topicality is often viewed as merely a tool to confuse debates or drain away
10
time from the affirmative team’s discussion of more substantive issues. This section is an effort to reinvigorate
Topicality debates, which can be, if properly performed, some of the most exciting and thrilling debates possible.
First, slow down. That’s probably good advice for most debaters anyway. Topicality places more of an
emphasis on rhetorical flourish and fine distinctions than most other issues. Thus, reading the standards blocks and
the violations at warp speed diminishes the impact and the value of the arguments. Additionally, many judges really
have to be persuaded that Topicality is worth voting on. Hence, placing more emphasis on the argument by slowing
down in comparison to the other arguments in the debate will help you “sell” Topicality to the judge. Excellent
topicality debaters will slow down and use all of their rhetorical and persuasive skills to convince the judge that
Topicality is a necessary and vital part of the debate.
Second, spend time on Topicality. If you are planning on extending Topicality throughout the debate, it will
require a substantial investment of time throughout the debate. A Topicality violation extended carelessly in the
waning seconds of the Second Negative Constructive or First Negative Rebuttal will likely be treated by the judge
as a “cheap shot,” a diversionary tactic designed to draw the affirmative into spending time on the argument. Hence,
the argument will not be given the proper attention and focus by the judge that you may feel it merits in the debate
round. Spending between two to three minutes extending a Topicality violation in the negative block will be far
more beneficial to your hopes of winning than hoping that you will introduce so many arguments into the debate
that the affirmative team will not be prepared to answer them all. Indeed, it is this type of strategy which is causing
judges to grow less likely to vote on Topicality, as it begins to be perceived as a tactical ploy rather than a welldeveloped argument.
Third, use only one or two Topicality violations per debate. Many debaters feel that if they argue multiple
Topicality violations, they can “spread the affirmative team out” by making so many arguments that the affirmative
will not adequately answer them all. This strategy, however, has several flaws. First, Topicality arguments often
overlap. A standard used on one Topicality violation will likely be inconsistent with one run on another. Thus, a
smart affirmative team will point to the inconsistencies between the violations and use the negative’s own standards
against them. Second, the quality of the arguments will dramatically suffer. There are probably only one or two
quality Topicality violations against any particular affirmative plan. When a team tries to argue three or four
violations, the third and fourth violations are likely so inapplicable to the affirmative plan that the affirmative can
dispense with the arguments in little or no time at all. Thus, whatever time advantage the negative was trying to gain
by introducing so many Topicality violations will likely be quickly nullified by an affirmative team. Further, low
quality arguments make judges less likely to vote negative on Topicality as a whole. The ethos and general
credibility of a team suffer when they flood a debate with low-quality arguments, and these perceptions will often
spill-over into the judge’s perceptions of the round as a whole.
Fourth, make a decision in the Second Negative Rebuttal. I once heard that mixing Topicality and substance
in the Second Negative Rebuttal is like drinking and driving, in that you are risking a serious accident. While this
will shock many debaters, the modern conception of Topicality is that if one is going to extend Topicality in the
Second Negative Rebuttal, it should be the only argument extended by the Second Negative Rebuttalist. One
Topicality violation, extended and explained for all five minutes of the rebuttal. That’s it. This allows the Second
Negative Rebuttalist the opportunity to focus their energy and attention on one argument, marshaling their rhetorical
power and persuasive ability to defeat the Affirmative plan. Because Topicality is an issue that requires debaters to
slow down and make fine distinctions, trying to extend it and extend substantive arguments in the Second Negative
Rebuttal will leave both arguments in a state of poor quality, insufficient for the judge to vote negative on either set
of arguments. Hence, negative debaters must be ready and willing to make a decision in the Second Negative
Rebuttal: am I going to extend Topicality, or am I going to win the debate on its substantive merits? Failure to make
this choice will lead to more negative losses than trying to “go for” both Topicality and substantive issues.
Fifth, use concrete examples from this year’s topic. One of the most frequent complaints judges have about
Topicality debates is that the arguments quickly become abstract in nature, and divorced from examples about the
topic. The best Topicality debaters will compare and contrast cases already being run on that topic with negative
strategies that are excluded because of the non-topical nature of the affirmative plan. For example, one might argue
that the affirmative plan’s effort at having the executive limit its own powers deprives the negative team of the
ability to argue disadvantages like presidential powers and agency circumvention arguments. Arguments that are
specific to the topic make judges far more likely to vote on Topicality than more abstract and theoretical arguments.
11
Sixth, use concrete examples from that round. Another frequently heard complaint is the notion of “potential
abuse.” Many negatives are good at arguing “if you allow this case, then you would allow ‘x.’” However, pointing
out strategies that were attempted in the debate, but disallowed because of the non-topical nature of the affirmative,
will often win a Topicality debate for the negative. For example, one could run a disadvantage arguing that
substantially curtails domestic surveillance will undermine the fight against terrorists. When the affirmative team
points out that their plan is so small that it would not affect the fight against terrorists, the Topicality argument on
“substantially curtail” gains credibility. Concrete examples illustrate to the judge the importance of voting on
Topicality to ensure fair ground for the negative team.
Finally, learn about the attitudes of the judge toward Topicality. Many tournaments now require judges to
publish a judging philosophy before the tournament, and debaters and coaches have access to them. Read them.
The best debaters always do, and they know which judges are likely to accept Topicality and which ones won’t. If
your area doesn’t have judging philosophies, then read ballots from individual judges and see what they think of
specific Topicality arguments. Talk to judges after the tournament to see what their reactions to your arguments
were. Talk to your friends who had the judge in their round and see what the judge’s comments were on their ballot.
Most judges are more than happy to engage debaters in discussions about their reactions to issues, and debaters
would be foolish to ignore helpful advice and commentary from the very people who decide whether they won or
lost a round.
If the judge wishes not to talk directly to you, read the judge’s ballots. It never ceases to amaze me how often
debaters fail to do this, or just rationalize defeat with comments like, “Well, that judge just didn’t like us.” More
often than not, it will be that the judge did not find your arguments persuasive. Make a file on the judges and find
out their reaction to arguments like Topicality. That way, when you have the judge later in the year, you can
determine their susceptibility to the Topicality arguments you are planning to make in the debate. Topicality, more
than most arguments, is a question of judge adaptation, as some judges are unlikely to vote on Topicality. However,
with a little extra work and preparation, debaters can best assess how (or if) to debate Topicality in front of a
particular judge.
RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
CURTAIL ITS DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
This next section contains Topicality arguments the Negative can use against many of the plans debaters are
likely to argue this year. Each topicality argument will contain a definition of a term or terms in the topic that an
Affirmative plan “violates.” It is important for debaters to explain how the specific plan they are debating violates a
term or terms in the resolution that the Topicality arguments in this book are designed to make. Merely reading the
violation is insufficient, showing the relationship between a plan plank and a specific violation is essential to
winning debates on Topicality. The arguments in this book contain many of the standards discussed in the standards
section and it is important for debaters to have an understanding of the relative merits of individual standards before
debating these violations. Finally, an understanding of why Topicality is considered to be a voting issue is essential
in maximizing debates about Topicality, so it is important for debaters to be familiar with the arguments previously
discussed in this book before using these violations.
HOW TO USE TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS IN A DEBATE
You should begin a Topicality argument by first stating that the plan is not topical and then indicating the
negative interpretation of the resolution. This is most often done by reading a definition of a term in the resolution.
This definition is used to establish what the negative believes the affirmative must do to meet the wording of the
resolution. For example, a debater may wish to begin an argument about the word “substantially” by introducing the
definition “at least twenty percent.” In this book, the Topicality arguments are structured so that the “A” Sub-point
of the argument establishes the negative interpretation of the resolution.
Next, it is important for debaters to explain why the specific plan they are debating fails to meet the
interpretation established by the negative team. Much like a “link” to a disadvantage, debaters must explain why the
specific affirmative plan fails to meet the criteria established by the negative interpretation of the resolution. For
example, a negative debater would argue that a plan which decreases surveillance of one small sub-group of the
population would not meet the definition established in Sub-point A of the violation. In this book, the Topicality
12
arguments are structured so that the “B” Sub-point of the argument establishes the “Violation” the Affirmative plan
makes.
Additionally, the negative team must establish why their interpretation of the resolution is superior to the
competing affirmative interpretation. This requires the negative to establish standards for their interpretation in
contrast to the affirmative interpretation. While some debaters prefer to structure their Topicality violations with
standards coming first, this book takes the approach of standards following the violation.
The reason for this is to make each Topicality argument an integrated whole. Often, when debaters argue
standards first, they read a list of standards that have little to do with (or that patently contradict) the violation being
utilized. By establishing the violation first, the negative avoids the possibility of this occurring, as well as allowing
the negative to “tailor” the standards to incorporate the violation, keeping consistency and synergy within their
Topicality argument. For example, the negative may wish to argue that the interpretation which argues that
substantially means “at least twenty percent” is superior to competing interpretations because it provides a fair
limitation upon affirmative and negative options in the debate round. In this book, the “C” Sub-point of the
arguments establishes why the negative interpretation is superior to the affirmative interpretation. If you prefer to
debate standards first, merely move the “C” Sub-point to the beginning of the violation.
Finally, the negative team must establish that Topicality is a voting issue. In some areas, this is easy, as a
debater may merely have to state that the rules governing the tournament establish that Topicality is a voting issue.
However, in anticipation of areas which do not contain these rules, each violation contains a brief discussion of why
Topicality should be a voting issue. For example, a negative debater may wish to argue that Topicality is a voting
issue, because Topicality is the best way to preserve fairness and the potential for argumentative clash in a debate.
In this book, the argument is made in the “D” Sub-point of the Violation.
STRUCTURING YOUR OWN TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS
This structure is also useful in creating your own Topicality violations. It is wise to create Topicality violations
throughout the year against teams and plans you are likely to debate. Thus, the sketch established by the arguments
in this book follows:
I. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION
[Here you should include definitions of relevant terms. Or, you may wish to include a brief discussion as to why an
affirmative plan cannot be Effects or Extra-Topical.]
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION
[Here you should explain why the specific affirmative plan you are debating does not meet your interpretation of the
resolution. It is helpful to include specific wording of the affirmative plan that does not meet your interpretation.]
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE AFFIRMATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION
[Here you should include between one and three standards that make the negative interpretation superior to the affirmative
interpretation. Do not merely list standards from the standards section; pick only the standards from the standards section
that are relevant to your violation.]
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE
[Here you should include one or two reasons why Topicality is a voting issue. If your area requires Topicality to be a
voting issue, just briefly recite that fact and move on to other arguments in the debate.]
This structure is easily adaptable to almost any type of Topicality argument you may wish to construct
throughout the year. Keep in mind, however, that this is only a structure, and the violations and standards employed
will require a great deal of work and thought on your part.
VIOLATION #1: SURVEILLANCE MEANS MONITORING PEOPLE TO REGULATE
BEHAVIOR, MERE SUPERVISION IS NOT TOPICAL.
This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must deal with the monitoring of people, and not mere
supervision of them. The core of the topic is the question of whether the federal government should monitor
people’s phone calls, electronic data, use drones to spy on people, etc. However, the affirmative may be tempted to
13
use definitions of surveillance which means supervision. In this way, virtually anything from the supervision we
have over Native lands, to the supervision the government has over any sub-agency, becomes topical affirmative
ground. The topic requires a decrease in domestic surveillance, not domestic supervision.
In defending this interpretation, the negative team should first rely upon a fair limits standard. Potentially
millions of cases of supervision exist, from the supervision the federal government has over Native lands, to the
supervision the federal government has over welfare policy, to the supervision the government has over housing and
urban development, transportation, education, etc. However, none of these cases deal with the monitoring of people
to regulate their behavior. As a result, the affirmative plan risks exploding the topic.
Second, the negative team should argue that the affirmative case undermines core disadvantage ground. The
affirmative avoids core disadvantages like the terrorism disadvantage by making it to where people are no longer
being monitored. The negative should only be required to research counterplans and disadvantages against
surveilling people, not supervising them.
I. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CURTAIL
DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION. SURVEILLANCE MEANS
MONITORING PEOPLE TO REGULATE BEHAVIOR.
John Gilliom, (Prof., Political Science, Ohio U.), SUPERVISION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEILLANCE
SOCIETY, 2013, 2.
Why do we call this a surveillance society? Because virtually all significant social, institutional, or business activities
in our society now involve the systematic monitoring, gathering, and analysis of information in order to make
decisions, minimize risk, sort populations, and exercise power. We define surveillance as monitoring people in order
to regulate or govern their behavior.
MERRIAM WEBSTER’S SCHOOL DICTIONARY, 2015, 997. Surveillance: from French, surveiller: “to watch over”
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
RESOLUTION.
[Explain that the affirmative plan does not deal with surveillance, but supervision]
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE
AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic.
Allowing for the affirmative to merely decrease supervision allows them to decrease supervision over anything the federal
government supervises, from Native American lands, to federal parks, to welfare policy, to education, etc. Only requiring
the affirmative to decrease the monitoring of people preserves a fair limit on the topic.
2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to disadvantage and counterplan ground.
The affirmative team avoids disadvantages core to the topic like the terrorism disadvantage by making surveillance
meaningless. The topic should be defined to mean the monitoring over people so disadvantage ground for the negative
remains intact.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash.
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution.
