MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
About MSDI & Missouri State U..
For twenty years, the Missouri State Debate Institute has offered an excellent educational experience in
the middle of the high school topic. MSDI is distinct from other camps in six ways. First, our skills focus
assures that a typical 2-week debater gets nearly 80 speeches, including over 20 debates. Second, we
emphasize the largest cases on topic, with students getting both aff and neg rounds on each. Third, our
senior faculty are comparable with top lab leaders in any camp. Fourth, MSDI students can earn highly
transferable college credit in public speaking for a minimal cost. Fifth, we respect variance in home
debate circuits – our goal is to improve line by line debating in ways that will help students no matter
who judges in their home circuit. Finally, our price is below any comparable camp and far below most
camps. Our 2016 information will be available shortly at: http://debate.missouristate.edu/camp.htm.
Missouri State University is a large comprehensive university (enrollment over 24k), with nearly any
major you might want. The university has excellent academic scholarship support – most debaters
combine academic “entitlement” scholarships (guaranteed based on GPA/test scores) with debate
scholarships. The Spicer Debate Forum competes in two year-long policy debate formats: NDT and NFALD. We’ve national semis or finals in both in the last decade. Our debaters have an average GPA over
3.5, a 97% graduation rate, and 70% complete law/grad school afterward. Our program is a high-impact
academic experience with an exceptional alumni network. Please contact Dr. Eric Morris for more
information (EricMorris@MissouriState.edu).
http://debate.missouristate.edu/
http://www.missouristate.edu/FinancialAid/scholarships/
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Resolved: The United States Federal
Government Should Substantially Curtail
its Domestic Surveillance.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Resolved:
The word “resolved” means the ballot is a reflection of the governments firm decision
to take action
Mac Millian Dictionary 2015 ,
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/resolve_1
Resolve: [INTRANSITIVE] to make a formal decision, usually after a discussion and a vote at a meeting, to
resolve to do something: To make a decision: to make a firm decision to do something [TRANSITIVE] to
solve a problem, or to find a satisfactory way of dealing with a disagreement.
“Resolved” means the government will take action – best definition for the role
playing of debate
Oxford English dictionary 2015 ,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/resolved
Resolved: Firmly determined to do something:
“Resolved” means a decision is made and action is taken
Meriam Webster Dictionary 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved
5 : to reach a firm decision about <resolve to get more sleep> <resolve disputed points in a text> 6a : to
declare or decide by a formal resolution and vote; b : to change by resolution or formal vote <the house
resolved itself into a committee>
“Resolved” doesn’t require certainty
Webster’s 9 – Merriam Webster 2009
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)
# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected
Form(s): re·solved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced
by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult, deliberate
“Resolved” doesn’t require immediacy
Online Plain Text English Dictionary 2009
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
(http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)
Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to
resolve on a better course of life.”
In policy-related contexts, ‘resolved’ denotes a proposal to be enacted by law
Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by
resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,”
which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
The
“The” is a function word before nouns:
.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 12 Aug. 2014. <http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/the>
-used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been
previously specified by context or by circumstance -used as a function word before the name of a
branch of human endeavor or proficiency -used as a function word before a proper name -used as a
function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole
“The” is used to indicate uniqueness or generalness
Collins COBUILD English Usage.
(1992, 2011, 2012). Retrieved August 12 2014 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/the
-Used to indicate uniqueness -Used before a singular noun indicating that the noun is generic -used
preceding titles and certain uniquely specific or proper nouns, such as place names
“The” indicates prior knowledge
Oxford English Dictionary 2015,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/the
Denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge:
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
United States Federal Government
In order to be constitutional, “United States Federal Government” action requires all 3
branches
The US Government’s Official Web Portal, May 11th, 2015,
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/federal.shtml
The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to ensure a
central government in which no individual or group gains too much control: Legislative – Makes laws
(Congress) Executive – Carries out laws (President, Vice President, Cabinet) Judicial – Evaluates laws
(Supreme Court and Other Courts) Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches as
follows: The president can veto laws passed by Congress. Congress confirms or rejects the president's
appointments and can remove the president from office in exceptional circumstances. The justices of
the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are appointed by the president and
confirmed by the Senate. The U.S. federal government seeks to act in the best interests of its citizens
through this system of checks and balances.
