Arizona Debate Institute 2009 1

Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Role

Topicality – 1NC scripted violations

Suggestions: If you are not sure whether any particular violation applies to an affirmative
case you are debating and you just want to run T to get links to a case turn or
disadvantage, you might want to combine and shorten the first three violations into one.

Index

Topicality – 1NC scripted violations............................................................................................1

Index................................................................................................................................................1
Plan Doesn’t Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 1/2...............................................2

Plan Doesn’t Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 2/2...............................................3

Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 1/2..................................................4
Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 2/2..................................................5
Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size 1/2...................................6
Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size 2/2...................................7
“Should” Requires Plan Advocacy...............................................................................................8
Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 1/2.........................................................................................9
Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 2/2.......................................................................................10
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 2
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Role

Plan Doesn’t Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 1/2

______ A. INTERPRETATION. The role of the US nuclear weapons arsenal is deterrence, preventing
attacks against the US or its allies.

“The” specifies a single role

CCNY Writing Center, 2004

City College of New York http://web.archive.org/web/20040412075454/
www.ccny.cuny.edu/writingcenter/articles.html, Last updated 3/23/04

The is a definite article, and identifies nouns in a particular or specific way, or refers to someone or
something that is one of a kind.

Give me the book on the table. (identifies a specific book)

The sun rose at seven o'clock. (identifies something that is one of a kind)

The role is deterrence

U.S. Defense and Energy Departments, 2008

National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century, September, http:
www.defenselink.mil/news/nuclearweaponspolicy.pdf, pp. 3-4

Within this more flexible portfolio, nuclear weapons are less prominent, but the roles
they play continue to be vital. The policies of successive U.S. administrations have
shown a marked continuity in the purposes assigned to nuclear forces. U.S. nuclear
forces have served, and continue to serve, to: 1) deter acts of aggression involving
nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction; 2) help deter, in concert with
general-purpose forces, major conventional attacks; and 3) support deterrence by holding
at risk key targets that cannot be threatened effectively by non-nuclear weapons. Because
of their immense destructive power, nuclear weapons, as recognized in the 2006 National
Security Strategy, deter in a way that simply cannot be duplicated by other weapons.
From the beginning, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has defended not only the United States and
its military forces, but also, and importantly, U.S. allies in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.
The role nuclear forces play in the deterrence of attack against allies remains an essential
instrument of U.S. nonproliferation policy by significantly reducing the incentives of a
number of allied countries to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Nuclear forces
continue to be a key element in U.S. alliances with other countries, for example, NATO
allies, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. In general, U.S. nuclear forces act as a counterbalance to the
military capabilities of hostile states that endanger international order.

Reduce and restrict means to decrease quantitatively and qualitatively.

Words and Phrases, 2002

Volume 36B, p. 80

The word “reduce” is its ordinary signification does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but to
diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state. Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363

Corpus Juris, 1931

Volume 54, p. 735

RESTRICT: To confine; to limit; to prevent (a person or thing) from passing a certain limit in any kind of
action; to restrain; to restrain without bounds.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 3
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Role

Plan Doesn’t Reduce and Restrict Nuclear Deterrence Role 2/2

B. VIOLATION. The plan increases or maintains the deterrence role of nuclear weapons, and does not
decrease it.
[Insert specific link such as: minimum deterrence claims submarine deterrence is as good or better than the triad;
Reliable Replacement Warhead program simply replaces old warheads with better warheads].

C. BETTER INTERPRETATION

____ Better Preparation and Limits. Their interpretation unlimits the topic by allowing hundreds more cases that
maintain or improve the current arsenal. Negatives can’t be prepared with case specific positions given that any
nuclear weapons policy changes could be topical. We learn less.

____ Better Clash and Ground. The negative should have the counterplan and disad ground to maintain or
improve the arsenal. We can have a clear debate between decreasing and increasing force levels, which makes
decision-making clear.

____ Communication. They moot the words “reduce and “restrict” by maintaining full deterrence. The topic could
have said just “change its policies toward.” Mooting words leads to misunderstanding, which blocks good
communication. Clear communication is needed for education, especially early in the debate season.

____ Bright Line Standard. Does the plan on its face decrease the deterrence role by eliminating weapons or
some possible use of them? Our test is fairer than their request that the judge make a subjective decision on this
issue.