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #2: SURVEILLANCE MEANS SURVEILLANCE OF PEOPLE-MONITORING NATURAL RESOURCES, ARMS CONTROL, OR ANIMAL SPECIES IS
NOT TOPICAL.
14
This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must decrease the monitoring of people, and not
anything the government can watch over. Many cases may claim to decrease the monitoring over the environment,
natural parks, arms control regimes, or in an extreme case, animal species. However, surveillance refers to the
monitoring of people. Two standards bolster the claim that surveillance should be limited to the monitoring of
people.
First, the negative should argue for the fair limits standard. Allowing the affirmative team to curtail monitoring
of crops, natural resources, animal species, etc. explodes the topic. The purpose of the topic is to deal with the
monitoring of people, not the monitoring of the environment.
Second, allowing the affirmative to evade the central requirement of surveillance of people allows the
affirmative to undermine many disadvantages and counterplans to surveillance. Domestic surveillance is used for
the purpose of monitoring people to prevent dangerous activities. It is also politically controversial. Many
disadvantages like terrorism and political disadvantages deal with the question of surveillance of people. The
affirmative should not be allowed to skirt the core requirements of the resolution
II. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CURTAIL
SURVEILLANCE.
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. Surveillance requires the monitoring of people.
William Staples, (Prof., Sociology, U. Kansas), EVERYDAY SURVEILLANCE: VIGILANCE AND VISIBILITY
IN POSTMODERN LIFE, 2014, xiii.
The word surveillance, in the most general sense, refers to the act of keeping a close watch on people.
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
RESOLUTION.
[Explain that the affirmative plan curtails surveillance over natural resources, etc. but not people].
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE
AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic.
Millions of cases deal with monitoring of natural resources, the environment, arms control, or species. The negative
interpretation fairly limits the topic by focusing on people.
2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to disadvantage and counterplan ground.
The affirmative team wishes to avoid disadvantages and counterplans dealing with surveillance of people, avoiding the
core controversies of the topic like terrorism disadvantages and political disadvantages.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash.
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution.
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #3: CURTAIL: TO IMPOSE A RESTRICTION ON--CASES WHERE THE
PRESIDENT EXERCISES SELF-RESTRAINT ARE NOT TOPICAL.
15
This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must impose a restriction on the authority of the
president to domestically surveil. President Obama (and Bush before him) claims that domestic surveillance is part
of his commander in chief power as president of the United States. In order to “curtail” this authority an external
restriction must be placed on the president, not merely an issue of self-restraint. In other words, if Obama chooses
to stop spying on a group of Americans, he is exercising restraint with his power, but his power has not been
curtailed. Two standards bolster the claim that affirmative should not be allowed to have Obama exercise selfrestraint.
First, the negative should argue for the limits standard. By allowing Obama to take executive orders,
presidential memos, or just choose not to surveil, the topic is massively increased in size from a topic that forces
Congress or the Supreme Court to put a restriction on the president. The affirmative should be limited to curtailing
the power of the president, not merely having the executive use self-restraint.
Second, the negative should point to the division of ground standard. Curtail sets up a core controversy in the
topic—should the executive be allowed to exercise self-restraint, or does an external limit need to be placed upon
the executive because of the potential for abuse? Both the presidential powers disadvantage and the executive selfrestraint counterplan are undermined by the affirmative interpretation of curtail.
III. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CURTAIL
SURVEILLANCE.
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
Curtail means to impose a restriction upon.
Angus Stevenson, (Editor), NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 3
restriction on.
rd
Ed., 2010, 425. Curtail: Impose a
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
RESOLUTION.
[Explain that the affirmative plan is an exercise of self-restraint].
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE
AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The Negative Interpretation provides fair limits.
The affirmative team explodes the topic by allowing for any variety of executive actions like executive orders, presidential
memorandums, or even executive self-restraint. The topic should be limited to the Congress or the Supreme Court putting
a limit on the president’s powers.
2. The Negative Interpretation provides fair ground.
The affirmative interpretation ignores the presidential powers disadvantage and the executive self-restraint counterplan,
gutting the negative options on the topic.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash.
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution.
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #4: CURTAIL: TO LIMIT, BUT NOT ABOLISH. CASES THAT BAN
SURVEILLANCE ARE NOT TOPICAL.
16
This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must impose a limit on domestic surveillance, but not
abolish it. Curtail is a term of art meaning to limit, but not abolish. If the topic meant to allow the affirmative to
abolish surveillance, the topic could have used the phrase to ban domestic surveillance or some synonym. Two
standards bolster the claim that affirmative should not be allowed to abolish surveillance.
First, the negative should argue for the limits standard. By allowing limits and abolishment to be topical, the
affirmative doubles the size of the topic. The negative should not have to be prepared to debate cases that eliminate
domestic surveillance.
Second, the negative should point to the resolutional context standard. Curtail is a term of art that refers to
limiting, but not abolishing. If the resolution meant for the affirmative to be allowed to eliminate domestic
surveillance, the topic would have used the phrase to ban or eliminate. Instead, the resolutional context supports the
idea that to curtail is to limit.
IV. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CURTAIL
SURVEILLANCE.
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
Curtail means to shorten or lessen, but not abolish.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 1990. Retrieved May 28, 2015 from
http://archive.org/stream/BlacksLaw6th/Blacks%20Law%206th_djvu.txt
Curtail. To cut off the end or any part of; hence to shorten, abridge, diminish, lessen, or reduce; and term has no such
meaning as abolish. State v. Edwards, 207 La. 506, 21 So.2d 624, 625.
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
RESOLUTION.
[Explain that the affirmative plan abolishes an area of domestic surveillance].
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE
AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The Negative Interpretation provides fair limits.
The affirmative team explodes the topic by allowing for cases that place any limit on domestic surveillance AND cases that
abolish domestic surveillance, doubling the size of the topic.
2. The Negative Interpretation provides resolutional context.
The affirmative interpretation ignores the unique meaning of the term curtail in the resolution. If the resolution were meant
to allow cases that abolished, a phrase like ban would have been included in the resolution.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash.
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution.
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #5: ITS DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE: CASES DEALING WITH STATE OR
LOCAL SURVEILLANCE ARE NOT TOPICAL.
This topicality argument states that its in the resolution refers to federal government surveillance, and not
surveillance by states or local police. Given recent events, affirmatives may be tempted to decrease the power of
the states or local police authorities to monitor protesters in various areas around the nation. However, the topic
refers to “its” domestic surveillance, meaning cases dealing with the states and local authorities are not topical.
17
When arguing this violation, the negative team should first argue for a limits standard. The affirmative
interpretation allows for an infinite variety of states, localities, or even corporations to be curtailed from domestic
surveillance. Limiting the affirmative to a single actor is crucial to a fair topic.
Second, the negative should rely upon the division of ground standard. The negative cannot come up with
disadvantages and counterplans covering an infinite variety of actors, and should instead be limited to only having
to research strategies against the federal government.
V. THE AFFIRMATIVE IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CURTAIL ITS
DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
“Its” is the possessive form—“its surveillance” is referring to surveillance by the federal government
of the United States.
Carol-June Cassidy, (Managing Editor), CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd Ed., 2008, 464.
Its: Belonging to or connected with the thing or animal mentioned; the possessive form of it.
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
RESOLUTION.
[Explain how the affirmative plan deals with states or localities, but not the federal government].
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE
AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The Negative Interpretation best limits the topic.
Thousands of cases deal with state or local governments or even private corporations that spy on people, but the resolution
limits the affirmative to domestic surveillance by the federal government.
2. The Negative Interpretation is critical to fair ground.
The affirmative team explodes the topic to include states and localities that negative disadvantages and counterplans will
not refute.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash.
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution.
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #6: “DOMESTIC" SURVEILLANCE: CASES INVOLVING OTHER
NATIONS ARE NOT TOPICAL.
This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must deal with surveillance within the United States,
and not with other countries. An extremely tempting affirmative option on this topic is to decrease spying on other
nations. For example, a huge part of the international crisis surrounding NSA surveillance dealt with the
eavesdropping on other nations’ leaders’ phone records. However, surveillance on other nations is not domestic
surveillance and therefore runs afoul of the resolution.
First, the negative team should rely upon a limitation standard. Allowing for cases that deal with other nations
explodes the topic to projects with literally any other nation on the planet. Cases dealing with Germany, China,
Russia, Japan, India, etc. become topical affirmative cases. Because this would massively increase the size of the
topic, the affirmative should be limited to actions within the United States.
Second, the affirmative interpretation undermines negative disadvantage and counter-plan ground. Some of the
best disadvantages on the topic deal with how surveillance of people within the United States is necessary to combat
18
terrorism or is a core part of Obama’s presidential authority. Because the affirmative interpretation deprives the
negative of the ability to run such crucial negative arguments, the interpretation should be rejected.
Finally, the negative team should argue that their interpretation best draws a “bright line” on the topic. The
affirmative team should not be allowed to enact policies that deal with other nations, they should only be allowed to
deal with domestic surveillance. By drawing a “bright line” against action in other countries, the negative adds
clarity and precision to their interpretation.
VI. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
CURTAIL DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
DOMESTIC IS LIMITED TO ONE’S OWN COUNTRY.
MERRIAM WEBSTER DESK DICTIONARY, 1995, 164. Domestic: Relating or limited to one’s own country or
the country under consideration.
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
RESOLUTION.
[Explain how the affirmative team deals with other nations outside the United States].
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE
AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The Negative Interpretation fairly limits the topic.
The affirmative interpretation allow surveillance on any other nation on the planet, which would explode the topic.
2. The Affirmative case undermines negative disadvantage and counterplan ground.
The affirmative case avoids disadvantages premised off of domestic surveillance such as terrorism and presidential powers.
3. The Negative Interpretation draws a bright line.
The negative interpretation draws a clear line between domestic and international cases, preserving topic precision.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash.
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution.
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #7: “SUBSTANTIALLY” MEANS TO CURTAIL BY 20 PERCENT. PLANS
WHICH DECREASE SUVEILLANCE BY LESS THAN 20 PERCENT ARE NOT TOPICAL.
This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must curtail domestic surveillance by at least twenty
percent of the population of the United States. Because the federal government spies on everyone in the United
States, the plan must deal with at least 20% of the US population. One fear on this topic is that it will devolve
quickly into affirmative teams curtailing surveillance of one small group, from immigrants, to Muslim Americans,
to even members of the Tea Party. This violation attempts to rectify such situations by setting a standard by which
the affirmative must curtail domestic surveillance.
This interpretation has two tangible benefits. First, it provides a clear meaning to the term substantially. This
term has been in many high school topics, and many judges have come to believe the term is almost useless in
limiting the topic, because the definitions of the term are so arbitrary. However, by defining “substantially” as
meaning twenty percent, much of the arbitrary nature of the term is eliminated. A “bright line” is drawn between
affirmative cases which are topical and affirmative cases which are not topical. An affirmative plan that curtails
19
domestic surveillance on 20% of the population would be topical, but one which curtailed surveillance on nineteen
percent would not be topical.
Second, the interpretation creates a reasonable limit on the scope of the topic. Affirmatives can still deal with
phone records, electronic surveillance, drones, cameras, etc. but the plan must deal with 20% of the population of
the United States. It is important for the negative team to remember the evidence in this section that argues that
substantially must be measured in its overall context. Thus, the plan must be a curtailment of domestic surveillance
by at least twenty percent. This is vital to eliminating “squirrel cases” that provide minimal curtailments in
domestic surveillance.
VII. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL DOMESTIC SUVEILLANCE.
A. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The federal government spies on everyone in America.
Jason Reed, (staff writer) REUTERS. July 24, 2012. Retrieved May 28, 2015 from http://rt.com/usa/nsa-whistleblowerbinney-drake-978/
The TSA, DHS and countless other security agencies have been established to keep America safe from terrorist attacks in
post-9/11 America. How far beyond that does the feds’ reach really go, though? The attacks September 11, 2001, were
instrumental in enabling the US government to establish counterterrorism agencies to prevent future tragedies. Some
officials say that they haven’t stopped there, though, and are spying on everyone in America — all in the name of national
security.
2. “Substantially” means at least twenty percent.
Words & Phrases, 67, 758. “‘Substantial’ number of tenants engaged in production of goods for commerce means that at
least 20 per cent of the building be occupied by tenants so engaged. Ullo vs. Smith, D.C.N.Y., 62 F. Supp. 757, 760.”
3. Substantially must be measured in comparison to the entirety of the surrounding circumstances.
Words & Phrases, 67, 759. “‘Substantial’ is a relative term, the meaning of which is to be gauged by all the circumstances
Viii surrounding the transaction, in reference to which the expression has been used. It imports a considerable amount or
value in opposition to that which is inconsequential or small.”
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN VIOLATES THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
RESOLUTION.
[Explain how the plan deals with a small sub-set of the population].
C. THE NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO THE
AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE RESOLUTION.
1. The Negative interpretation fairly limits the topic:
Potentially thousands of cases could curtail domestic surveillance for a small group or category of Americans, from
immigrants to environmental groups, to even members of the Tea Party. The negative interpretation requires that the
affirmative case curtail domestic surveillance 20% while creating a fair limit and eliminating “squirrel cases.”
2. The Negative interpretation draws a bright line:
It is easy to determine which cases this interpretation makes topical and which cases are non-topical. As long as the
affirmative plan can show a curtailment of domestic surveillance by at least 20% of the population, the plan is topical. If
the affirmative curtails by less than that amount, the plan is not topical.