“United States Federal Government” Refers to the 3 branches of the government of
the United States of America
Oxford English dictionaries 2015,
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/federal-government
(in the US) the system of government as defined in the Constitution which is based on the separation of
powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial.
National gov’t, not the states
Black’s Law 99 (Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p.703)
A national government that exercises some degree of control over smaller political units that have
surrendered some degree of power in exchange for the right to participate in national political matters
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
The “US Federal Government” is the government as set forth in the constitution of the
United States Federal Government – if the aff violates the constitution, it is not being
the United States Federal Government.
US Legal Definition, 2015, http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government
shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The
Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive,
comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes
a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three
branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government
to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved
to the States or to the people.
“Federal Government” includes agencies
Words and Phrases, 2004, Cummulative Supplementary Pamphlet, v. 16A, p. 42
N.D.Ga. 1986. Action against the Postal Service, although an independent establishment of the executive
branch of the federal government, is an action against the “Federal Government” for purposes of rule
that plaintiff in action against government has right to jury trial only where right is one of terms of
government’s consent to be sued; declining to follow Algernon Blair Industrial Contractors, Inc. v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 552 F.Supp. 972 (M.D.Ala.). 39 U.S.C.A. 201; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 7.—
Griffin v. U.S. Postal Service, 635 F.Supp. 190.—Jury 12(1.2).
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
United States
“United States” applies to the country that occupies most of the southern half
of North America.
Oxford English Dictionary (No Date)
-A country that occupies most of the southern half of North America as well as Alaska and the Hawaiian
Islands; population 304,059,724 (est. 2008); capital, Washington, DC. Full name United States of
America.
"United States." Refers a nation that is a collection of states
Merriam-Webster.com.
Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/United
States>.
-a federation of states especially when forming a nation in a usually specified territory
“United States” Legal Definition, includes all territory under US control, land or
otherwise.
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 1 › § 5
-The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters,
continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Should
"Should.” Requires an obligation
Merriam-Webster.com.
Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should
—used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency —used in auxiliary function
to express what is probable or expected
“Should”, indicates a desirable state
Oxford English Dictionary (No Date)
-Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness -Indicating a desirable or expected state”
“Should” means ought to
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
, Fourth Edition. (2003)
-used with a similar meaning to 'ought to' and sometimes with a similar meaning to 'would'
“Should” implies mandatory action
Words and Phrases, 1953, Vol. 39, p. 312.
Command implied. The word “should,” as used in Laws 1901, p. 387, c 106, 3, providing that, on proof of
certain facts to the county court, it shall be determined whether territory should be disconnected from a
city, does not authorize the court to do as it pleases; the statute is mandatory.
“Should” is unconditional- it requires an obligation of action
Collins Essential English Dictionary, 2006
[Second edition, "should," http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should, ]
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
the past tense of shall: used to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory (you
should go) or to form the subjunctive mood (I should like to see you; if I should die; should I be late, start
without me) [Old English sceolde]
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Substantially
“substantial” action means significant and essential action
Oxford English Dictionaries 2015,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/substantially
To a great or significant extent: For the most part; essentially:
“Substantially” means great in size and number – means topical affs must repeal
whole legislation, not just individual sections.
Meriam Webster Dictionary 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial
Substantially: large in amount, size, or number
“Substantially” means to change the fundamental purpose of the domestic
surveillance, not just attributes of it.
Collins Dictionary 2015, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/substantial
Adjective: of a considerable size or value ⇒ substantial funds worthwhile; important ⇒ a substantial
reform having wealth or importance (of food or a meal) sufficient and nourishing solid or strong in
construction, quality, or character ⇒ a substantial door real; actual; true ⇒ the evidence is substantial of
or relating to the basic or fundamental substance or aspects of a thing (philosophy) of or relating to
substance rather than to attributes, accidents, or modifications
“Substantially”
Random House, 2009
[Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, "Substantially,"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substantially, ]
sub⋅stan⋅tial [suhb-stan-shuhl]
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
–adjective 1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money. 2. of a
corporeal or material nature; tangible; real. 3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a
substantial physique. 4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement. 5. wealthy
or influential: one of the substantial men of the town. 6. of real worth, value, or effect: substantial
reasons. 7. pertaining to the substance, matter, or material of a thing. 8. of or pertaining to the essence
of a thing; essential, material, or important. 9. being a substance; having independent existence. 10.
