AT T for All Cases

Kara Sea Affirmative

AT Substantially T (Without Anderson et al 5 interp)

1.) We Meet: We increase ocean development by a large margin in one
area, but the tech can be useful in many places. We simply begin with
where an eminent problem lies under the waves.
2.) Counter Interpretation In the resolution, substantially is an
adverb to the verb increase. Grammar is the prerequisite to
defining a word. Here is the correct definition of substantially as
an adverb, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English
Substantially:
Syllabification: substantially
Pronunciation: /sbstan(t)SHl /

ADVERB
1:

To a great or significant extent:

profits grew substantially

[AS SUBMODIFIER]: substantially higher earnings

3.) We meet our Counter Interpretation: We increase investment

towards cleaning the radioactive waste in the Kara Sea from
nothing to a complete and overarching project.
4.) On to the standards debate:
a. Limits: the affirmative claims that there are so many
locations that we need to prevent specification of location,
but our limit works better for both the affirmative and the
negative. We have to specify a location because very few
problems are all over the world, for example there is not
nuclear waste on the Atlantic Sea bed. But we also correct
for the infinite affs by providing a definition that requires
the affirmative increases oceanic development to a large
extent.
b. Balanced ground: By preventing us from specifying our
location, they force us to create an affirmative that is useful
in every area of the ocean, which is just ridiculous. Also,
specifying location doesnt really kill that much negative
ground. They still have their Ks Das and CPs. Make them tell
you what they lost.
c. Real World Focus: Policy-Makers dont make substantial
investments in a project that might someday be used
across the Board. When authorizing large sums of money
to be used to develop something, they develop it in a place,
for a purpose. We provide the most real-world definition,
which is key to useful education
5.) Voting Issues:
a.) Fairness: By destroying our cases, there is no way for us to
win
b.) Education: There is no competitive equity if the negative can
just opt out of individual cases- and gain leverage from it
6.) Reasonability Dont treat T as a DA, we cant turn topicality, so it
is much less of a risk to run as a negative. Therefore, dont vote us
down even if we are a 50 percent topical, its a yes or no argument,
are we topical or not- there is no partially topical as the neg
argues.
7.) Competing Interpretations creates a race to the bottom, making
ever more pointless debates as the negative tries to limit
definitions more and more- becoming more arbitrary

AT Substantially T (Anderson et al 5 Across the board

interp)
1.) We Meet: We increase ocean development by a large margin in one
area, but the tech can be used across the board.
2.) Counter Interpretation In the resolution, substantially is an
adverb to the verb increase. Grammar is the prerequisite to
defining a word. Here is the correct definition of substantially as
an adverb, according to the Oxford Dictionary of English
substantially
Syllabification: substantially
Pronunciation: /sbstan(t)SHl /

ADVERB
1:

To a great or significant extent:

profits grew substantially

[AS SUBMODIFIER]: substantially higher earnings

3.) We Meet our Counter Interpretation: We increase investment

towards cleaning the radioactive waste in the Kara Sea to
completely clean up the radioactive waste
4.) And here is why you should prefer the affirmative interpretation
even before looking to the standards debate. We provided a
dictionary definition with grammatical context. Our opponents
read an Anderson et al 5 card as their interpretation, but this card
is power-tagged. At the beginning of the card, where they claim
the supreme court clarified the word substantially is actually part
of a clarification enclosed in quotations, indicating the author did
not mean for it to be broken up. Here is what their card actually
reads
The issue Does it substantially limit the major life activity? was
clarified by the US Supreme Court decision on January 8th, 2002 , Toyota v.
Williams. In this labor related case, the Supreme Court noted that to
meet the substantially limit definition, the disability must occur
across the board in multiple environments, not only in one environment or one setting. The
implications for school related 504 eligibility decisions are clear: The
disability in question must be manifested in all facets of the students life, not only in school.