3. The Affirmative interpretation makes the term “substantial” meaningless.
Even if the negative interpretation is somewhat arbitrary, the affirmative interpretation risks writing the term substantially
out of the topic completely. However, “substantially” must have meaning in the resolution:
Corpus Juris Secundum, 83, 765. “Substantially. A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance
with the context in which it is used. While it must be employed with care and discrimination, it must, nevertheless, be
given effect.”
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash.
20
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution.
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #8: “SUBSTANTIALLY:” WITHOUT QUALIFICATION—PLANS WHICH
CONDITION OR CREATE A BALANCING TEST FOR THE CURTAILMENT OF DOMESTIC
SURVEILLANCE ARE NOT TOPICAL.
This topicality argument states that the affirmative plan must unconditionally curtail domestic surveillance.
Many teams may attempt to create a balancing test for when surveillance is acceptable, for example if the person in
question is a presumed terrorist suspect. In addition, teams may try to create a new test under the fourth amendment
as to when domestic surveillance is acceptable. However such qualifications on the curtailment of domestic
surveillance are not topical according to this interpretation. One should note how this interpretation conflicts with
the interpretation of curtail that means to not abolish, as this interpretation requires an abolition of domestic
surveillance in a given area.
Two standards bolster this interpretation. First, the qualitative nature of the definition eliminates the arbitrary
meaning of the term substantial. The difficulty with percentage based definitions is that percentage based definitions
exist for a wide variety of definitions of substantially. Thus, the quantitative definitions tend to be somewhat
arbitrary. However, the qualitative definition of substantially provides a clear meaning to the term.
Second, the interpretation creates a reasonable limit on the scope of the topic. Affirmatives can still establish
policies that curtail electronic surveillance, the capturing of phone records, the use of drones, etc. but the plan must
merely be an unconditional curtailment of domestic surveillance in that area. This allows the negative predictability
in terms of disadvantages and counterplans that argue that unconditional curtailments of domestic surveillance are
problematic.
When running this violation, the negative team should be prepared to aggressively defend against the
“quantitative” interpretations of the word substantially that the affirmative will offer. Understanding that there are
multiple different percentage based definitions of substantially will allow the negative team to argue that the
affirmative interpretation is arbitrary and thus unfair to the negative team.
VIII. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
A. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
Substantially means “without qualification”
DON BLEWETT, 1976 (Chairperson California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, Young v. Laura Scudder’s
Pet, Inc. January 29, 1976. www.cuiab.ca.gov/precedent/pb181.doc.)
"Substantially. Essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially; in a substantial
manner. Kirkpatrick v. Journal Pub. Co., 210 Ala. 10, 97 So. 58, 59; Gibson v. Glos, 271 I11. 368, I11 N.E. 123, 124;
McEwen v. New York Life Ins. Co., 23 Cal. App. 694, 139 P. 242, 243. About, actually, competently, and essentially.
Gilmore v. Red Top Cab Co. of Washington, 171 Wash. 346, 17 P. 2d 886, 887."
B. The Affirmative plan violates the Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
[Explain that the affirmative plan conditions the curtailment of domestic surveillance].
C. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution is superior to the Affirmative Interpretation of the Resolution
1. The Negative Interpretation provides a clear meaning to the word substantially:
21
The affirmative quantitative interpretation makes substantially meaningless, as percentage based definitions exist for
almost any amount with the word substantially. The negative interpretation draws a clear meaning to the word
substantially, by making the affirmative unconditionally curtail domestic surveillance.
2. The Negative Interpretation provides fair ground to the Negative:
Potentially thousands of cases exist to curtail domestic surveillance. However, by requiring that such curtailments be
unconditional, the negative team can be prepared to debate the unconditional nature of such actions. This would provide
fair ground for both sides to debate.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash:
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution:
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #9: “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:” THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN
WASHINGTON, NOT THE STATE GOVERNMENTS OR INTERSTATE COMPACTS.
This topicality argument states that the Affirmative plan must use the central government in Washington, D.C.
to adopt their plan. Many teams may be tempted to use the state governments or an “inter-state compact” between
states to implement their plan, due to rights violations that occur at the state or local level. However, this violation
draws a distinction between “federal forms of government” (defined as those which divide power between levels of
government) and the “federal government” which is the central government in Washington, D.C.
This interpretation has three tangible benefits. First, it allows the negative team to predict the agent of action
taken by the affirmative team. Instead of having to research disadvantages and solvency attacks for literally every
state in the union, the negative team needs only research disadvantages to actions taken by the federal government
in Washington, D.C.
Second, the interpretation is more precise than the affirmative interpretation. While the affirmative team will
rely upon an interpretation describing “federal” forms of government (which divide power between sub-units) as
opposed to unitary governments (which retain power in one central entity), such an interpretation ignores that the
affirmative team must defend “the federal government” referring to one entity housed in Washington, D.C.
Therefore, the negative interpretation best preserves the precise meaning of the term “federal government” in the
resolution.
Finally, the interpretation allows for the best division of ground between the affirmative and negative teams.
The affirmative team gets to defend action by the national government, while the negative team gets to defend
actions taken by the states in order to promote alternative energy. This provides a strong literature base for both the
affirmative and negative teams to debate from.
IX. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT USE THE
“FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” TO CURTIAL DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE.
A. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
1. The federal government is the central government of the United States.
Elizabeth Jewell, (Editor), OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 01, 620. Federal: Of, relating to, or denoting the
central government of the United States.
2. The federal government is not referring to the states.
Henry Black (Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary, 90, 695. “Federal government. The government of the United States of
America, as distinguished from the governments of the several states.”
Elizabeth Jewell, (Editor), OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 01, 620. Federal: Of, relating to, or denoting the
central government as distinguished from the separate units constituting a federation.
B. The Affirmative plan violates the Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
22
[Explain how the affirmative team relies upon state governments to adopt their plan].
C. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution is superior to the Affirmative interpretation of the resolution.
1. The negative interpretation preserves predictability: By requiring the affirmative team to defend action from the central
government, the negative is not forced to research disadvantages against every state in the United States, but rather action
by the federal government.
2. The negative interpretation is more precise than the affirmative interpretation: The affirmative interpretation blurs the
meaning of a federal form of government (one that has divided powers) with the federal government—referring to the
central government in Washington, D.C. The negative interpretation best preserves precision of the term’s meaning.
3. The negative interpretation allows for the best division of ground between the affirmative and negative teams: This
interpretation allows the affirmative to defend the relative advantages of federal action, while the negative can defend the
relative advantages of state action. This creates a clear division of ground between the two sides.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash:
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution:
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
VIOLATION #10: FRAMEWORK: THE AFFIRMATIVE MUST DEFEND TOPICAL ACTION
BY THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The final violation in this volume is designed to answer the growing tendency for teams to ignore the resolution
altogether by advocating for personal politics or performance outside the resolution. The violation itself is fairly
simple: the affirmative team does not propose an action by the federal government in order to address the
resolution. Winning that this is a voting issue can be quite difficult against a sustained attack by the affirmative
team. Three standards should be utilized to help your case.
First, there must be a basic agreement on terms for a debate to take place. Evidence in this section indicates that
resistance movements need common terms for agreement. If one thinks euthanasia is a rock band, then one cannot
have a productive discussion about what to do about euthanasia in the United States. Similarly, whether one agrees
with US action toward domestic surveillance or not, without specific agreement on the terms of engagement any
debate about the subject will be meaningless.
Second, the negative team should defend the necessity for predictable ground. A common retort to the
framework position is that the negative team had other arguments they could have made. This is usually followed
by a laundry list of plausible arguments against the affirmative case. However, the notion that the negative team
should be prepared to run all these arguments without a nexus to the resolution is suspect at best. The only way to
have a sustained engagement with the affirmative case is that the case be predictable to start with.
Third, the negative team should argue that fairness precedes education. The affirmative will argue that they
have educated the judge and the negative team about some emancipatory view of politics. However, absent a fair
test of the affirmative case, there is severe doubt about the benefits of the case itself. Without a fair test, we have no
idea whether the view presented by the affirmative is emancipatory or harmful to society.
X. FRAMEWORK: THE AFFIRMATIVE MUST DEFEND TOPICAL ACTION BY THE
UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
A. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
1. The federal government is the central government in Washington D.C.
23
Elizabeth Jewell. (Editor), OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 2007, 620. Federal: Of. relating to. or denoting the
central
government
as
distinguished
from
the
separate
units
constituting
a
federation.
2. Should is an obligation to act.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992_(4ed); pg. 1612 Usage Note Like the rules governing the use
of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in
modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express conditional futurity: If I
had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third
persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always
be substituted for should, however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause if I (or you or he) should
decide to go. Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or
he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: / agreed that I would do it. Either would or
should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call
your attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier
survey and is more common in American usage than should. Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by
writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should 've. See Usage Notes at if, rather, shall.
3. Resolved means fixed in purpose or intention.
Collins English Dictionary, 2009. Retrieved May 20, 2013 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resolved?s=t
— n resolved (rɪˈzɒlvd) — adj fixed in purpose or intention; determined B. The Affirmative plan violates the Negative
Interpretation of the Resolution
B. The Affirmative plan violates the Negative Interpretation of the Resolution
The affirmative does not defend topical action by the United States federal government.
C. The Negative Interpretation of the Resolution is superior to the Affirmative Interpretation of the Resolution
1. There must be meaningful agreement to basic terms in order for debate to take place—this is critical to create protest and
resistance movements.
Ruth Lessl Shively, (Assistant Prof Political Science – Texas A&M), POLITICAL THEORY AND PARTISAN
POLITICS, 2000, 181-182. The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say “no” to—
they must reject and limit—some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say “yes” to some
things. In particular, they must say “yes” to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first that they must recognize the
role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake the abmiguists make
here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest—that consensus kills debate.
But this is true only if the agreement is perfect—if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases,
however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on
specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting
condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about
them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when
agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, and within a
context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating:
if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or
good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For
instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One
cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one’s target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have
no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is
meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and
debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the
target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator’s audience must know what is
being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go
about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
2. Predictable ground is different than some ground. Predictable ground comes from the resolution—the fact that there may
be arguments against the affirmative does not mean we have adequately researched all those ideas to compete fairly.
3. They put the cart before the horse. Fairness must precede education because without fairness you cannot determine
whether or not their advocacy is productive. The only way to know that is if the negative has the ability to predictably
research answers to their advocacy.
D. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE.
24
1. Topicality ensures fairness and clash:
Without Topicality, the Affirmative could research any case and plan without any constraints whatsoever. The Negative
would be ill-prepared to adequately refute such cases, and the fairness of the debate process would suffer.
2. An Affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution:
The burden of an Affirmative team in a debate is to “affirm” the resolution, much as the negative burden is to “negate” it.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall under the resolutional framework, the plan cannot be an affirmation of the resolution.
Thus, the Affirmative fails to meet their burden and the Negative should win the debate.
I. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
A. Surveillance is defined.
1. Electronic surveillance includes the acquisition of
electronic data without the consent of the party. (1).
2. Electronic surveillance is any method of observing the
actions of an individual using electronic technology.
(2).
3. Surveillance means to watch from above. (3).
4. Surveillance means watchful. (4).
5. Surveillance includes collection, not just analysis. (5).
6. Surveillance does not have to be physical, it can be about
someone’s data. (6).
7. Surveillance means the collection of personal
information. (7-8).
8. Surveillance means the collection and analysis of data.
(9).
9. Surveillance means to watch over. (10-12).
10. Surveillance means monitoring people (13-14).
11. Surveillance means the close observation of a person or
group. (15-17).
12. Surveillance can mean the observation of an object
(18).
13. Surveillance can include lie detectors (19).
14. Surveillance includes DNA data (20).
15. Surveillance includes population management (21).
16. Non human life can be surveilled (22).
17. Surveillance is distinct from data mining (23).
18. Surveillance means to watch (24).
19. Surveillance means to keep close watch over (25).
20. Surveillance means constant observation (26).
21. Surveillance means close observation (27).
22. Surveillance means close observation of a person or
group (28).
23. Surveillance means supervision (29).
24. Surveillance means close watch (30-32).
25. Data surveillance is becoming more extensive (33).
26. Surveillance includes data analysis (34-36).
27. Surveillance allows for oversight (37).
28. Surveillance means the act of being observed. (38).
29. Surveillance can mean superintendence (39).
30. Surveillance is not limited to visual observation (40).
31. Surveillance is limited to people (41).
32. Surveillance can be physical or digital (42).
33. The CDC does domestic surveillance (43).
34. Drug enforcement is domestic surveillance (44).
35. Drones are forms of domestic surveillance (45-47).
36. Border enforcement is domestic surveillance (48).
37. Domestic surveillance includes information gathering
(49).
38. Mere collection of data is not surveillance (50).
B. Domestic is defined.
1. Domestic means of one’s own country (51-53).
2. Domestic can be pertaining to one’s own country
(54).
3. Domestic means concerning the family (55-57).
4. Domestic means relating to a country’s internal
affairs (58-59).
C. Curtail is defined.
1. Curtail means to cut short (60).
25
2. Curtail means to limit or cut short (61).
3. Curtail means to reduce or diminish (62).
4. Curtail means to reduce or abridge (63).
5. Curtail means to reduce in extent or quantity (64).
6. Curtail means to cut short or abridge (65).
7. Curtail means to diminish or lessen, not abolish (66).
8. Curtail means to reduce the length or duration of
something (67).
