India has seen a massive rise in the consumption of fast food over the recent few years. Various factors have influenced Indian market to lean towards fast food culture. The study reveals the impact and banning of fast food among adolescent girls. Ma
Extra Topicality Good (( Thanks to Jen Davidson for the “Extra T is legit” reasons. ))
1. Increases Ground - - Allows for more disad links and CP ground from the random other things the plan does 2. Increases Education - - It It tells us about more more things than having the same debate on a more limited area over and over 3. Not a reason to reject - - Even if the plan plan takes more action than specifically specifically mandated by the resolved, it isn’t isn’t exclusive. There is no word such as ‘only’ in there 4. Doesn’t hurt ground - - Plan still support the resolved, resolved, so the neg still get their links, plan just does other stuff too 5. Increases Predictability - - The more plan does, the easier it is is to find the case in the literature 6. More Real World - - All bills do more than just a sentence of work, work, they have more than one advantage, or no one would pass them 7. Overlimits - - Not a case has no action action outside of resolved, signing the bill bill and hiring people for implementation isn’t explicitly called for -but is needed 8. Court Analogy - - Judges Judges can open up their jurisdiction jurisdiction in response to cases which hold particular interest
Affirmative Counterstandards Counterstandards I.
Reasonability
Quick Summary Quick Summary: The negative can always find some definition that the affirmative doesn’t meet, we should rather accept any reasonable interpretation of terms. Longer Explanation: Since words have many meanings, negatives n egatives can always find definitions/interpretations that affirmatives don’t meet; there is a lways some standard that can be set so that the affirmative fails to meet it. Instead of looking for the most limiting interpretation, the judge should accept any reasonable interpretation of the term(s). Reasonable interpretations still provide opportunities for the solid negative arguments.
II.
Field Contextuality Contextuality
Quick Summary Quick Summary: Terms should be taken to mean what they are understood to mean in the topic they are being used in. Longer Explanation: Terms should be taken to mean what hey are generally assumed to mean in the topic specific literature. Affirmative teams will often find topic-specific meanings when researching their affirmative case and advocate these in the debate round.
III. III.
Affirmat Affirmative ive Predicta Predictabili bility ty
Quick Summary Quick Summary: The affirmative is not at all able to predict every weird definition a negative may come up with. Longer Explanation: Affirmative teams cannot fairly predict every odd definition of a term that the negative could read. Interpretations of the topic should be limited to common-sense meanings.
IV. IV.
AT: Edu Educat cation ional al Value Value
Quick Summary Quick Summary: Truly learning does not come from being confined to learn about one single isolated topic with out being able to talk about anything else or being b eing able to see the topic in context.
Longer Explanation: The negatives interpretation of what “educational value” comes from is completely misguiding, because if we were non-topical, being educated does not come from being confined to talk about “X” topic and anything outside of that is not allowed and will be sternly discouraged; not at all! Learning comes from a diversity of subjects and a variety of information. Additionally, we need to look at the surroundings of a topic to be able to grasp a better understanding about where the topic fits in the happenings of the world today.
V.
Affirm Affirmati ative’ ve’ss Right Right to Define Define
Quick Summary Quick Summary: The affirmative sets the pace of the round and we are given the right to define terms within a reasonable and contextually acceptable manner. Longer Explanation: As the affirmative team, we set what the round is going to be about. We are the ones who provide the case to debate, the facet of the resolution to discuss, et cetera. This is not said in a prideful manner, but we are given the right to define terms within a reasonable and contextually acceptable manner.