D. VOTING ISSUE. For reasons of fairness, education and jurisdiction.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 4
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Missions

Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 1/2

______ A. INTERPRETATION. Nuclear mission is a specific type of task.

Oelrich, 2005, Director, Strategic Security Program, Federation of American Scientists

Ivan, Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War, January, http://
www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/armscontrol/missionsaftercwrptfull.pdf, p. 15

Before proceeding, we need two definitions: mission is used here to mean a specific type of task such as destroying
a particular type of target. Why one might want to destroy the target, the effect, is the objective or, using the
Administration's terminology, the goal. The distinction between missions and goals is important but is often
muddled in discussions of nuclear weapons. In the following discussion, deterrence,
for example, is not a mission of nuclear weapons. A mission for a nuclear system might be to be able to survive a
first strike and then launch against the striker, destroying its cities. The goal of this mission would be deterrence.

There are 15 missions of the US nuclear weapons arsenal.

Oelrich, 2005, Director, Strategic Security Program, Federation of American Scientists

Ivan, Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War, January, http://
www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/armscontrol/missionsaftercwrptfull.pdf, p. 16

Table 2
Nuclear Missions
1 Survive and fire back after nuclear attack against homeland (for retaliation/deterrence)
2 Survive and fire back after nuclear attack against allies (for retaliation/deterrence/assurance)
3 Survive and fire back after chem/bio attack against homeland (for retaliation/deterrence)
4 Survive and fire back after chem/bio attack against allies (for assurance/retaliation/deterrence)
5 Survive and fire back after CBW use in military theater
6 Deploying nuclear weapons to attack enemy nuclear weapons to increase their vulnerability, decreasing
their value (to discourage their development in the first place)
7 Deploying nuclear weapons to attack enemy chem/bio weapons to increase their vulnerability, decreasing
their value (to discourage their development in the first place)
8 Damage limitation attacks against nuclear weapons in military theater
9 Damage limitation attacks against CB weapons in military theater
10 Damage limitation attacks against Russian/Chinese central systems
11 Ready to inflict damage after regional conventional attacks (or to deter such attacks)
12 Overawe potential rivals
13 Provide virtual power
14 Fight regional wars
15 Apply shock to terminate a regional conventional war

Substantially reduce and restrict should be measured quantitatively. Reduce and restrict together mean “to
decrease and hold within a certain limit.”

Words and Phrases, 2002 Volume 36B, p. 80

The word “reduce” is its ordinary signification does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but to
diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state. Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363

Corpus Juris, 1931 Volume 54, p. 735

RESTRICT: To confine; to limit; to prevent (a person or thing) from passing a certain limit in any kind of action; to
restrain; to restrain without bounds
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 5
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell--Missions

Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce and Restrict Missions 2/2

The best contextual evidence proves that 30% decrease in missions is the standard for a substantial
reduction. The START I treaty decreased warheads by 31%.

Athanasopulos, 2000, attorney practicing in DC

Haralambos, Nuclear disarmament in international law, p. 108 accessed via google books

The Legal Impact of the START I Treaty on the U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Disarmament Process. A legal evaluation of its
impact on U.S.-Soviet bilateral nuclear disarmament clearly shows that the START I Treaty constitutes a significant
development to this end. Indeed, the fact that both parties are obliged to reduce through elimination and conversion
their lethal strategic offensive nuclear arms by approximately 7,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which at the time of
the signature of the treaty numbered about 23,000 leads to the conclusion that the START I Treaty requires a
substantial reduction in the U.S.-Soviet strategic nuclear arsenals. Despite these reductions, both parties will still
have deployed nearly 16,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which are more than enough to destroy not only
themselves, but civilization itself many times over in a U.S.-Soviet nuclear war.

B. VIOLATION. The plan allows current missions substantially to continue.

[Insert specific link such as: minimum deterrence just shifts warheads from bombers to submarines but still has the
same target sets; or Reliable Replacement Warhead program simply replaces old warheads with better warheads].

C. BETTER INTERPRETATION

____ Better Preparation and Limits. Their interpretation unlimits the topic by allowing hundreds more cases that
change a couple of nuclear missions. Negatives can’t be prepared with case specific positions given that any nuclear
weapons policy changes could be topical. We learn less.

____ Better Clash and Ground. The negative should have the PIC and disad ground to change fewer missions
than the affirmative. We can have a clear debate between making minor and major changes in targeting doctrines
and declaratory policy.

____ Communication. They moot the word “substantially” by their tiny reduction. Mooting words leads to
misunderstanding, which blocks good communication. Clear communication is needed for education, especially
early in the debate season.