9. Curtail means to put restrictions on something (68).
D. “Its” is defined.
1. Its means belonging to the United States (69).
2. Its refers to itself (70).
E. “Federal government” is defined.
1. Interstate compacts constitute the federal government.
(71)
2. A government with divided powers is a federal
government. (72)
3. A government with independent states is a federal
government. (73)
4. A federal government has divided but overlapping
responsibilities. (74)
5. A federal government has states give up some power to
a federal authority. (75)
6. The federal government is a union where states give up
some power. (76)
I. “Substantially” is defined.
1. Offshore wind would be substantial ocean
development. (77)
2. Substantial means to a large degree. (78)
3. Substantial means having substance. (79)
4. Substantial means material. (80)
5. Substantial means real, not imaginary. (81)
6. Substantial means real and tangible. (82)
7. Substantial means strong or firm. (83)
8. Substantial means considerable or ample. (84)
9. Substantial means ample or large. (85)
10. Substantial means of considerable worth or value.
(86)
11. Substantial means to a great or significant extent. (87)
12. Substantial means of considerable importance or
worth. (88)
13. Substantial means to a considerable or large degree.
(89)
14. Substantial means important or worthwhile. (90)
II. THEORY OF TOPICALITY
A. TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE
1. Topicality is a jurisdictional issue. (91)
2. Topicality is essential for education. (92-93)
B. APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING
DEFINITIONS
1. Division of ground should be used in determining
appropriate definitions. (94)
2. Field contextual definitions should be used. (95)
3. Definitions emphasizing proper grammatical context
should be used. (96-101)
4. Each word should have a meaning. (102-107)
5. Common usage is an appropriate standard for
definitions. (108-110)
6. Reasonability is a legitimate standard. (111-116)
C. INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR
EVALUATION
1. Field context is an inappropriate standard. (117-118)
2. Legal context is an inappropriate standard. (119-122)
3. Common usage is an inappropriate standard. (123-124)
D. BETTER DEFINITION VERSUS REASONABILITY
1. Reasonability is an inappropriate standard. (125-132)
2. The better definition should be used. (133-145)
E. “PERFORMANCE” AND KRITIKS DO NOT
SUPERSEDE TOPICALITY.
1. “Coercive Correction” proves that topicality is
important to cause social change.
a. Unilateral, one-sided arguments are a form of
“coercive correction.” (146)
b. Coercive correction undermines social change and
causes resentment. (147)
2. Bilateral argumentation with fair ground for each side
better causes social change.
a. Bilateral exchanges focus on efforts to get people to
change their mind of their own free will—not
because they feel boxed in. (148)
b. The switch-side model solves otherization—refusing
to debate the affirmative side because it is
politically unpopular only otherizes the voices that
support resolutional action. (149)
c. The dialectical model of preparing for arguments
from both sides allows for better argument
understanding. (150)
d. Bilateral exchanges best avoid tension and resistance
to efforts at social change. (151)
3. Limits are necessary to make debate meaningful and
intelligible. (152)
4. Arguing only from personal conviction leads to
hedonism and the silencing of marginalized points of
view—a switch-side model best promotes positive
values and diversity of opinion. (153)
5. Requiring teams to debate both sides of the topic
increases tolerance—the affirmative version of
debate sows the seeds of bigotry and dogmatism.
(154)
6. Full confrontation of ideas is the best method to
construct alternative avenues for thought. (155)
7. The switch-side debate model solves otherization—
refusing to debate unpopular sides of a topic creates
otherization and narrow-mindedness (156)
8. Switch-side debate is crucial to critical thinking (157)
9. Requiring teams to debate both sides of the topic
increases tolerance and empathy as opposed to
bigotry and dogmatism (158-159).
10. Limits are necessary to make debate intelligible (160161).
11. Dialectical models of debate allow for preparing
arguments from both sides—this bolsters argument
understanding (162).
12. Dialogic models create social change—unilateral
stating of hypotheses do not (163-164).
13. Dialogic argument creates a praxis for conflict
resolution—a two-way transaction is needed to solve
this end (165).
26
1. Jameel Jaffer, (Deputy Legal Dir., ACLU), PUBLIC
HEARING ON SECTION 702 OF THE FISA
AMENDMENTS ACT. Mar. 19, 2014. Retrieved Jan. 15,
2015 from http://www.pclob.gov/Library/20140319-TestimonyJaffer.pdf. In its current form, FISA regulates, among other
things, “electronic surveillance,” which is defined to include:
the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire
communication to or from a person in the United States,
without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition
occurs in the United States.
2. Stephen Sheppard, (Editor), BOUVIER LAW
DICTIONARY, 1067. Electronic surveillance: Electronic
surveillance is any method of observing, covertly or overtly,
the actions and conversations of an individual using
electronic technology. It includes the use of wiretaps, pen
registers, cover listening, transcribing, or recording devices,
direction microphones, videographic surveillance, thermal
imaging devices and satellite tracking technology.
3. John Gilliom, (Prof., Political Science, Ohio U.),
SUPERVISION: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY, 2013, 18. In the introduction,
we wrote that surveillance could be thought of as monitoring
people in order to regulate or govern their behavior.
Surveillance, in other words, is an exercise of power through
watching. In the social sciences, “power” has been classically
(and too simply) defined as the ability to get people to do
something they would not otherwise do. We’ve all had the
experience of changing our behavior when we realize
someone is watching us; if observation can make people do
(or not do) something, then it can be understood as a form of
power. When we note that the term surveillance comes from
the French word meaning “to watch from above,” the
emphasis on “above” implies that power relationship.
4. MERRIAM WEBSTER’S SCHOOL DICTIONARY,
2015, 997. Surveillance: From Latin, vigilare: “watchful”
5. David Greene, (Sr. Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier
Foundation), NSA MASS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS:
UNNECESSARY AND DISPROPORTIONATE, Apr. 29,
2014. Retrieved Jan. 15, 2015 from https://www.eff.org/files/
2014/05/29/unnecessary_and_disproportionate.pdf. Much of the
expansive NSA surveillance revealed in the past year has
been defended by the United States on the basis that the mere
collection of communications data, even in troves, is not
“surveillance” because a human eye never looks at it. Indeed,
under this definition, the NSA also does not surveil a
person’s data by subjecting it to computerized analysis, again
up until the point a human being lays eyes on it. The
Principles, reflecting the human right to privacy, defines
“surveillance” to include the monitoring, interception,
collection, analysis, use, preservation, and retention of,
interference with, or access to information that includes,
reflects, or arises from or a person’s communications in the
past, present, or future. States should not be able to bypass
privacy protections on the basis of arbitrary definitions.
27
6. Paul Rosenzweig, (Prof., Law, George Mason U.), STATE
OF FEDERAL PRIVACY AND DATA SECURITY LAW:
LAGGING BEHIND THE TIMES?, Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Comm. Hearing, July 31,
2012, 101. Traditionally, the concept of “surveillance” has
been taken to mean an act of physical surveillance – e.g.,
following someone around or planting a secret camera in an
apartment. As technology improved, our spy agencies and
law enforcement institutions increasingly came to rely on
even more sophisticated technical means of surveillance, and
so we came to develop the capacity to electronically intercept
telecommunications and examine email while in transit. To
these more “traditional” forms of surveillance we must now
add another: the collection and analysis of personal data and
information about an individual or organization. Call the
phenomenon “dataveillance” if you wish, but it is an
inevitable product of our increasing reliance on the Internet
and global communications systems.
7. Daniel Trotter, (Prof., Informatics and Media, Uppsala U.,
Sweden), SOCIAL MEDIA AS SURVEILLANCE:
RETHINKING VISIBILITY IN A CONVERGING
WORLD, 2012, 7. Surveillance refers to the sustained and
targeted collection of personal information. It is a loaded
term, and is often associated with closed circuit televisions
and international espionage. But these visions overlook the
fact that surveillance is so pervasive in everyday life. Not
only do people routinely give up their information in
everyday life, but they also take advantage of the visibility of
others. Surveillance is also an enduring process. It is not just
individual moments of exposure, but the basis of relations
between individuals, organizations and the state. This is also
apparent when considering the longue durée of social media.
Surveillance evokes concern because of privacy violations.
But other consequences are equally pressing. Surveillance is
the driving force behind social sorting, the allocation of life
chances and business models in the information economy.
8. Daniel Trotter, (Prof., Informatics and Media, Uppsala U.,
Sweden), SOCIAL MEDIA AS SURVEILLANCE:
RETHINKING VISIBILITY IN A CONVERGING
WORLD, 2012, 18. Surveillance is concerned with personal
information, which is increasingly seen as a resource for
corporations, evidence for investigative agencies and a
liability for individuals. Personal information refers to
biographical data like a date of birth, but also transactional
data like online purchases. Virtually anything that can be
linked to an individual – and to which they may be
accountable – can be treated as personal information.
9. Marcia Stanhope, (Prof., Community Health Nursing, U.
Kentucky), PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING, 2012, 270.
Surveillance involves the systematic collection, analysis, and
interpretation of data related to the occurrence of disease and
the health status of a given population. Surveillance systems
are often classified as either active or passive. Passive
surveillance is the more common form used by most local
and state health departments.
10. Kenneth Ryan, (Prof., Criminology, California State U. at
Fresno), PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE WITH NEW
TECHNOLOGIES, 2012, 2. Surveillance has been part of the
lexicon of espionage for about two centuries. It is rooted in
the French surveiller (to watch over) and was first in regular
usage about the time that Napoleon Bonaparte tried to
conquer Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. In a
military context, the word “surveillance” became nearly
synonymous with “spying.” Originally, the word suggested
malignant intent toward the subject being watched; therefore,
if one was the object of surveillance, it likely was by another
who intended to do harm – for example, Napoleon’s spies
who watched the movements of Russian troops. The negative
connotation generally remains today although it’s not
necessarily deserved. In fact, some surveillance is actually
quite beneficial.
11. Kenneth Ryan, (Prof., Criminology, California State U. at
Fresno), PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE WITH NEW
TECHNOLOGIES, 2012, 2. Cameras, satellites, sensors, and
all manner of surveillance devices monitor everyday
occurrences as mundane as, for example, the weather,
helping us to plan our day, to fly our aircraft, to anticipate a
drought, and so on.
12. Aaron Doyle, (Prof., Sociology, Carleton U.), EYES
EVERYWHERE: THE GLOBAL GROWTH OF CAMERA
SURVEILLANCE, 2012, 5. Cameras may be thought to have
some natural affinity with surveillance just because the word
itself – from the French, surveiller: to watch over – has a
visual referent at its core. Thus, especially in the Western
world, one finds strong cultural emphases on the importance
of visible evidence, of privileging the eye as the most
accurate sense, and following from this, a belief in objective
knowledge as a criterion of truth.
13. Alexandra Rengel, (Attorney), INTERCULTURAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW, 2013, 193. Surveillance
is a type of information collection that affects privacy and
consists of monitoring and recording the movements of an
individual or group of individuals.
14. Bryan Garner, (Prof., Law, SMU), BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY, 10th Ed., 2014, 1674. Surveillance: Close
observation or listening of a person or place in the hope of
gathering evidence.
15. Joseph Pickett, (Editor), AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4TH ED.,
2006, 1743. Surveillance: Close observation of a person or
group; especially one under suspicion.
16. Kathy Rooney, (Editor), ENCARTA WORLD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY, 1999, 1797. Surveillance: Continual
observation of a person or group, especially one suspected of
doing something illegal.
17. Stuart Flexner, (Editor), RANDOM HOUSE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 2ND ED.,
UNABRIDGED, 1987, 1916. Surveillance: A watch kept
over a person, group, etc.
18. Stephen Sheppard, (Editor), BOUVIER LAW
DICTIONARY, 1066. Surveillance: The persistent
observation of some object.
28
19. William Staples, (Prof., Sociology, U. Kansas),
EVERYDAY SURVEILLANCE: VIGILANCE AND
VISIBILITY IN POSTMODERN LIFE, 2014, 3. Other
“surveillance ceremonies” include the use of lie detectors,
pre-employment integrity tests, mobile fingerprint scanning,
drug and alcohol testing, electronically monitored “house
arrest,” and the use of metal detectors and various body
scanners.
20. William Staples, (Prof., Sociology, U. Kansas),
EVERYDAY SURVEILLANCE: VIGILANCE AND
VISIBILITY IN POSTMODERN LIFE, 2014, 6. At the hard
end of the spectrum, DNA samples are being systematically
collected on most people who come in contact with the
justice system and permanently stored in a vast database. The
body, I contend, is a central target of many postmodern
surveillance techniques and rituals.
21. Ayse Ceyhan, (Prof., International Relations, Sciences Po
U.,
Paris),
ROUTLEDGE
HANDBOOK
OF
SURVEILLANCE STUDIES, 2012, 40. In this chapter
surveillance is considered as a political technology of
population management. As the vast literature produced by
surveillance studies indicates surveillance is an old activity
that has existed as long as humans have existed and
interacted with each other. In modern times it had been
intimately connected with the regulation of the capitalist
society and the modernization of the army and the nationstate. According to the Foucauldian problematic of
biopoliticized security, surveillance can be understood as the
very form of liberal govemmentality seeking maximum
efficiency for the regulation of bodies and species. It is an
activity undertaken both by governments and institutions and
even by the subjects themselves against each other.