Philosophy. pertaining to or of the nature of substance rather than an accident or attribute. –noun 11.
something substantial.
“Substantially”
American Heritage, 2009
[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, "Substantially,"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substantially, ]
sub·stan·tial (səb-stān'shəl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or having substance; material. 2. True or real; not
imaginary. 3. Solidly built; strong. 4. Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast. 5. Considerable in
importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin. 6. Possessing wealth or
property; well-to-do. n. 1. An essential. Often used in the plural. 2. A solid thing. Often used in the
plural.
“Substantially” is at least 90%
Words and Phrases, 2005 (v. 40B, p. 329)
N.H. 1949. The word “substantially” as used in provision of Unemployment Compensation Act
that experience rating of an employer may be transferred to an employing unit which acquires
the organization, trade, or business, or “substantially” all of the assets thereof, is an elastic term
which does not include a definite, fixed amount of percentage, and the transfer does not have to
be 100 per cent but cannot be less than 90 per cent in the ordinary situation. R.L. c 218, § 6, subd.
F, as added by Laws 1945, c.138, § 16.
Substantial is 50%- two examples
Smythe 10(Tom, engineer,
http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Department_Programs/Flood_Man
agement/Substantial_Damage_Improvement.htm, 6/15/2010, DA 6/21/11, OST)
"Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred. "Substantial improvement" means
any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other proposed new development of a structure,
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the
"start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred
"substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Curtail
“Curtail” means putting restrictions on the actor (USFG)
Oxford English Dictionaries 2015,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/curtail
Reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on: 1.1 (curtail someone of) archaic Deprive someone
of (something): I that am curtailed of this fair proportion
“curtail” in the resolution means to get rid of parts of domestic surveillance.
Meriam Webster Dictionary 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curtail
to make less by or as if by cutting off or away some part <curtail the power of the executive branch>
<curtail inflation>
“Curtail” means to make something last for a shorter period of time
Oxford Learner’s Dictionary 2015,
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/curtail
curtail something (formal) to limit something or make it last for a shorter time
“Curtail” means to reduce or limit
Collins Dictionary 2015, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/curtail
English: curtail If you curtail something, you reduce or limit it. VERBThere are plans to curtail the
number of troops being sent to the region.
“Curtail” means to END something
Hyper Dictionary 2015, http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/curtail
Terminate or abbreviate before its intended or proper end or its full extent; "My speech was cut short";
"Personal freedom is curtailed in many countries" To cut off the end or tail, or any part, of; to shorten;
to abridge; to diminish; to reduce.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
“Curtailing Domestic Surveillance” means legislation to reduce it
Ivan Eland, Huffington Post, Posted: 10/14/2013 3:13 pm EDT, We Don't Need More 'Spin' About
NSA's Unconstitutional Domestic Snooping, We Need It Stopped, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivaneland/nsa-domestic-spying_b_4097878.html
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) are making at least some effort to push back on
empire, in favor of the republic, by attempting to curtail unconstitutional snooping on Americans.
Sensenbrenner -- a co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, which unfortunately originally authorized some
of the unconstitutional spying -- has now had second thoughts and is drafting legislation to reduce
domestic surveillance. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already drafted a bill to
terminate NSA's ability to systematically suck in Americans' phone records. Such domestic surveillance
should be eliminated, unless it falls strictly within the Constitution's requirement of obtaining a search
warrant only if "probable cause" exists that a suspect has committed a crime. The republic's national
security will hardly be compromised if the Constitution is followed, but the republic itself will be
undermined if it is not.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Its
“Its”, in the legal context of surveillance, must mean the US as the actor and the US’s
surveillance, this includes the Agencies of the Government.
Tim Cushing, June 9th, 2015, tech dirt, Surveillance Tech Company Sues US Government For Patent
Infringement, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150603/09341831204/surveillance-tech-companysues-us-government-patent-infringement.shtml, web.