____ Bright Line Standard. Does the plan on its face reduce the 15 current missions to 10? Our test is fairer than
their request that the judge make a subjective decision on this issue. It also ensures enough links for case turns and
disads.

D. VOTING ISSUE. For reasons of fairness, education and jurisdiction.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 6
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell—Arsenal Size

Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size

1/2

______ A. INTERPRETATION. The US nuclear weapons arsenal is more than just the weapons
themselves; it includes delivery and support systems.

Wheeler, 1997, Director of the Center for Nuclear History Studies and Senior Defense Analyst at the
Strategies Group, SAIC, Virginia,
Michael, in Nuclear Weapons in a Transformed World, ed. Michael J. Mazarr, pp. 133-134

It is worth recalling, as discussed earlier, that a nuclear arsenal includes much than the nuclear weapons themselves.
It includes delivery systems, planning and targeting systems, reconnaissance systems, communications systems,
procurement systems, maintenance and logistics support systems, highly trained personnel, and the like. Recent
studies suggesting that the U.S. nuclear arsenal cost about $4 trillion are seriously misleading because, in attributing
all of the system costs to the nuclear arsenal, the suggestion is that these (or even greater) costs would not have been
incurred if the nuclear arsenal had not been assembled. Most of the military infrastructure within which nuclear
forces fit are likely to be there in the absence of nuclear weapons—bombers, for instance, missiles, satellites devoted
to reconnaissance, elaborate communications and planning systems, and the like. In the absence of nuclear weapons
there is reason to suspect that some parts of the infrastructure (e.g., the size and requisite capabilities of the bomber
force) may be even more expensive.

The best contextual evidence supports that 30% decrease in the arsenal is the standard for a substantial
reduction.

Athanasopulos, 2000, attorney practicing in DC

Haralambos, Nuclear disarmament in international law, p. 108 accessed via google books

The Legal Impact of the START I Treaty on the U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Disarmament Process. A legal evaluation of its
impact on U.S.-Soviet bilateral nuclear disarmament clearly shows that the START I Treaty constitutes a significant
development to this end. Indeed, the fact that both parties are obliged to reduce through elimination and conversion
their lethal strategic offensive nuclear arms by approximately 7,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which at the time of
the signature of the treaty numbered about 23,000 leads to the conclusion that the START I Treaty requires a
substantial reduction in the U.S.-Soviet strategic nuclear arsenals. Despite these reductions, both parties will still
have deployed nearly 16,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which are more than enough to destroy not only
themselves, but civilization itself many times over in a U.S.-Soviet nuclear war.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 7
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell—Arsenal Size

Plan Doesn’t Substantially Reduce Nuclear Weapons Arsenal Size

2/2

B. VIOLATION. The plan ignores most of the nuclear arsenal.

[INSERT PLAN-SPECIFIC LINK such as: minimum deterrence does not dismantle bombers or ground launchers,
just the warheads; no first use and dealerting do not dismantle anything in the arsenal, or at most put warheads in
storage; depleted uranium weapons are only a small part of the nuclear arsenal; CTBT only stops testing, doesn’t
disarm].

C. BETTER INTERPRETATION

____ Better Preparation and Limits. Their interpretation unlimits the topic by allowing hundreds more cases that
reduce a few warheads or a particular class of weapons. Negatives can’t be prepared with case specific positions
given that any nuclear weapons policy changes could be topical. We learn less.

____ Better Clash and Ground. The negative should have the PIC and disad ground to make minor changes in
the overall nuclear arsenal. We can have a clear debate between making minor and major changes in the nuclear
weapons arsenal as a whole.

____ Communication. They moot the word “substantially” by their tiny reduction. Mooting words leads to
misunderstanding, which blocks good communication. Clear communication is needed for education, especially
early in the debate season.

____ Bright Line Standard. Does the plan on its face reduce the entire nuclear weapons arsenal by 30%? Our test
is fairer than their request that the judge make a subjective decision on this issue, because it can be verified by
examining a list of warheads and delivery systems. It also ensures enough links for case turns and disads.

D. VOTING ISSUE. For reasons of fairness, education and jurisdiction.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 8
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell—Critical T Should

“Should” Requires Plan Advocacy

A. INTERPRETATION. “Should” primarily expresses a duty or obligation to act. A policy action statement
meets that duty, while speculation does not.

American Heritage® Dictionary, 1996

[1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company, www.dictionary.com, accessed 4/2/01]

should (shd) v. aux. Past tense of shall.

1.Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

B. VIOLATION. They read no plan of action or advocacy statement. They neglect their duty, which
undermines their relationship to the topic.