22. Evelyn Ruppert, (Prof., Sociology, Open University),
ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF SURVEILLANCE
STUDIES, 2012, 217. The surveillance of non-human life is
a routine and everyday feature of contemporary societies that
goes unnoticed or unrecognized. In part this may be because
it is difficult to conceive of non-humans as being subjects
(i.e. as possessing subjectivity) under surveillance in the
same way as humans. Non-humans are rarely granted the
same reflexive agency as humans and often occupy tightly
bracketed, and relatively uncontested, socio-economic niches
as material resources or health threats. From this point of
view, “disease surveillance,” “veterinary surveillance” and
“foodchain surveillance” might be seen as related to the more
pernicious forms of surveillance dealt with in surveillance
studies by terminology only.
23. Alexandra Rengel, (Attorney), INTERCULTURAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW, 2013, 186. When almost
every activity leaves a digital trail, government and private
monitoring becomes less about analog surveillance or human
intelligence gathering and more a matter of “data mining.”
24. Andrew Sparks, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 5TH Ed., 2014, 1460.
Surveillance: To watch.
25. Andrew Sparks, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 5TH Ed., 2014, 1460.
Surveillance: Close watch kept over someone, esp. a suspect.
26. Andrew Sparks, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 5TH Ed., 2014, 1460.
Surveillance: Constant observation of a place or process.
27. Angus Stevenson, (Editor), NEW OXFORD
AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 3rd Ed., 2010, 1751.
Surveillance: Close observation, esp. of a suspected spy or
criminal.
28. Joseph Pickett, (Editor), AMERICAN HERITAGE
DESK DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2014, 730.
Surveillance: Close observation of a person or group, esp.
one under suspicion.
29. MERRIAM WEBSTER DESK DICTIONARY, 1995,
547. Surveillance: Close watch: supervision.
30. MERRIAM WEBSTER’S SCHOOL DICTIONARY,
2015, 997. Surveillance: Close watch.
31. Michael Agnes, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
BASIC DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 1998,
891. Surveillance: Close watch kept over someone.
32. Steven Kleinedler, (Editor), THE AMERICAN
HERITAGE COLLEGE WRITER’S DICTIONARY, 2013,
946. Surveillance: Close observation of a person or group,
especially one under suspicion.
33. Jan Stanley & Barry Steinhardt, (ACLU), ETHICS AND
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, 2014, 271. An insidious
new type of surveillance is becoming possible that is just as
intrusive as video surveillance – what we might call “data
surveillance.” Data surveillance is the collection of
information about an identifiable individual, often from
multiple sources, that can be assembled into a portrait of that
person’s activities. Most computers are programmed to
automatically store and track usage data, and the spread of
computer chips in our daily lives means that more and more
of our activities leave behind “data trails” It will soon be
possible to combine information from different sources to
recreate an individual’s activities with such detail that it
becomes no different from being followed around all day by
a detective with a video camera.
34. Anil Kalhan, (Prof., Law, Drexel U.), MARYLAND
LAW REVIEW, 2014, 28. As conceptualized by John
Gilliom and Torin Monahan, surveillance involves “the
systematic monitoring, gathering, and analysis of information
in order to make decisions, minimize risk, sort populations,
and exercise power.”
35. Surveillance includes data analysis *David Gray, (Prof.,
Law, U. Maryland School of Law), MINNESOTA LAW
REVIEW, Nov. 2013, 82. The dangers of powerful data
aggregation and analysis technologies are not limited to
mistakes, of course. If anything, the threats to liberty and
democratic culture are more profound if they are accurate.
On this point, Jack Balkin has argued that, “Government’s
most important technique of control is no longer watching or
threatening to watch. It is analyzing and drawing connections
between data.” What is collected need not be particularly
intimate or private, he continues; rather, “data mining
technologies allow the state and business enterprises to
record perfectly innocent behavior that no one is particularly
ashamed of and draw surprisingly powerful inferences about
people’s behavior, beliefs, and attitudes.” From this level of
surveillance, he concludes, government dominance and
control follows.
36. David Gray, (Prof., Law, U. Maryland School of Law),
MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW, Nov. 2013, 112. Data
aggregating and mining technologies like DAS, the NSA’s
telephonic and electronic surveillance programs, fusion
centers, and Virtual Alabama implicate reasonable
expectations of quantitative privacy principally because of
their scope. Such technologies are, after all, designed to
collect and analyze large quantities of data from disparate
sources to construct “an intimate picture of the subject’s life
that he expects no one to have.” For DAS in particular, there
can be no doubt about its capacity to facilitate broad
programs of indiscriminate surveillance.
29
37.
Steven
Gifis,
(Editor),
BARRON’S
LAW
DICTIONARY, 6th Ed., 2010, 531. Surveillance: Oversight
or supervision.
38. Steven Kleinedler, (Editor), THE AMERICAN
HERITAGE COLLEGE WRITER’S DICTIONARY, 2013,
946. Surveillance: The act of observing or the condition of
being observed.
39. Stuart Flexner, (Editor), RANDOM HOUSE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 2ND ED.,
UNABRIDGED, 1987, 1916. Surveillance: Supervision or
superintendence.
40. WORDS & PHRASES, Vol. 40C, 2002, 543. Legislature
in providing for punishment for escape from “surveillance of
prison guards” did not intend to limit the offense to an escape
from the actual visual observation of the prisoner by the
guards, for the word “surveillance” in its ordinary definition
means oversight, superintendence, supervision; its synonyms
including “supervise, oversee, overlook, control, direct,
manage, conduct, to have charge of, to preside over,” so that
in contemplation of this statute a prisoner will be deemed to
be under the surveillance of prison guards while he is
employed outside the prison walls under the supervision and
care of such guards even if not within the range of their
vision.
41. Stephen Sheppard, (Editor), BOUVIER LAW
DICTIONARY, 1067. Surveillance: Surveillance is the
practice of watching, listening, or otherwise sensing the
presence or absence of a person, place or thing in a manner
than intrudes upon the privacy of the person observed as the
object of surveillance or in the presence of the person or
thing observed.
42. Paul Rosenzweig, (Prof., Law, George Washington U.),
CYBER
WARFARE:
HOW
CONFLICTS
IN
CYBERSPACE ARE CHALLENGING AMERICA AND
THE WORLD, 2013, 104. Traditionally, the concept of
surveillance has been taken to mean an act of physical
surveillance – for example, following someone around or
planting a secret camera in an apartment. As technology
improved, our spy agencies and law enforcement institutions
increasingly came to rely on even more sophisticated
technical means of surveillance, and so we came to develop
the capacity to electronically intercept telecommunications
and examine e-mail while in transit.
43. Mateusz Karwowski, (Physician, Epidemic Intelligence
Service, U.S. Centers for Disease Control), MORBIDITY
AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT, Dec. 5, 2014,
Retrieved
Jan.
15,
2015
from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm63e1205.pdf. During July
9–November 15, 2014, CDC responded to clinical inquiries
regarding 650 persons from 49 states and the District of
Columbia; 142 (22%) originated in health departments, and
508 (78%) were originated by clinicians with subsequent
notification and engagement of the overall approach to
domestic surveillance, the goal of which is to rapidly identify
and isolate Ebola patients so that they receive appropriate
medical care and secondary transmission is prevented. Health
care providers should remain vigilant and consult their local
and state health departments and CDC when assessing ill
travelers from Ebola-affected countries.
44. Heidi Boghosian, (Dir., A.J. Muste Memorial Institute &
Former Dir., National Lawyers Guild), SPYING ON
DEMOCRACY:
GOVERNMENT
SURVEILLANCE,
CORPORATE POWER, AND PUBLIC RESISTANCE,
2013, 31. The FBI began planning a multimillion-dollar
secret surveillance unit in Quantico, Virginia, to invent new
technologies to help government authorities eavesdrop on
Internet and wireless communications as early as 2008. The
Domestic Communications Assistance Center (also referred
to as the National Domestic Communications Assistance
Center) is to be staffed with agents from the U.S. Marshals
Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Along
with countless gigabytes of data afforded by wireless
providers and social networks, it will house customized
surveillance technologies targeting specific individuals and
organizations.
45. Heidi Boghosian, (Dir., A.J. Muste Memorial Institute &
Former Dir., National Lawyers Guild), SPYING ON
DEMOCRACY:
GOVERNMENT
SURVEILLANCE,
CORPORATE POWER, AND PUBLIC RESISTANCE,
2013, 230-231. “Drones in Domestic Surveillance
Operations,” a 2012 report commissioned by Congress, raises
questions about how drones relate to the Fourth
Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and
seizure. While individuals can expect substantial protections
against warrantless government intrusion into their homes,
the Fourth Amendment offers fewer restrictions on
government surveillance occurring in public places.
46. Natasha Owczarek, (Analyst, Tomorrow Lab), DRONES:
A BRIEF HISTORY, 2014, 3. Domestic surveillance already
exists, whether we know about it or not, and one need not be
living in a foreign war region to feel the threat of drones. By
2013, the FAA (who regulates airspace usage) had already
issued almost 1,500 permits for domestic drones to take flight
in the US. While most of these permits were granted to
federal agencies, law enforcement, and universities, the exact
permit holders are unknown to the public leading to concern.
47. Richard Thompson, (Legislative Attorney, Congressional
Research
Service),
DRONES
IN
DOMESTIC
SURVEILLANCE
OPERATIONS:
FOURTH
AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE
RESPONSES, Apr. 3, 2013, Retrieved Jan. 15, 2015 from
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42701.pdf.
The
term
“domestic drone surveillance” as used in this report is
designed to cover a wide range of government uses
including, but not limited to, investigating and deterring
criminal or regulatory violations; conducting health and
safety inspections; performing search and rescue missions;
patrolling the national borders; and conducting
environmental investigations.
48. Todd Miller, (Journalist), BORDER PATROL NATION:
DISPATCHES FROM THE FRONT LINES OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, 2014, 284. The domestic
surveillance regime the country is now experiencing as a
whole, more and more, has long been the experience of
people in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. The borderlands
showed us the future. And we are now becoming a country of
those who watch and those who are watched, of those who
are police and those who are accused of being thieves. We
live in an “if you see something, say something” world, a
Homeland Security dream world, where we are taught to be
suspicious of one another, and thus, in effect, police each
other. This is the country we have become.
30
49. Jeffrey Ross, (Prof., Criminal Justice, U. Baltimore), AN
INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL CRIME, 2012, 101.
Domestic surveillance consists of a variety of informationgathering activities, conducted primarily by the state’s
coercive agencies (that is, police, national security, and the
military). These actions are carried out against citizens,
foreigners, organizations (for example, businesses, political
parties, etc.), and foreign governments. Such operations
usually include opening mail, listening to telephone
conversations (eavesdropping and wiretapping), reading
electronic communications, and infiltrating groups (whether
they are legal, illegal, or deviant).
50. David Greene, (Sr. Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier
Foundation), NSA MASS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS:
UNNECESSARY AND DISPROPORTIONATE, Apr. 29,
2014.
Retrieved
Jan.
15,
2015
from
https://www.eff.org/files/2014/05/29/unnecessary_and_disproportio
nate.pdf. The US relies on the outmoded distinction between
“content” and “metadata,” falsely contending that the latter
does not reveal private facts about an individual. The US also
contends that the collection of data is not surveillance – it
argues, contrary to both international law and the Necessary
and Proportionate Principles, that an individual’s privacy
rights are not infringed as long as her communications data
are not analyzed by a human being.
51. Andrew Sparks, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 5TH Ed., 2014, 433. Domestic:
Of one’s own country or the country referred to.
52. Bryan Garner, (Prof., Law, SMU), BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY, 10th Ed., 2014, 591. Domestic: Of, relating
to, or involving one’s own country.
53. MERRIAM WEBSTER’S SCHOOL DICTIONARY,
2015, 283. Domestic: Of, relating to, produced, or carried on
within one country.
54. Stuart Flexner, (Editor), RANDOM HOUSE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 2ND ED.,
UNABRIDGED, 1987, 581. Domestic: Of or pertaining to
one’s own or a particular country.
55. MERRIAM WEBSTER DESK DICTIONARY, 1995,
164: Domestic: Of or relating to the household or the family.
56. Michael Agnes, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
BASIC DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 1998,
255. Domestic: Of or having to do with the home or family.
57. WORDS & PHRASES, Vol. 13, 2007, 460. “Domestic”
is defined as belonging to the home or household concerning
or related to the home or family, or as pertaining to one’s
house or home or one’s household or family.
58. Joseph Pickett, (Editor), AMERICAN HERITAGE
DESK DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2014, 226.
Domestic: Of or relating to a country’s internal affairs.
59. Joseph Pickett, (Editor), AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4TH ED.,
2006, 533. Domestic: Of or relating to a country’s internal
affairs.
60. Steven Kleinedler, (Editor), THE AMERICAN
HERITAGE COLLEGE WRITER’S DICTIONARY, 2013,
247. Curtail: To cut short; reduce.
61. Benjamin Zimmer, (Editor), OXFORD AMERICAN
DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2ND Ed., 2009, 306.
Curtail: Limit or cut short.
62. Stuart Flexner, (Editor), RANDOM HOUSE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 2ND ED.,
UNABRIDGED, 1987, 492. Curtail: To cut short; to cut off a
part of; abridge; reduce; diminish.