[A] Small business that designs, installs and services digital video surveillance systems, 3rd Eye
Surveillance, [has] sued the United States federal government for alleged patent infringement. The
lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages exceeding $1 billion for unlawful use
of the company’s three video and image surveillance system patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 6,778,085,
6,798,344, and 7,323,980. The surveillance system patents are owned by Discovery Patents, LLC of
Baltimore Maryland, who is also a Plaintiff in the case, and exclusively licensed by 3rd Eye Surveillance.
In addition to contract work and direct sales, 3rd Eye also makes a bit of money litigating. This trio of
patents, which have been successfully used against more than 10 municipalities and private businesses,
allows for the provision of real-time surveillance video, audio recognition, facial recognition and infrared
images to emergency responders and defense agencies. 3rd Eye is claiming the US government's wideranging "exploitation" of its unlicensed patents is worth $1 billion. The suit names several agencies
directly, while holding the option to name others as needed. The Defendant is the United States of
America, acting through its various agencies, including by way of example, and not limitation, the
Department of Justice, the Department Of Homeland Security, USSTRATCOM, the Department of
Defense, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the United States Army, the United States
Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency.
When it comes to surveillance, “its” means the US’s surveillance
by Anup Shah, Monday, October 07, 2013, Global Issues, Surveillance State: NSA Spying and more,
http://www.globalissues.org/article/802/surveillance-state, web.
In addition, as the journal Foreign Policy revealed, the US spied on its own citizens as far back as the
Vietnam War, including spying on two of its own sitting senior senators and prominent figures such as
Martin Luther King, boxer Muhammad Ali, and others. This wasn’t with congressional oversight, but at
the White House’s behest; an abuse of power, as the journal also noted.
“Its” indicates possession
Random House, 2009
[Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, "Its,"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its]
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Its –pronoun the possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective): The book has lost its jacket. I'm
sorry about its being so late.
“Its” indicates possession
American Heritage, 2009
[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, "Its,”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its]
its (ĭts) adj. The possessive form of it. Used as a modifier before a noun: The airline canceled its early
flight to New York.
“Its”- its refers to the United States federal government, not a different actor
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 06,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/it, last visited 8-8-07
It- pron. 1. Used to refer to that one previously mentioned.
“Its” means the actor of the resolution must be singular
Modeleski, Account for Better Citizenship founder, 5-28-1992
[Mitch, memo to John Alden, "Sovereignty and the Matrix,"
http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/deoxy.org/fz/p.htm, ]
There are three official definitions of "United States", only two of which are singular nouns (the nation
and the federal zone). Using grammatical rules, the term "its jurisdiction" can only apply to the nation
or to the federal zone, but not to the 50 States (because the 50 States are plural).
Its is in the resolution debaters from being the agent of the resolution
Michael Maffie and Steve Mancuso, Middle East topic authors, 3-1-07, "Engaging the Middle
East," http://www.cedatopic.com/Middle_East_07.pdf, 102,
A second function of “its” would be to limit the affirmative engagement to being directed from the
United States government, not American businesses, individual persons (debaters) or NGO’s.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Domestic
“Domestic” refers to one’s own country – in the context of the resolution, the US is
specified.
Cambridge Dictionary, 2015, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/americanenglish/domestic
relating to a person’s own country:
The president’s domestic policy has been more successful than his foreign policy.
“domestic” in the resolution specifically outlaws international or foreign surveillance
Oxford English Dictionary 2015,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/domestic
Existing or occurring inside a particular country; not foreign or international:
the current state of US domestic affairs
“Domestic”
Meriam Webster Dictionary, 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domestic
Full Definition of DOMESTIC 1 a : living near or about human habitations b : tame, domesticated <the
domestic cat> 2 : of, relating to, or originating within a country and especially one's own country
<domestic politics> <domestic wines> 3 : of or relating to the household or the family <domestic
chores> <domestic happiness> 4 : devoted to home duties and pleasures <leading a quietly domestic life
“Domestic” in the resolution refers to The US not other Actors or other types of
Surveillance
Mac Millan Dictionary 2015,
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/domestic_1
Relating to the country being talked about, and not other countries.
