Where to get started?
The resolution is out and I think it should be a really fascinating year of debate. Domestic transportation policy is something almost all of us are affected by on a daily basis yet we often do not get to really explore why highways are like they are or why trains run like they do…
One of the reasons I’m a big advocate of programs doing both parliamentary debate and NFA-LD debate is that so many of the skills overlap (yet, the events are distinct). As the new topic is released in NFA-LD I think the same skills parliamentary debaters use when receiving a topic can be helpful. While I’ve discussed before briefly thoughts about how to get started on a topic here here are some thoughts for this year on the topic…
Let’s see the actor is the United States Federal Government (USFG). Pretty straightforward – but start thinking about where in USFG you’ll be able to get material. There are house and senate committees on transportation policy – that’d be a good place to start. I found the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 (committee blueprint – news) which may very well be a great case for this year – that is, as long as it doesn’t pass anytime soon
The direction is where, I anticipate, most of the topicality battles will be done next year. Reform is a pretty ambiguous term and unless someone finds a stellar definition somewhere (and if you do, submit to the definition database!) on what it means to reform domestic transportation infrastructure it’s going to be messy like last year’s constructive engagement topic. But that’s OK – I would just make sure that for any case you start to write that the topicality reform is solid before you start. Think about how is this case reform and try really really hard to find something in the literature that says your case is specifically “reform“.
The final key part of understanding the topic is the subject – domestic transportation infrastructure. It’s pretty clear we have to talk about something within the United States – but how far does domestic go? Can it be something in a US territory? You’ll want to cover your topicality base there if your case does anything outside the 50 states. Transportation infrastructure seems like it could be treated as a term of art or phrase where we’d just look at defining the phrase not the individual words. So what does transportation infrastructure refer to? I imagine it excludes the actual transportation parts – like cars or planes or boats – instead focusing on what those parts travel on – like roads/bridges/airports/ports etc. I often do not think of my car as a part of the transportation infrastructure of the country but I could be wrong on that.
So I think the topic really boils down to understanding how those three parts of the topic are defined in the literature – USFG, reform, and “domestic transportation infrastructure.” If you spend at least a few hours researching those terms you will be well on your way to understanding the topic and getting some leads on possible case ideas.
What direction do you see this topic going?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
I see this topic as something akin to nuclear energy. It has enormous potential – both positive and negative – depending upon how – and if – it is regulated (interpreted by a “consensus” of the judging pool).
If a consensus of judges want a repeat of last year (IMHO, the “lost-on-T-party”), they will consistently vote for cases and plans which rely upon a word-by-word parsing of the topic, rather than coming to a consensus of acceptable definitions of OPERATIONAL PHRASES (“terms of art”):
What, for example, is the “best” interpretation of:
“USFG”
“substatially reform”
“domestic transportation infrastructure?”
Congress, it seems, implicitly addressed these issues when it defined the jurisdiction of the Committees that Danny has so insightfully posted.
My research indicates that, as terms of art in American law and government, “reform” is different from “increase” and/or “create,” and that – in the specific policy subcontext of transportation – “infrastructure” is distinct from “vehicle(s)” and “operation(s).”
I will start out by advocating such a POV. Whether anyone will listen is another matter.
It would be interesting – to say the least – to know how our brothers and sisters at Otterbein are coming along, and what “the powers that be” there think.
I’m no Danny, but did you know that the DOT has a specific “Office of Infrastructure?” It might be wise to bookmark that, too! Could be useful for “intent of the framers”-type arguments (not to mention as required reading for the “let’s get real” crowd of debate judge/philologists… such as Yours Truly).
Sorry! That’s http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure
Danny: I STILL need an “edit” feature (obviously). 
And, as for linking this topic to “alternative-fuel vehicles” to this year’s topic, try today’s Wall Street Journal article, “Charging Infrastructure in Short Supply.” Looks like a “middle of the road” case to me!
I think it’ll be an interesting year to see what everyone comes up with. I think in respect to Topicalities, as far as it being a key strat for negative to run, it depends on the judge. I’m not interested in battling topicality unless becomes a serious issue in the round.
As far as Aff cases go..There are loopholes to the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. I know of them, you’ll just have to uncover them. Many people are probably thinking Econ or Politics DA, but we’ll see where that goes. I think the most important thing Neg needs to consider is what are the bad MPX’s of Plan passing because there are many. The Neg cannot fall into the trap of thinking plan cannot be funded because of Aff’s power of fiat.
its not that the plan can’t be funded its what that funding comes at the cost of, ie a trade off. I think that a funding disad should be run with the intention of not going for it if you are going to run it.
LATE THOUGHT: I count at least 7 – and most probably 8 – words and phrases in the topic that open up avenues for straight T arguments – not counting related issues like extra-topicality and potential language K’s. T WILL be a big issue, and I and mine are researching our butts off preparing for it.
FOR THE RECORD: And to make my position crystal clear: I have nothing against T arguments. I would not have been Top Speaker at NDT but for all the T and XT arguments I ran and won in 1969-70. However, IMHO, a T argument – especially because it is a de jure voting issue under NFA-LD Rules, and also because NT is a prima facie requirement for a CP – should be as well-researched, well-evidenced, well-structured, and well-delivered as any Plan, CP, and/or DA. My beef last year was – and always will be – with nit-picking, frivolous T arguments that few people – including the people making them – actually believed in. And, regardless of the subject matter, I have never liked listening to debaters who are simply reading arguments, written by someone else, and which they don’t understand.
FOR MONDAY: Read Danny’s T posts on this forum. Danny’s writings on T are EXCELLENT. I hope that, at the Clinic, I can add something to them, beginning with “How to research and the use evidence on T argument” (and other “procedurals”).
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This is going to be a big year for topicality.
USFG isn’t really a factor in T debates unless you’re running some crappy argument like ASPEC.
Reform and domestic transportation infrastructure will be the big cigars here with regards to T.
“Reform” is a really clunky and unwieldy word. I hate it. It not only makes the topic bidirectional (you can claim to “reform” infrastructure by *removing* something as opposed to adding something), there’s also very little in the literature that uses it as a term of art. Usually “reform” deals with abstract policies, not concrete objects.
I think a big question with the word “reform” is whether it implies a need for preexistence. A case to upgrade existing rail lines by electrifying them would probably be topical. A case to construct new HSR lines where none previously existed may be of some cause for concern. It’s all a matter of limits – there’s literally an infinite number of cases that could build new stuff. There’s a much more manageable number of cases that simply alters or upgrades existing infrastructure.
Domestic transportation infrastructure is, like Danny mentioned, the other key limiting point in topicality debates.
Domestic is a tricky word and might pose some problems. If airports are used for international travel, would upgrading Customs security in U.S. international airports be topical? It’s “in” the U.S. but deals with international routes, not domestic ones. Same thing with seaports affirmative that I’m cutting – would subjecting foreign-flagged cargo ships to new policies in U.S. seaports be topical? It’s an ambiguous question.
I agree with Danny – vehicles probably aren’t included in infrastructure. Both definitions I’ve posted so far exclude it, and it would just explode the topic otherwise.