63. Andrew Sparks, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 5TH Ed., 2014, 364. Curtail: To
cut short; reduce; abridge.
64. Angus Stevenson, (Editor), NEW OXFORD
AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 3rd Ed., 2010, 425. Curtail:
Reduce in extent or quantity.
65. Sandra Anderson, (Editor), COLLINS ENGLISH
DICTIONARY, 2006, 411. Curtail: To cut short; abridge.
66. WORDS & PHRASES, Vol. 10B, 2008, 144. “Curtail”
means to cut off the end or any part of; hence to shorten,
abridge; diminish, lessen, reduce, and has no such meaning
as abolish.
67. Kathy Rooney, (Editor), ENCARTA WORLD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY, 1999, 444. Curtail: To reduce the length or
duration of something.
68. VOCABULARY.COM, 2015. Retrieved May 29, 2015
from http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/curtail. To curtail
something is to slow it down, put restrictions on it, or stop it
entirely. If I give up cake, I am curtailing my cake-eating.
69. Augustus Stevenson, (Editor), NEW OXFORD
AMERICAN DICTIONARY, 3rd Ed., 2010, 924. *Its:
Belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned
or easily identified.
70. Erin McKean, (Sr. Editor), THE OXFORD AMERICAN
DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, 2003, 798. Its: Of
itself.
71. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW
WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06,
519-520. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) federal: of or formed by a
compact; designating or of a union of states, groups, etc. in
which each member agrees to subordinate its governmental
power to that of the central authority in certain specified
common affairs.
72. Bryan Garner, (Editor-in-chief), BLACK’S LAW
DICTIONARY, 3rd Paperback Edition, 06, 283. Federal: Of
or relating to a system of associated governments with a
vertical division of governments into national and regional
components having difference responsibilities.
73. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 501-502. (NY:
Sparks Publishing) Federal: Having or relating to a system of
government in which several states form a unity but remain
independent in internal affairs.
74. Susan Ellis Wild, (Editor), WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD
LAW DICTIONARY, 06, 141. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley)
Federal: Pertaining to a system of government such as that
adopted in the United States, in which a national government
oversees a federal of local governments, with distinctly
designed but overlapping responsibilities.
75.
Carol-June
Cassidy,
(Editor),
CAMBRIDGE
DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd Ed., 08,
308. Federal: A system of government in which states unite
and give up some of their powers to a central authority.
31
76. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4th Editon, 06, 647. Federal: Of,
relating to, or being a form of government in which a union
of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority
while retaining certain residual powers of government.
77. Conservation Law Foundation, March 20, 2013.
Retrieved May 13, 2014 from http://www.clf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/ RI_Ocean_073012.pdf The SAMP
also identifies a renewable energy zone for the first time in
Rhode Island waters, which will enable the State to capitalize
on its substantial ocean wind resources to produce clean
renewable energy and offset the expensive and dirty sources
of energy relied on by Block Island
78.
Carol-June
Cassidy,
(Editor),
CAMBRIDGE
DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, 2nd Ed., 08,
873. Substantially: To a large degree.
79. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW
WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06,
1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: of or having
substance.
80. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4th Editon, 06, 1727. Substantial:
Of, relating to, or having substance; material.
81. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW
WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06,
1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: real; actual; true;
not imaginary.
82. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks
Publishing) Substantial: Real and tangible rather than
imaginary.
83. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW
WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06,
1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: strong; solid;
firm; stout.
84. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 4th Edition, 06, 1727. Substantial:
Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent:
won by a substantial margin.
85. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW
WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06,
1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: considerable;
ample; large.
86. Michael Agnes, (Editor-In-Chief), WEBSTER’S NEW
WORLD COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 4TH EDITION, 06,
1428. (Cleveland, OH: Wiley) Substantial: of considerable
worth or value.
87. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks
Publishing) Substantially: to a great or significant extent.
88. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks
Publishing) Substantial: of considerable importance; size; or
worth
89.
WORDS
AND
PHRASES
CUMULATIVE
SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, Vol. 40B, 07, 95. The
term “substantially” in the ADA means considerable or to a
large degree. Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank.
90. Christine Lindberg, (Managing Editor), OXFORD
COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 2nd Ed., 07, 1369. (NY: Sparks
Publishing) Substantial: Important in material or social terms
91. David Williams (U. of KS) & Frank Cross (Harvard U.),
U. OF KS HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE
POLICIES, 79, 1-3. Topicality is an issue which, like the
question of jurisdiction, must be decided prior to the
evaluation of other arguments.
92. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
SPEECH COMMUNICATION ASSOC. (Paper CA), Nov.
14, 81, 1-2. Imagine if you will, the Supreme Court suddenly
declaring that it will adjudicate any and all cases to which it
takes a fancy. Constitutionality or federal questions are no
longer “voting issues” to them. Or the typical college
professor assigned to teach Advanced Calculus who amazes
his eager students by informing them that their intellectual
breadth will be better served if he offers them a course in
Introductory Russian. Let us not even mention the
impertinent high school kid you hired to mow your lawn who
decided that his First Amendment free expression rights were
being infringed upon and chopped down all your trees
instead.
93. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-4.
The argument that the educational value of debate is
enhanced without a topic seems very weak. Initially, it presupposes not only that the purpose of debate is educational
but also that all of the educational value of debate stems from
examination of a diversity of social problems. This latter
assumption is without foundation.
94. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-12.
Clash is necessary for debate, and the definitional standard
must be one which encourages, or at least preserves, clash.
95. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
SPEECH COMMUNICATION ASSOC. (Paper CA), Nov. 4,
81, 4-5. A careful examination of relevant sources of
expertise should indicate the strength of each approach
among the communities of scholars and public policymakers
directly affected.
96. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS),
DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 539. Debaters
need to be guided by meanings commonly held by the field
where key terms are familiar and commonly used.
97. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-4.
Arguments grounded in the applicability of semantic or
syntactical principles to the interpretation of a sentence (or
resolution) are undeniably educational, and any argument
which says that the only legitimate educational goal of debate
is to maximize policy analysis has a seemingly
insurmountable burden of proof.
98. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-3.
The ignoring of contexts in any part of interpretation is at
best a stupid practice.
99. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-10.
The interpretation must contain all the ingredients of a
complete sentence (e.g., subject, noun, verb) and must use
the definition of a term that is consistent with its grammatical
use in the sentence.
100. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS),
DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 538. Whether
a word is used as a noun or a verb will substantially alter the
meaning of the proposition.
32
101. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS),
DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 538.
Definitions of terms must be consistent with their
grammatical use in the propositional sentence.
102. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE
AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win., 85, 139. Another
way that the negative could prove that the affirmative’s
definitions are unreasonable is to demonstrate that there is an
absence of grammatical context.
103. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. One would defend the standard
[each word must have meaning] by arguing that without
adherence to this rule, debaters could moot out a term in the
resolution through definition and fundamentally change the
meaning of the topic. This would inevitably prevent adequate
preparation, because the topic could be different each round.
104. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-10.
The interpretation must preserve a discrete meaning or
function for each term.
105. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS),
DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 538. The
affirmative usually responds that other words in the topic,
such as the federal government, limit the topic so that the
resolution is indeed limited. This response begs the question
that a single key term may be defined in such a way to avoid
rather than encourage clash. The negative need not prove that
the topic becomes limitless to sustain the claim that the
affirmative definitions are unreasonable.
106. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, 53, 689. Exclusion of
words from statute is not permissible, unless no other
construction is reasonably possible.
107. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, 53, 638. Where words
are used in a series in a legislative act, effect must be given to
every word, and it must be presumed that legislature did not
use three words where one would do, and that each was
intended to have an individual meaning of its own different
from meaning of the other two words.
108. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. With some words it may not be
deleterious when they were mooted if the impact on the
breadth of the topic would not be significant.
109. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-12.
The second approach to limiting scope is to argue for a
“common man” standard. The “common man” approach is
drawn from both judicial and linguistic approaches to
defining meaning.
110. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. It could be argued that
common usage would limit the scope of debate since the
writers of the topic were intending common language uses,
not obscure interpretations, when they worded the resolution
in this particular way.
111. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-13.
No one determines whether an act fits under the proscriptions
of a statute according to the language that the common world
understands.
112. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-12.
Proving topicality is an affirmative burden, and it follows
that proving reasonableness is also an affirmative burden.
The negative need not prove the affirmative unreasonable if
the affirmative is incapable of mustering-up an initial
statement of their reasonableness which appears acceptable
“at first look.”
113. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS),
DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 541. Three
minimum standards were essential to establish reasonability
of definition: intent, grammatical context and field context.
114. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE
AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 1.
Reasonability has become the preferred standard for
evaluating the topicality of affirmative cases. Most debaters
and judges work from the assumption that if the affirmative
offers definitions that are reasonable, then the affirmative
case is topical.
115. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE
AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 1. Since most
debate resolutions can be defined in various ways, the
affirmative definition need only be a reasonable one. It need
not be the only reasonable definition or even the definition
that most readily springs to mind when scanning a
proposition. Any affirmative plan that fulfills the criteria set
forth by an reasonable interpretation of the resolution is
legitimate: for affirmation of the plan would logically entail
affirmation of the debate resolution.
116. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS),
DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 541. The
negative needs to realize that the burden of providing
reasonable definitions rests with the affirmative. It is enough
for the negative to prove that the affirmative definitions are
not reasonable.
117. Donn W. Parson (Dir., Forensics, U. of KS),
DIMENSIONS OF ARGUMENT, Oct. 15, 81, 536-37. The
basis for the “reasonable man theory” came from the
argument of Oliver Wendell Holmes: “It does not disclose
one meaning conclusively according to the laws of language.
Thereupon we ask, not what this meant, but what those words
would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English,
using them in the circumstances in which they were used, and
it is to the end of answering this last question that we let in
evidence as to what the circumstances were.”
118. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. The standard [field context]
could be challenged on the grounds that many of these
sources may not have interests identical to debaters in
defining their terms. Some may not be accountable for their
use of language or may be motivated by political interest
toward arbitrary definition.
119. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Many of the different expert
definitions are often contradictory, which calls into question
the “expert” or exclusive nature of the sources.
33
120. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Legal definitions may reflect
personal political biases of the judges, or may have to
consider legal questions of fairness and equity to certain
individuals or groups, which are extraneous to linguistic
rigor. In other words, definitions may be rationalizations for
decisions that judges make, not carefully balanced
interpretations. This is reflected in the multiple definitions of
terms that even the legal dictionaries produce, where a word
may be defined in numerous and sometimes contradictory
ways.
121. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Courts don’t have exactly the
same purpose in defining terms, and the distinctions between
their function and topicality convention is significant.
122. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 29. Topicality argument is distinct
from the function of jurisdiction for courts or legislators.
Their different purposes and needs are reflected in the
situational nature of their conventions. Courts may use strict
interpretation of language or jurisdiction, broadly in another.
In either instance, their reasoning may be completely
nonanalogous to the principles we should use to establish our
topicality conventions.
123. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 29. It seems senseless to try to
pattern topicality conventions exactly after Congressmen,
judicial bodies or scientists, etc., merely for the sake of
analogy alone. Our efforts to devise topicality conventions
should keep in mind the goals of high quality debate, not
false or meaningless analogies or intuition.
124. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. How could anyone ever prove
a definition did or did not meet a common man standard?
One could even argue that the judge is a common man, and if
someone could persuade the judge that the definition was
acceptable, that would be enough to meet this standard.
125. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. It is not clear why we should
use common language, which is often more ambiguous than
technical language, as the standard for reasonability.
126. WORDS AND PHRASES, 64, 406. An attempt to give
a specific meaning to the word “reasonable” is trying to
count what is not number, and measure what is not space.
127. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 6. One man’s reasonability is another’s
irrationality.
128. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 6. Theoretically, “reasonability”
provides a clear, objective standard to judgment against
which each and every affirmative approach can be compared
and weighted. Practically, it is less than useless in offering
such guidance.
129. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 6. Many judges conscious of the
immense reach of “reasonability” are forced to support
definitional approaches which they intellectually despise
simply because the affirmative is able to offer some shred of
evidence or analysis sufficient to meet this all too broad
standard.
130. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct. 81, 6. Reasonability as a limitation upon
definitional excess is both ineffective and counterproductive.
131. CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, 53, 636. What may and
may not be reasonable cannot be stated with any preciseness
of definement.
132. David Williams (U. of KS) et al., U. OF KS
HANDBOOK ON FOREIGN TRADE POLICIES, 79, 1-11.
A reasonable interpretation of a sentence is not that the
sentence means whatever the reader chooses for it to mean. I.
A. Richards has suggested that definitions “are applicable
over a restricted field or universe of discourse.” The same is
true of affirmative interpretations, and unless the
interpretation excludes possible readings, it is arguably
unreasonable.
133. Steve Mancuso (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH.
GUIDE (Arms Sales), 82, 31. Standards to judge
reasonability should be grounded in the promotion of good
debating.
134. Roger Solt (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE
(Arms Sales), 82, 34. The search for the best definition leads
to interpretations of the terms of the topic which are
analytically rigorous and contextually accurate.
135. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 5.
Elementary principles of statutory construction require a
delicate balance of legislative intent and actual factual
outcomes. The goal is consistency and rationality. Such a
definitional model as suggested here would force precisely
those goals upon the debaters.