“Domestic” Refers to what is at home
Collins Dictionary 2015, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/domestic,
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
of or involving the home or family enjoying or accustomed to home or family life (of an animal) bred or
kept by man as a pet or for purposes such as the supply of food of, produced in, or involving one's own
country or a specific country
In the policy making sense, “domestic” refers to policy changes within the country of
context – for the resolution, that’s the USA.
Cambridge Business Dictionary 2015, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/businessenglish/domestic-policy
the set of decisions that a government makes relating to things that directly affect the people in its own
country: There's a focus on domestic policy, dealing with issues such as health care and education.
Alternative energy sources are at the center of the domestic policy agenda. The debate focused mainly
on domestic policies.
“Domestic” refers to internal affairs NOT international policies
US legal definition, 2015, http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/domestic-policy%20/
Domestic policy means a government’s policy decisions, programs, and actions that principally deal with
internal matters, as opposed to relations with other nation-states. Domestic policy covers areas such as
tax, social security, and welfare programs, environmental laws, and regulations on businesses and their
practices.
“Domestic” policy this year should refer to issues of Homeland Security and the
Patriot Act
The Miller Center, 2015, University of Virginia, http://millercenter.org/president/policy
Domestic policy is an umbrella term for a massive, unwieldy set of policy areas comprised of issues
ranging from poverty, to environmental protection, to law enforcement, to labor-management
relations. In recent years, the field has witnessed high-profile battles over health care insurance,
prescription drug coverage, AIDS and stem cell research and development, educational accountability
and testing, welfare reform, logging, drilling for oil, affirmative action, gay marriage, transportation
safety, homeland security, and the USA Patriot Act.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Surveillance
“Surveillance” is the acts used to prevent crimes
Meriam Webster Dictionary 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surveillance
: the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime
There are 5 types of surveillance to choose from – most open definition [no limits
issue]
by Ralph Heibutzki, Demand Media, Chron 2015, Types of Surveillance in Criminal Investigations,
http://work.chron.com/types-surveillance-criminal-investigations-9434.html, web.
Electronic Monitoring Electronic monitoring, or wiretapping, refers to the surveillance of email, fax,
Internet and telephone communications. Fixed Surveillance The fixed surveillance, or "stakeout,"
requires officers to surreptitiously observe people and places from a distance. Stationary Technical
Surveillance In stationary technical surveillance, the investigator installs a hidden camera and recording
equipment in a parked car. Three-Person Surveillance Three-person surveillance methods are more
complex to run, but provide two bonuses, according to Palmiotto's book, "Criminal Investigation."
Undercover Operations Undercover operations amount to another form of surveillance, but in this
method the officer plays an active role in revealing criminal activities.
“Surveillance” is the observation of a group of people for the purpose of protection –
13 types.
World Systems Inc, 2010, Surveillance. Types of surveillance: cameras, telephones etc. - See more
at: http://www.wsystems.com/news/surveillance-cameras-types.html#sthash.F7C0O1AZ.dpuf,
Surveillance is another word for monitoring of the behavior and activities of people, normally aimed at
influencing, managing or protecting. In other words, surveillance is an ambiguous practice, which may
create either positive or negative effects. Surveillance is sometimes done in a surreptitious manner.
While it normally refers to observation of people or groups by government organizations, there are
other types of surveillance like disease surveillance, which is monitoring the progress of a disease in a
community. Types Include: 1. Postal services. 2. Computer surveillance. 3. Surveillance cameras. 4.
Telephones. 5. Social network analysis. 6. Aerial surveillance. 7. Biometric surveillance. 8/ Data mining &
profiling. 9. Human operatives. 10. Corporate surveillance. 11. Satellite imagery. 12. Identification and
credentials. 13. Radio frequency identification and geolocation devices.
“Surveillance” is the focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for
purposes of influence, management, protection or direction.
Neil M. Richards, Prof Law @ Washington Univ; May 2013 (Harvard Law Review; 126 Harv. L. Rev.