C. BETTER INTERPRETATION

_____ Better for clash. Their neglect of “should” makes it difficult for the negative to say anything competitive
with the aff. Clash is key to critical testing of claims in debate and an educational experience.

_____ Better for preparation. They disconnect from topic literature bases and open up an infinity of philosophical
speculation. It is hard for their opponents to be prepared to debate, which hurts education and leads to unfair
competition.

_____ Semantic accuracy. They moot the word “should” and try to substitute the word “may”. Mooting words out
of the topic makes clear communication impossible.

D. Voting issue. For reasons of fairness and education.

Arizona Debate Institute 2009 9
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell—Critical T Resolved

Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 1/2

A. INTERPRETATION. Resolved: provides context for the topic sentence. It converts a sentence into a
resolution. It means to fix, to settle, to make certain

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998

© 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. [www.dictionary.com, accessed 4/2/01]

Resolve \Re*solve"\ (r?*z?lv"), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Resolved (-z?lvd"); p. pr. & vb. n. Resolving.] [L. resolvere,
resolutum, to untie, loosen, relax, enfeeble; pref. re- re- + solvere to loosen, dissolve: cf. F. r['e]soudare to resolve.
See Solve, and cf. Resolve, v. i., Resolute, Resolution.]

1. To separate the component parts of; to reduce to the constituent elements; -- said of compound substances; hence, sometimes, to melt, or
dissolve. O, that this too too solid flesh would melt, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew! --Shak.

Ye immortal souls, who once were men, And now resolved to elements again. --Dryden.

2. To reduce to simple or intelligible notions; -- said of complex ideas or obscure questions; to make clear or
certain; to free from doubt; to disentangle; to unravel; to explain; hence, to clear up, or dispel, as doubt; as, to
resolve a riddle. ``Resolve my doubt.'' --Shak.

To the resolving whereof we must first know that the Jews were commanded to divorce an unbelieving Gentile. --Milton.

3. To cause to perceive or understand; to acquaint; to inform; to convince; to assure; to make certain.

Sir, be resolved. I must and will come. --Beau. & Fl.

Resolve me, Reason, which of these is worse, Want with a full, or with an empty purse? --Pope.
In health, good air, pleasure, riches, I am resolved it can not be equaled by any region. --Sir W. Raleigh.

We must be resolved how the law can be pure and perspicuous, and yet throw a polluted skirt over these Eleusinian mysteries. --Milton.

4. To determine or decide in purpose; to make ready in mind; to fix; to settle; as, he was resolved by an unexpected
event.

B. VIOLATION. Their relationship to potential actions of the United States Federal Government and to the
debate process remains unresolved in their advocacy. Their advocacy is that of a critical systems thinker, which
inherently leads to unresolvable arguments in actual debates. Our interpretation of resolved preserves the debate
context.

Jackson, 1991, Professor of Management Systems and Science, University of Hull, UK

Michael C., Systemic Practice and Action Research, 1991, p. 611, Springer ecollection

The most remarkable claim in Flood and Ulrich's (1990) "Testament" is that they have founded an adequate epistemology for systems practice
upon a reconciliation of Kant's critical idealism and Marx's historical materialism (thus integrating systems and "sociological" epistemologies).
This claim, to have brought together two apparently contradictory theoretical positions, is so outrageous as to suggest that the "Testament" will
itself contain certain contradictions. And, indeed, a close reading of "Testament" reveals it to be not so much an amicable
conversation between two critical systems practitioners as an unresolved argument between two critical systems
thinkers. This argument keeps interrupting an otherwise straightforward account of positivist, interpretive, and
critical rationalities.
Arizona Debate Institute 2009 10
Fellows-Hingstman Topicality 1NC shell—Critical T Resolved

Resolved Requires Plan Advocacy 2/2

C. BETTER INTERPRETATION.

____ Better for decision-making. Our interpretation allows a comparison of action alternatives, even if the action
discussion is limited to the round. Their interpretation severs the connection between reflection and action, which
makes it difficult for the judge to choose in a competitive activity.

____ Better for examining assumptions. Our interpretation requires that theorizing meet the test of practice. We
should put our bodies where our thoughts are for critical testing purposes.

____ Better for fairness. Unspecified relationships to the topic make competitiveness too difficult to predict or
articulate in the round. Our interpretation tethers the discussion to some form of proposed action.

D. VOTING ISSUE. For reasons of fairness, education, and decision-making.