136. Roger Solt (U. of KY), DEBATER’S RSCH. GUIDE
(Arms Sales), 82, 34. [Advocates argue that] requiring the
affirmative to meet the best definition standard narrows the
range of cases, permitting more thorough negative
preparation, encouraging better debate, and greater
competitive balance.
137. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 8. The quality of argument
surrounding topicality would be greatly enhanced. Both sides
would not be forced to explain and defend specific
definitional positions. In contrast to the bombast,
irrelevancies, and plastic briefs which too often surround the
artificial dispute over the ‘reasonability’ of affirmative
positions, the approach offered here would require both sides
to engage in specific, relevant argumentation. Topicality
arguments could succeed only if they were clearly related to
the opposition’s actual definitions or applications.
138. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 5.
[With the better definition standard, there is] the superior
educational concentration upon the use and meaning of
words.
139. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 8. [With the better definition standard]
both sides would now be forced to examine the proposition,
not in an attempt to discover the most esoteric or
individualistic of definitions, but rather to uncover and build
upon the most central, reasonable, and acceptable
approaches. Such linguistic inquiry would be of immense
value to all of the students therein engaged.
34
140. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 5.
The quality of argument surrounding topicality would
undoubtedly be enhanced. Both sides would now be forced to
explain and defend specific definitional positions. In contrast
to the bombast and plastic briefs which too often surround
the artificial dispute over “reasonability,” the approach
offered here virtually mandates that both teams engage in
specific, relevant argumentation. Topicality arguments could
succeed only if they were clearly related to the opposition’s
actual definitions or applications.
141. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE
AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 140. As a way
of combating the dreaded “squirrel” case, a growing number
of judges endorse the application of “more” or “most”
reasonable topicality standards.
142. Dale A. Herbeck (U. of IA) et al., JRNL. OF THE
AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOC., Win. 85, 140. The
National Debate Tournament has adopted a rule which states:
“The standard for the evaluation of topicality at the National
Debate Tournament is that definition which obtains (enjoys)
superior analytical and evidential support drawn from the
(relevant) subject matter area(s) as introduced in the round of
debate.”
143. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 9. One might see this as a hopeless
quest and burden to arrive at the best definition possible.
Despite the title of this article, that is not the affirmative
obligation. Rather we are simply seeking the best definition
from among those introduced in the specific round of debate.
When seen in such a light the affirmative’s burden is not
greater than that of any other issues. [Emphasis in original]
144. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
Speech Communication Assoc. (Paper CA), Nov. 14, 81, 6.
The affirmative must not offer the best possible definition,
nor must the negative. Rather we are simply seeking the best
definition from among those introduced in the specific round
of debate. Thus this is simply a comparative superiority issue,
no different from that of any other issue in the debate.
145. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 8. Some might be concerned that too
many definitional alternatives might be introduced, thus
confusing the debate process. On the contrary, since the
negative would now be required to actually explain and
defend its specific alternative, one would expect that only
carefully thought-through positions would emerge.
146. James J. Unger (Dir., Forensics, Georgetown U.),
ROSTRUM, Oct., 81, 9. It might also be argued that
unbreakable “ties” might occur with both positions offering
favorable and unfavorable aspects, yet this poses no real
difficulty. The affirmative continues to enjoy definitional
presumption. The negative must overcome that presumption
by demonstrating the superiority of its own position. If it
cannot, then its position will not prevail.
147. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U.
of Iowa), 1970, Speech Monographs, vol. 37, 101.
“Correction designed to coerce conformity with the
corrector’s view takes a number of forms. The teacher point
to the “facts” recorded in a standard textbook or reference
work, the layman orders the skeptic to use his eyes and his
ears, the father exercises the right of parental control, the
propagandist employs psychic or social pressures, the bully
resorts to threats and to physical force. In all of these cases in
which the corrective act is designed to compel adherence,
however, certain common characteristics are present. First,
viewed as a process, the correction is unilateral. The lines of
influence flow in a single direction from the corrector at one
pole of the transaction to the correctee at the other. Not only
does the corrector initiate the exchange and direct it
throughout its history, but he [sic] also dictates the conditions
under which it will terminate. His [sic] sole aim is to ensure
compliance, with the correctee’s assent if possible, or without
if necessary. Although the corrector may hope that the
reasons for his [sic] directive become apparent, and that the
response will, therefore, be voluntary rather than forced,
under normal circumstance he [sic] will not hesitate to
impose such penalties or offer such rewards as facilitate the
achieving of his [sic] goal.”
148. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U.
of Iowa), Speech Monographs,1970, vol. 37, 102. “Fourth,
because coercive correction is by nature unilateral—because
the lines of influence and control flow only from the
corrector as agent to the correctee as object—though the
corrector may under certain circumstances expose himself
[sic] to physical danger or social opprobrium, he runs no risk
to his [sic] own integrity as a “person”; no risk that as a result
of his [sic] action his [sic] own orientation and outlook, his
[sic] own constitutive pattern of attitudes and convictions,
will have to be radically altered. If, in spite of his [sic] best
efforts, the correctee stubbornly continues to resist, the
corrector may attribute his [sic] failure to a breakdown in
communication or to an inability to summon the necessary
degree of authority; or he may write the correctee off as
ignorant or incorrigible. At the worst, therefore the corrector
will only experience frustration or anger; he [sic] will not be
obliged to readjust in any fundamental way the particular
configuration of beliefs and values that mark him [sic] out as
a discrete and identifiable ‘person.’“
35
149. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U.
of Iowa), Speech Monographs, 1970, vol. 37, 102-103. “Now
by way of contrast, let us consider the case of the arguer who,
convinced that another’s beliefs are invalid or pernicious,
attempts to ‘set that party straight’ by engaging him [sic] in
argument. In what ways does the arguer’s method of
effecting correction differ from the coercive or constraining
sort of correction described above? First, and of crucial
importance, it should be observed that in this new situation
the lines of influence, instead of flowing only in one
direction, flow in two; that the corrective process, instead of
being unilateral, is bilateral. In choosing to argue with
another rather than employing some form of coercion to
achieve his [sic] end, the protagonist enters into an agreement
of a special sort; and this is to give his [sic] opponent an
opportunity to correct him [sic], not only by presenting the
other side of the issue but also by probing the pertinence or
wisdom of the correction urged. Were this opportunity not
offered and implemented by appropriate behavior on the
antagonist’s part, the interchange would die aborning, and
even though the protagonist might present an abundance of
evidence to support his [sic] view, he still would be
attempting to gain his end unilaterally. Because argument is
bilateral—because as an essential aspect of its method the
antagonist is granted an opportunity to weigh the case
presented to him [sic] and to probe it for weaknesses or
errors—the correctee, instead of resting entirely with one
party, pass back and forth as each expounds his [sic] own
view and criticizes the view of the other. Now would the
protagonist as corrector have it otherwise. In selecting
argument as his [sic] instrument he announces to his [sic]
opponent and to the world that rather than seeking
compliance on any terms, he [sic] seeks a particular sort of
compliance—one which because it rests on understanding
and honors the principle of free choice may properly be
called “assent.” By employing only those facts and inferences
for which he [sic] is willing to be held responsible and by
granting his [sic] opponent an opportunity to consider and to
reply, the protagonist hopes that this party will, in effect,
come to correct himself [sic]; will, as a result of his [sic] own
efforts, see why his [sic] present view is wrong or the
proposed alternative superior.”
150. George Dell, 1958 (Speech Teacher, January, pg. 31)
Mr. Murphy says debaters should really believe their own
arguments, while Redding suggests "personal convictions are
irrelevant" to the "analytical" debater.4 The contest debater,
usually speaking before an expert critic judge, knows his
auditor does not necessarily believe the debater is voicing his
personal opinion. The writer would suggest that alternation of
sides would more closely approximate reflective thinking for
the speaker than intentional reasoning.1 Thus, the debater
would be more likely to see the validity of the opposition's
arguments and he would realize each side has somewhat of a
"vested interest" in the respective position or case it upholds.
151. Gordon Mitchell & Takeshi Suzuki , 2004 (BEYOND
THE DAILY ME: ARGUMENTATION IN AN AGE OF
ENCLAVE DELIBERATION; Paper presented at the
Second Tokyo Conference on Argumentation; AUGUST 2-5,
2004,
http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchell
Suzuki3.rtf)Panoramic argument vision. The competitive
pressure of tournament competition encourages debaters
view the world through a wide-angle lens. In preparation for
tournament debating, it is crucial for debaters to anticipate
their opponents’ moves. This requires learning a wide array
of arguments that vary in both content and form. Further, the
rigorous dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a
panoramic style of critical thinking that elucidates subtle
interconnections among multiple positions and perspectives
on policy controversies. This same style of thinking is
extremely useful in public debates, where students are in a
good position to grasp and convey multifaceted controversies
to public audiences. This requires debaters to expect and
respect the heterogeneity of public argument, both
horizontally (across different viewpoints) and vertically (in
layers of depth on a single topic).
152. Douglas Ehninger (prof. of Speech Communication, U.
of Iowa), Speech Monographs, 1970, vol. 37, 103-104.
“Fourth, as contrasted with coercive correction, where the
attitude of the corrector is irrelevant, in argument the attitude
of the corrector is of crucial importance. In choosing
argument as his instrument the protagonist at the outset sets
himself off from the naked persuader, on the one hand, and
from the neutralist, on the other, by assuming a posture of
restrained partisanship. Because he [sic] believes that his
[sic] opponent labors in error, and believes this so strongly
that he [sic] is motivated to do something about it, he [sic]
patently is a partisan. At the same time, by selecting the
bilateral method of argument rather than the unilateral
method of argument rather than the unilateral method of
force or suggestion as his corrective tool, he [sic] voluntarily
places upon his effort limits which curb its persuasiveness. In
contracting to submit his [sic] directive to examination and
rebuttal, he [sic] sets his [sic] case on its own legs—asks that
it be given only that degree of credence which upon study it
is found to deserve. Instead of avoiding or short circuiting the
reflective process, the protagonist addresses it head on, and in
this sense stands poised between the desire to control and the
conviction that whatever control he [sic] achieves shall be
achieved only in the right way and for the right reason. The
antagonist also must play the role of a restrained partisan—
must stand poised between the desire to maintain his [sic]
present view and a willingness to accept the judgment which
a critical examination of that view yields. Bilaterality, in
brief, while a necessary condition for argument, is not a
sufficient one. In addition, there must be a consciously
induced state of intellectual and moral tension, precariously
maintained in the face of strong drives to thwart it. When
such tension is absent the motive to effect or to resist
correction is lacking and no interchange occurs.
36
153. Tom Farrell, 1985 (Journal of Communication, August,
pg. 114) Of course, there is more to be said about
communicative action than that it is boundless and
unpredictable; otherwise, it would be unintelligible as well.
In practice, we (that is, the interactants in an episode) set
certain bounds, or horizons for interpretation, so that a
succession of utterances can be made into a “sequence” of
utterances: so that we can understand what “went on.” And
also, in practice, we try not so much to predict as to
anticipate general themes, topics, and issues in the talk of
others, for a multitude of reasons. As Kenneth Burke would
probably say, there is form or coherence throughout
communicative action partly because we expect that there
will be. Much has been written from the so-called “rules
approach” about the various sanctions and strictures that can
be made relevant to natural discourse. We know, for instance,
that some rules are encounter-specific, whereas others are
rooted in the form-of-life assumptions of a culture. We know
that some rules can be invented, invoked, or bracketed with
the consent of interactants. Still others can carry considerable
regulatory force. In general, the rules perspective has
complemented the aesthetic understanding of communication
texts with an appreciation of the ethical domain of
communication practice (see, e.g., 6, 9, 22).
154. Darren Hicks & Ron Greene, 2000 (Argument at
Century’s End: Reflecting on the Past and Envisioning the
Future, ed. By Tom Hollihan, 2000; 303-304) Day’s rejection
of the administrative logic and situational ethics underwriting
the defenses of switch-side debating was in no way, however,
an endorsement of the ethics of the platform. He argued that
the “rhetoric of commitment” (Eubanks & Baker, 1962)
animating Murphy’s and Ehninger’s attacks not only
misunderstood the method of democratic decision-making
but could engender anti-democratic prejudices. While
sincerity criterion is appropriate for judging regarding the
relationship between candidates and the issues they advocate,
Day contended that it is wholly inappropriate for deciding the
questions of value and social policy facing participants in
deliberative forums. The only ethical norm intrinsic to
deliberation over substantive issues, according to Day, is the
full and free expression of ideas. Moreover, Day suspected
that privileging an ethic of conviction would result in the
covert suppression of minority views. Debaters required to
argue from their personal convictions would have no duty to
present views which differed from their own, in fact, they
would be prohibited from doing so. Given the ego
involvement accompanying personal conviction, Day feared
that one-sided debating would further entrench the
recalcitrance towards expressing unpopular opinions.
Furthermore, a forensics pedagogy modeled on rhetoric of
personal conviction, a pedagogy prioritizes an individual’s
commitment to a particular vision of the good over the
technology of democratic decision-making would inculcate a
conception of citizenship grounded in self-interest and
authoritative tradition.