In every instance where the negative read the word substantially,

it was part of a larger clarification enclosed in quotations the
negative omitted.
5.) On to the standards debate:
a. Limits: the affirmative claims that there are so many
locations that we need to prevent specification of location,
but our limit works better for both the affirmative and the
negative. We have to specify a location because very few
problems are all over the world, for example there is not
nuclear waste on the Atlantic Sea bed. But we also correct
for the infinite affs by providing a definition that requires
the affirmative increases oceanic development to a large
extent.
b. Balanced ground: By preventing us from specifying our
location, they force us to create an affirmative that is useful
in every area of the ocean, which is just ridiculous. Also,
specifying location doesnt really kill that much negative
ground. They still have their Ks Das and CPs. Make them tell
you what they lost.
c. Real World Focus: Policy-Makers dont make substantial
investments in a project that might someday be used
across the Board. When authorizing large sums of money
to be used to develop something, they develop it in a place,
for a purpose. We provide the most real-world definition,
which is key to useful education
6.) Voting Issues:
c.) Fairness: By destroying our cases, there is no way for us to
win
d.) Education: There is no competitive equity if the negative can
just opt out of individual cases- and gain leverage from it
7.) Reasonability Dont treat T as a DA, we cant turn topicality, so it
is much less of a risk to run as a negative. Therefore, dont vote us
down even if we are a 50 percent topical, its a yes or no argument,
are we topical or not- there is no partially topical as the neg
argues.
8.) Competing Interpretations creates a race to the bottom, making
ever more pointless debates as the negative tries to limit
definitions more and more- becoming more arbitrary

A/T Development
1. We Meet:
Our plan increases the technology within the Kara Sea to clean
radiation- their definition of increase as development is met by the US
as it cooperates with Russia to build scientific equipment within the
ocean for cleaning the radiation.
2. Counter Interpretation:
The EPA, within the USFG, directly calls Radiation Cleanup
development
EPA 10 [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), charged with the development of clean
techniques to solve environmental crises within the United States and Abroad]
EPA's Radiation Site Cleanup Program uses the best available science to develop risk assessment
tools and guidance for cleaning up sites that are contaminated with radioactive materials.
The EPA specifically develops land and sea contaminated by radiation for an increase in
biodiversity and living capabilities.

(Optional) Development is change for improvement

MacMillan Dictionary [No date on website, MacMillan dictionary provides definitions
from English majors across the united states]
Development can be the production, or change, growth, or improvement of a
circumstance or system over a period of time

(Optional) Development includes use of scientific and technical

knowledge to complete an objective, such as safety
Business Dictionary [Business Dictionary, English department presents definitions for
support and consolidation with law students and business students across the country]
1. The systematic use of scientific and technical knowledge to meet specific objectives
or requirements.
2. An extension of the theoretical or practical aspects of a concept, design, discovery, or
invention.
3. The process of economic and social transformation that is based on complex cultural and
environmental factors and their interactions.
4. The process of adding improvements to a parcel of land or area of sea, such as
grading, subdivisions, drainage, access, roads, utilities, or safety maneuvers.

3. We meet the counterdefinition:

Our affirmative directly develops the ocean by our definitions as
well, using scientific processes to improve the conditions of the kara
sea.

4. Counter Standards:
a.) Limits: Dont buy the negative complaints here, our definition
limits us in obvious ways. Many affirmatives dont just outright build a
power plant or a refinery within the ocean- but by the negatives
definition these would be the only affs available. Just as how fisheries
are agreed as a very topical aff this year, so are we- we increase
biodiversity within the region, just as fisheries increase fish. (if anything
were more topical)
b.) Grounds: The neg still has access to a huge number of
environment DAs, International Coop DAs, and infinitely many CPs and
Ks just to name a few- they have just as much ground as with any other
aff
5. Answer Standards
6. Voting Issues
a.) Fairness: Restricting affirmatives to only one type of
development greatly restricts their ability to win, leading to a huge
difference in fairness among sides.
b.) Education: We provide the best education, by confining the aff
to a certain specific interpretation provided by the neg, it restricts
affirmative thought and cases to only a few generic ones- not providing
good debate.
7. Answer Voting issues
8. Reasonability- Dont treat T as a DA, we cant turn topicality, so it is
much less of a risk to run as a negative. Therefore, dont vote us down
even if we are a 50 percent topical, its a yes or no argument, are we
topical or not- there is no partially topical as the neg argues.
9. Competing Interpretations creates a race to the bottom, making ever
more pointless debates as the negative tries to limit definitions more
and more- becoming more arbitrary

A/T Exploration

A/T Oceans
1. We Meet:
Definition of Sea is the same as oceans- they are interchangeable
Merriam Webster 14("Ocean." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2014.
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ocean>.)SJC
1a :

