l NC

Sub A: Definition -

The act of using; the application or employment of something for a purpose

Sub B: Violation

The affirmative limits the ability of a country or group to obtain weapons of mass destruction (WMD) not to use WMD.

Sub C: Standards

1. Each Word
2. Grammar
3. Best Definition

Sub D: Voter

1. Jurisdiction

2. Fairness

3. Tradition

 2 AC

Sub A Answers

l. the affirmative has defined use in the case, and the negative has not shown why the affirmative definition is bad; they have only proposed another definition

Sub B Answers

1. We meet - The affirmative does stop the use of WMD, because if a nation does have WMD it cannot use them.

2. Violation not meet neg standards - The negative does not show why there definition is more precise or gives the resolution more grammatical meaning.

Sub C Answers

1.  The aff has the right to define - As the advocates in this debate, the aff has the right to define terms

2.  Reasonability- The aff not need to provide the best definition, only a reasonable one

3. Debatability - The aff need only provide definitions that allow for clash

4. Literature checks abuse- Since their is literature on both sides of this issue; the neg has evidence that they could read

Sub D Answers

1. Leeway - Since topicality is an all or nothing position for the aff, you must be 100% sure we are non-topical.  If not, you should give us leeway

2.  Decreases educational value - Topicality takes time away from the substantive issues of today's debate, and therefore should not be a voting issue

 l NR

Sub A Ans to Ans

l. The violation and standards show why the aff definition is bad

2. Arguments on the standards will show which definition is better

Sub B Ans to Ans

1.  The plan is judge by the action of the plan, the plan only stops the ability to obtain WMD, therefore, it is not topical

2. There are cases that meet the use criteria - NMD for example

1. We meet our own standard, the explanation with each standard shows why our def meets the standards

2.  Aff burden - Neg has no topicality burden; the affirmative plan must fall within the resolution not neg definitions

Sub C Ans To Ans

1. Aff right to define not absolute

2. Neg can counter define

3. Standards show which def is best

1. It is not reasonable to moot the meaning of a term

2. Why settle for a reasonable definition when the best definition would improve the debate and be better

1. This definition is not debatable, just because we could find evidence does not mean we would.

2. Negative came prepared to debate the correct topic not non-topical cases

1. Just because their is literature on the other side of the issue does not make the aff topical

2. Topicality is a core issue of the debate and is an aff burden that must be met

Sub D Ans To Ans

1. No leeway should be given, either the aff is topical or not; if the case is not in your jurisdiction it should not be heard

2. Do not reward debaters who try to avoid the major issues on the topic

1. Topicality teaches us about grammar, language construction, and the role of language in persuasion, it is a very important issue.