1934; “Privacy and technology: The dangers of surveillance”)
Reviewing the vast surveillance studies literature, Professor David Lyon concludes that surveillance is primarily about power, but it is
also about personhood. n8 Lyon offers
a definition of surveillance as "the focused, systematic and routine
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction." n9 Four
aspects of this definition are noteworthy, as they expand our understanding of what surveillance is and what its purposes are.
First, it is focused on learning information about individuals. Second, surveillance is systematic; it is
intentional rather than random or arbitrary. Third, surveillance is routine - a part of the ordinary administrative apparatus that
characterizes modern societies. n10 Fourth, surveillance can have a wide variety of purposes - rarely totalitarian
domination, but more typically subtler forms of influence or control.
“Surveillance” in the legal sense is mainly electronic - and must be of US persons
Cornell University Law School, 50 U.S. Code § 1801 – Definitions, NO DATE,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means— (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be
received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are
acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person
has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire
communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if
such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those
communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents
of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all
intended recipients are located within the United States; or (4) the installation or use of an electronic,
mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information,
other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
“Surveillance” refers to groups not individuals
US Legal Definition, 2015, http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mass-surveillance/
Mass surveillance is the distributive close observation of an entire population, or a substantial fraction
of the entire population. Nowadays governments perform mass surveillance of their citizens so as to
protect citizens from dangerous groups such as terrorists, criminals, or political subversives and to
maintain social control. The disadvantages of mass surveillance are that it often violates right to privacy
and political and social freedoms of individuals. It is also argued that mass surveillance will result in the
creation of a totalitarian state or Electronic Police State.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
More types of “surveillance”
Gary T. Marx, 2002, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,, What’s New About
the “New Surveillance”? Classifying for Change and Continuity*, http://www.surveillance-andsociety.org/articles1/whatsnew.pdf
The last half of the 20th century has seen a significant increase in the use of technology for the discovery
of personal information. Examples include video and audio surveillance, heat, light, motion, sound and
olfactory sensors, night vision goggles, electronic tagging, biometric access devices, drug testing, DNA
analysis, computer monitoring including email and web usage and the use of computer techniques such
as expert systems, matching and profiling, data mining, mapping, network analysis and simulation.
Control technologies have become available that previously existed only in the dystopic imaginations of
science fiction writers. We are a surveillance society. As Yiannis Gabriel (forthcoming) suggests Weber’s
iron cage is being displaced by a flexible glass cage.
“Surveillance” has 4 catagories to fall under
Electronic Freedom Foundation, No date, Analysis of the Patriot Act,
http://www.civilrights.ghazali.net/html/body_analysis.html
Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. USAPA expands all four traditional tools of
surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies
have similarly been expanded. This means:
“Surveillance” is broad – not targeted
Gary T. Marx, 2002, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,, What’s New About
the “New Surveillance”? Classifying for Change and Continuity*, http://www.surveillance-andsociety.org/articles1/whatsnew.pdf
One indicator of rapid change is the failure of dictionary definitions to capture current understandings of
surveillance. For example in the Concise Oxford Dictionary surveillance is defined as "close observation,
especially of a suspected person". Yet today many of the new surveillance technologies are not
"especially" applied to "a suspected person". They are commonly applied categorically. In broadening
the range of suspects the term "a suspected person" takes on a different meaning. In a striking
innovation, surveillance is also applied to contexts (geographical places and spaces, particular time
periods, networks, systems and categories of person), not just to a particular person whose identity is
known beforehand.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Domestic Surveillance
“Domestic Surveillance” is of domestic citizens
ItLaw Wiki, 2015, http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Domestic_surveillance
Domestic surveillance is the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States persons.
THE NSA is not “Domestic Surveillance”
Friends Committee on National Legislation, June 2006, Spying on Americans,
http://fcnl.org/resources/newsletter/jun06/spying_on_americans/,
To bring intelligence collection in line with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures, the 1978 statute created a secret FISA court through which the government could
obtain warrants for domestic surveillance. Under FISA, the government must present to this court
evidence that it has probable cause to believe the person to be surveilled is an agent of a foreign power
or is involved with an international terrorism organization. Congress defined the FISA procedure for
procuring foreign intelligence as “the exclusive means by which electronic [domestic] surveillance … may
be conducted.” No one disputes that there are people within the United States who are suspected of
ties with violent groups intent on attacking people in this country or who are agents of foreign powers.