(The Sea is) the whole body of salt water that covers nearly three fourths of the
earth

surface of the

Oxford Dictionary 14
The expanse of salt water that covers most of the earths surface and surrounds its land
masses

We meet their interpretation, oceans and seas are essentially the same
word- used since ancient times for the same purpose- oxford and
Merriam Webster both agree.
2. Conterinterpretation:
Sea can both be a synonym of the ocean, and a geographical part of the
ocean- both interpretations are topical
Seas are part of Oceans
NOAA 14(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Whats the difference between an ocean and a sea?, March
25, 2014]

What's the difference between an ocean and a sea? In terms of geography, a sea is part of the
ocean partially enclosed by land, but is also defined as the same thing as the ocean.

3. We Meet the CI:

Even if you prefer the definition that seas are a part of the oceans, that
still is topical. Its impossible to develop the ENTIRE ocean. Most aff
plans only operate on the Outer Continental Shelf, which some
geographical scientists claim are only a part of the ocean- but the US can
only operate upon the OCS- which would greatly limit aff choices- same
applies to seas. Because its a part of the ocean means that its included
in the definition of the ocean.
4. Counter Standards:
a.) Limits: The negative greatly limits affirmative ground- we
cannot access any aff that advocates something that is a part of
the ocean- which is pretty much every extremely topical aff out
there- (fisheries, OCS drilling, oil, rare earth etc)
b.) Grounds: The neg has all its possible DAs, CPs, and Ks, they lose
NO ground from this interpretation- let them list off what they
lose
5. Answer Standards
6. Voting Issues:
e.) Fairness: By destroying our cases, there is no way for us to win
f.) Education: There is no competitive equity if the negative can
just opt out of individual cases- and gain leverage from it
7. Answer Voting Issues

A/T Its
We meet- We own the plan as the EPA is directly doing the plan, no
argument here- we meet their interpretation and definition
Counter define (If needed) Its means relating to itself
Oxford English Dictionary ND http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/100354?redirectedFrom=its#eid PS
A. adj. Possessive adjective (determiner) corresponding to it pron. (originally the possessive use of the genitive of the
pronoun). Of it; which belongs or relates to it. Also refl.: of itself; which belongs

or relates to itself, its own.

We meet as our plan relates to the BOEM

They lose no ground on Its, as they can still run free market counterplans and disads
relating to that
We meet both definitions, so we are topical, and even if you dont buy that were 100%
topical, vote on reasonability. Even if were the slightest bit topical, dont vote us down on T.

A/T ASPEC/Agent CPs

The EPA is solely responsible for nuclear waste cleanup abroad through
its new Superfund Program- no other agency handles high radiation
areas
EPA 10 [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), charged with the development of clean
techniques to solve environmental crises within the United States and Abroad]
The total number of sites contaminated with radionuclides around the world is in the
thousands. Contaminated sites range in size from corners of laboratories to sprawling nuclear weapons
facilities covering many square miles of land. The contamination extends to all environmental media, as well as
to on site buildings and equipment. For many contaminated sites, cleanup programs have already

been established. The following is an overview of the major cleanup programs in the US. EPA's Radiation
Protection program established the Superfund Program for both remedial and removal
actions at radiologically contaminated sites, involving state of the art scientific technology.
Removal sites are those sites that require quicker action, based on threats to public health and welfare or the
environment, than remedial sites, which typically allow for more planning time. Superfund maintains the
National Priority List of chemically and radiologically contaminated sites. Its primary purpose is to

identify, for states and the public, which facilities, sites, or releases warrant remedial
actions. EPA is the only government agency to handle radiologically contaminated sites and
does so with knowledge of its importance of global safety. (Removal sites are not listed by name,
because they are typically shorter in duration than remedial sites.) EPA maintains a database (called CERCLIS)
of all reported potentially hazardous releases to the environment. Of over 37,000 entries in CERCLIS, 1231 are
listed as NPL sites. Seventy-six are radioactively contaminated (although many were actually listed because of
their chemically-hazardous contamination rather than their radioactivity).

Their agent CP holds no link, and is simply bad policy. Only the EPA
handles radiation leakage- and has the new technology specified in our
solvency evidence- the only way for the neg to access another agent of
action is by creating another agency, which would only be more time
wasted as the deadly radiation leaks into the ocean.