155. Star Muir 1993 [professor of communication studies @
George Mason University. “A Defense of the Ethic of
Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3]
The values of tolerance and fairness implicit in t h e
m e t a p h o r of debate as game, are idealistic in nature. They
have a much greater chance of success, however, in an
activity that requires students to examine and understand
both sides of an issue. In his description of debating
societies, Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence
of unreasoned opinion, and summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the rule stands, you are saddled with
the side you disapprove, and so you are forced, by regard for your
own fame, to argue out, to feel with, to elaborate completely, the
case as it stands against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do
you not turn up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many
new difficulties take form before your eyes! how many
superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo, under the
glance of your enforced eclecticism! ... It is as a means of melting
down this museum of premature petrifactions into living and
impressionable soul that we insist on their utility.
156. Darren Hicks & Ron Greene, 2000 (Argument at
Century’s End: Reflecting on the Past and Envisioning the
Future, ed. By Tom Hollihan, 2000; 303-304) If debate as a
technology of decision-making and self-formation is imbued
with ethical substance, it follows that its conditions,
procedures, and results are also conceptualized in ethical
terms. For instance, as Day (1966) argues, the "prime1
requisite which must be met if debate is to provide sound
decisions is that it be thorough and complete, that all
arguments and information relevant to a decision be known
and understood" (p. 6). Day's commitment to free speech is
based on a radical reading of Mill: Freedom of expression
entails more than lifting prior restraints on argumentation. It
necessitates that the construction of avenues of access for
minority views within dominant media outlets and, if
necessary, the restructuring of deliberative forums so
minority views will not be rejected outright because they
challenge hegemonic methods of interpretation. "Free speech
is the necessary prerequisite of full debate [because] it
guarantees that full debate can take place" (p. 6). Yet,
freedom of speech does not guarantee that full debate will
take place. In this gap between opportunity and outcome Day
discovers the ethical demand of democratic debate: "A
commitment to debate as the method of democratic decisionmaking demands an overriding ethical responsibility to
promote the full confrontation of opposing opinions,
arguments, and information relevant to decision. Without the
confrontation of opposing ideas debate does not exist, and to
the extent that the confrontation is incomplete so is debate
incomplete" (p. 6).
37
157. George Dell, 1958 (Speech Teacher, January, pg. 31) It
is not clear that a team's debating both sides has any
connection with a policy of keeping inquiry free. One
wonders whether free inquiry is better upheld by debating
only one side of a question? Would it not be easier for the
debater to take the popular side, which is usually the negative
on a proposition of policy, since the presumption is in favor
of the negative? This argument would seem to be pertinent to
the 1954-1955 "Red China" proposition when some schools
refused to debate the affirmative side. Mr. Murphy says
debaters should really believe their own arguments, while
Redding suggests "personal convictions are irrelevant" to the
"analytical" debater.4 The contest debater, usually speaking
before an expert critic judge, knows his [sic their] auditor
does not necessarily believe the debater is voicing [sic their]
his personal opinion. The writer would suggest that
alternation of sides would more closely approximate
reflective thinking for the speaker than intentional
reasoning.1 Thus, the debater would be more likely to see the
validity of the opposition's arguments and he would realize
each side has somewhat of a "vested interest" in the
respective position or case it upholds.
158. Star Muir 1993 [professor of communication studies @
George Mason University. “A Defense of the Ethic of
Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3]
[Star, “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,”
Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3] The values of tolerance
and fairness implicit in the metaphor of debate as game, are
idealistic in nature. They have a much greater chance of
success, however, in an activity that requires students to
examine and understand both sides of an issue. In his
description of debating societies, Robert Louis Stevenson
questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion, and
summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the
rule stands, you are saddled with the side you disapprove,
and so you are forced, by regard for your own fame, to argue
out, to feel with, to elaborate completely, the case as it stands
against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn
up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many new
difficulties take form before your eyes! how many
superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo, under the
glance of your enforced eclecticism! ... It is as a means of
melting down this museum of premature petrifactions into
living and impressionable soul that we insist on their utility.
159. Star Muir 1993 [professor of communication studies @
George Mason University. “A Defense of the Ethic of
Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 292-3]
[Star, “A Defense of the Ethic of Contemporary Debate,”
Philosophy and Rhetoric pg 291-2] Firm moral commitment
to a value system, however, along with a sense of moral
identity, is founded in reflexive assessments of multiple
perspectives. Switch-side debate is not simply a matter of
speaking persuasively or organizing ideas clearly (although it
does involve these), but of understanding and mobilizing
arguments to make an effective case. Proponents of debating
both sides observe that the debaters should prepare the best
possible case they can, given the facts and information
available to them.52 This process, at its core, involves critical
assessment and evaluation of arguments; it is a process of
critical thinking not available with many traditional teaching
methods.53 We must progressively learn to recognize how
often the concepts of others are discredited by the concepts
we use to justify ourselves to ourselves. We must come to see
how often our claims are compelling only when expressed in
our own egocentric view. We can do this if we learn the art
of using concepts without living in them. This is possible
only when the intellectual act of stepping outside of our own
systems of belief has become second nature, a routine and
ordinary responsibility of everyday living. Neither academic
schooling nor socialization has yet addressed this moral
responsibility," but switch-side debating fosters this type of
role playing and generates reasoned moral positions based in
part on values of tolerance and fairness. Yes, there may be a
dangerous sense of competitive pride that comes with
successfully advocating a position against one's own views,
and there are ex-debaters who excuse their deceptive practices by saying "I'm just doing my job." Ultimately, however,
sound convictions are distinguishable from emphatic
convictions by a consideration of all sides of a moral stance.
Moral education is not a guaranteed formula for rectitude, but
the central tendencies of switch-side debate are in line with
convictions built on empathic appreciation for alternative
points of view and a reasoned assessment of arguments both
pro and con. Tolerance, as an alternative to dogmatism, is
preferable, not because it invites a relativistic view of the
world, but because in a framework of equal access to ideas
and equal opportunities for expression, the truth that emerges
is more defensible and more justifiable. Morality, an
emerging focal point of controversy in late twentieth-century
American culture. is fostered rather than hampered by
empowering students to form their own moral identity.
160. Tom Farrell, 1985 (Journal of Communication, August,
pg. 118) Although both conversation and rhetoric occur with
the natural unfolding of encounter-time (the ongoing lifehistory of communicators), one of these communicative
forms is presumed to be shaped, at least in part, by the prior
preparation of an author. That form, obviously, is rhetorical.
This prior “preparedness” is often misread as manipulation.
But as I have tried to show elsewhere, we often consent to
just such prepared direction of our collective “time” in many
a social forum (11, pp. 277-279). I should add that there are
many other relevant “phenomenal” differences among
rhetoric and its generic counterparts. Rhetoric is typically
disputational, positional, instrumental in its aims,
presumptuous in its methods, and so forth. My point is only
that these other characteristics actually reinforces the
necessity for some “thinking ahead” throughout the process
of rhetorical engagement.
38
161. Tom Farrell, 1985 (Journal of Communication, August,
pg.
114)
Of course, there is more to be said about communicative
action than that it is boundless and unpredictable; otherwise,
it would be unintelligible as well. In practice, we (that is, the
interactants in an episode) set certain bounds, or horizons for
interpretation, so that a succession of utterances can be made
into a “sequence” of utterances: so that we can understand
what “went on.” And also, in practice, we try not so much to
predict as to anticipate general themes, topics, and issues in
the talk of others, for a multitude of reasons. As Kenneth
Burke would probably say, there is form or coherence
throughout communicative action partly because we expect
that there will be. Much has been written from the so-called
“rules approach” about the various sanctions and strictures
that can be made relevant to natural discourse. We know, for
instance, that some rules are encounter-specific, whereas
others are rooted in the form-of-life assumptions of a culture.
We know that some rules can be invented, invoked, or
bracketed with the consent of interactants. Still others can
carry considerable regulatory force. In general, the rules
perspective has complemented the aesthetic understanding of
communication texts with an appreciation of the ethical
domain of communication practice (see, e.g., 6, 9, 22).
162. Gordon Mitchell and Takeshi Suzuki 2004 (BEYOND
THE DAILY ME: ARGUMENTATION IN AN AGE OF
ENCLAVE DELIBERATION; Paper presented at the
Second Tokyo Conference on Argumentation; AUGUST 2-5,
2004, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/ MitchellSuzuki3.rtf)
Panoramic argument vision. The competitive pressure of
tournament competition encourages debaters view the world
through a wide-angle lens. In preparation for tournament
debating, it is crucial for debaters to anticipate their
opponents’ moves. This requires learning a wide array of
arguments that vary in both content and form. Further, the
rigorous dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a
panoramic style of critical thinking that elucidates subtle
interconnections among multiple positions and perspectives
on policy controversies. This same style of thinking is
extremely useful in public debates, where students are in a
good position to grasp and convey multifaceted controversies
to public audiences. This requires debaters to expect and
respect the heterogeneity of public argument, both
horizontally (across different viewpoints) and vertically (in
layers of depth on a single topic).
163. Rendall, 1977 (Philosophy & Rhetoric, Summer 1977;
pg. 166) (This passage poses fundamental questions
concerning the necessity, conditions, and method of
philosophical dialogue, and I shall begin by examining
Plato's response to them. The first point I should like to make
has to do with the relation between the dialogue form and
Plato's conception of philosophy. The reason Socrates must
have an interlocutor is not, of course, that he literally cannot
speak without replies, but because neither he nor his audience
will benefit from his speaking if there are no replies. The
purpose of philosophical discussion, for Socrates, is to
inquire into truth, not to state it, and inquiry demands assent
or correction: it is a cooperative enterprise.' From Socrates'
point of view, the most important service an interlocutor can
do him is to correct any false assertions he may make, while
the interlocutor's assent is a partial confirmation of Socrates'
opinions (487). On the other hand, the interlocutor's active
participation and assent to each step of the argument —
which make it his own argument as well - are essential to
realizing the main goal of the dialogue, which is to change
the participants, to convert them to a different view of the
issues involved and of the world in general.4 As Socrates
says to Polus, the second interlocutor, "If I fail to produce
you yourself as my sole witness to testify to the truth of my
statements. I shall think that I've accomplished nothing of
importance toward solving the matter under discussion"
(472). Solving the matter under discussion, it turns out,
involves nothing less than a total reorientation of Polus'
conception of reality.5 The implication of Socrates' view of
philosophical activity is that the mere exposition of a thesis,
however true, is of no benefit to either the expositor or the
audience. If the thesis is not examined and accepted by both
parties, nothing has been accomplished. ' Thus, later in the
dialogue, Socrates tells Calliclcs that his purpose is to make
Callicles change his mind and "choose a life that is ordered
and content with what it has in place of one of insatiable selfindulgence" (472). The Socratic dialogue seeks not merely to
formulate true propositions but also to change a way of life: it
has, that is, an existential, ethical aim. The discussion of
rhetoric in. the Gorgias becomes in Socrates' hands a
discussion of the goals of human existence. "Our
conversation," Socrates tells Callicles, "is on the subject
which should engage the most serious attention of anyone
who has a particle of intelligence: in what way should one
live one's life?" (500). Dialogue and dialectic are for Socrates
ethical as well1 as cognitive enterprises. The ethical focus of
philosophical activity demands that it take the form of
dialogue because it requires the total engagement of the
interlocutor, not merely his respectful attention. "
164. Bizzell & Herzberg, 1990 (The Rhetorical Tradition; pg.
926) Bakhtin accepts Saussure's semiotic assumption that
communication-takes place through arbitrary signs: There is,
in other words, no inherent meaning in the sounds or symbols
of language. But Bakhtin objects to Saussure's assumption
that the sole purpose of linguistics is to analyze the way that
these signs fit together into a system. Bakhtin charges (rather
unfairly, to be sure) that the chief virtue of structural
linguistics is to provide an object of scientific study for
linguists. Structural descriptions, he complains, do not
explain the way language is actually used. The individual
utterance, in structural linguistics, is an isolated event rather
than a social act.
39
165. Mendelson & Lindeman, Iowa State University, 2000
(Argument at Century's End: Reflecting on the Past and
Envisioning the Future, ed. by Hollihan, 2000; 317)
Dialogical argument is as old as rhetoric itself. Before
Aristotle aligned rhetoric with logic, Protagoras and the
Sophists identified knowledge with the interaction of
opposing claims. For Protagoras, knowledge exists in relation
to human subjects and their place in the world; and since all
subjects inhabit different positions, our knowledge claims are
bound to differ. Any effort at human understanding will
therefore invoke the dialogue of conflicting opinions. The
Protagorean approach to argument is known as anti-logic it
was revised by Cicero, given a pedagogy by Quintilian, and
persists today in rhetorical theory (Mendelson). Dialogical
theory can also be traced to Existential philosophy,
specifically the work of Martin Buber, who argues that
genuine communication involves a two-way transaction
rather than one-way transmission. For Buber, dialogue is the
heart of the human condition, the means by which we
acknowledge the authenticity of others. Similar theories were
developed by Carl Rogers, whose approach to dialogue
invites views at variance from one's own, whereas traditional
argument concentrates on agreement with the speaker (Bator,
Brent). The Existential perspective in turn has influenced
scholars of speech communication. Richard Johannesen
argues that agreement with a speaker's claim is less important
to rhetoric than the "independent participation" of all parties.
Douglas Ehninger adds the complementary notion that lines
of influence in argument flow in all directions, not just from
the rhetor. Other scholars theorize argument not as an object
with formal properties but as a praxis intended for the
resolution of conflict (Blair and Johnson). Formal logic is of
little help in this process because the dynamics of dialogical
exchange overwhelm static propositions.