The NSA can electronically surveil such individuals by getting a warrant from the FISA court, thus abiding
by the Fourth Amendment. Outside of the FISA process, the NSA has no authority for domestic
surveillance.
“Domestic Surveillance” means electronic surveillance
Small 2008, http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2013/10/pf-november-2013-nsa-introductionand.html,
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this
context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been
collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic
surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best
understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States
persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly
broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic
surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone
companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as: [T]he acquisition
by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio
communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in
the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person,
under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes; by the NSA.
Due to FISA – Domestic Surveillance includes surveillance for foreign intelligence
RICHARD HENRY SEAMON. Professor, University of Idaho College of Law, spring 2008, Domestic
Surveillance for International Terrorists: Presidential Power and Fourth Amendment Limits,
http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V35/I3/seamon.pdf, pages 454-456.
FISA prescribes "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance [for foreign intelligence
purposes]... may be conducted" in the United States.21 FISA's legislative history confirms that Congress
intended FISA to govern all domestic electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.2 By
enacting FISA in 1978, Congress intended to "prohibit the President, notwithstanding any inherent
powers," from conducting domestic electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes without
complying with FISA. 6
“Domestic Surveillance” includes the following acts of the USFG
Mark Lerner, American Policy Center, August 05, 2014, The Chilling Effect of Domestic Spying,
http://americanpolicy.org/2014/08/05/the-chilling-effect-of-domestic-spying/
The good news is now that the Snowden revelations have revealed to a large degree the domestic
surveillance taking place, the public knows more about what OUR government is doing. The bad news is
the chilling effect creating a surveillance state has on a representative form of government. The chilling
effect can be simply defined as the way in which people alter or modify their behavior to conform to
political and social norms as a result of knowing or believing they are being observed. The observation
can be from physical surveillance, telephone meta data being collected, emails being intercepted and
read, search engine requests being maintained, text messages being read and stored, financial
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
transactions being monitored and much more. This paper will examine the chilling effect and provide
some empirical data (links within this article) to show the chilling effect is real.
“Domestic Surveillance” includes the actions of more than the NSA
Mark Lerner, American Policy Center, August 05, 2014, The Chilling Effect of Domestic Spying,
http://americanpolicy.org/2014/08/05/the-chilling-effect-of-domestic-spying/
Too many in the government, the media, and the public dismissed the allegations of these men because
it was “easy” to do so rather than believe the worst about our government, or actually having to do
something about domestic spying. To be fair the NSA has not been the only ones accused of domestic
spying. The FBI, DHS, and the CIA have also been proven to having done their own domestic spying; in
the case of the FBI going back over seventy years.
“Domestic Surveillance” means finding Domestic Terrorists
Mark Lerner, American Policy Center, August 05, 2014, The Chilling Effect of Domestic Spying,
http://americanpolicy.org/2014/08/05/the-chilling-effect-of-domestic-spying/
In addition to the surveillance state we must not forget that state and federal government has said
domestic terrorism is the biggest threat to our country. Veterans, anti-abortion advocates, anti-war
activists, third party supporters, environmentalists, 2nd Amendment supporters, states’ rights
proponents, and many other groups of people have all been named as “potential domestic terrorists” by
state and federal government agencies and departments. Once again it is not a “Left/Right” issue.
People and groups on both sides of the political spectrum are “suspects.” The presumption of innocence
is no longer a consideration. This broad profiling of people and groups only exasperates the “Chilling
Effect” domestic spying has.
“Domestic Surveillance” excludes the Military – the NSA is Foreign Intelligence
Friends Committee on National Legislation, June 2006, Spying on Americans,
http://fcnl.org/resources/newsletter/jun06/spying_on_americans/,
The NSA, with an annual budget of at least $26.7 billion (the 1998 budget is the most recent public
figure), was created in 1952 from existing Pentagon intelligence programs. The agency is charged with
gathering foreign intelligence information; it listens in on electronic communications around the world.
Unlike the CIA and the FBI, the NSA is a military operation, headed by a commissioned officer and
responsible to the Secretary of Defense.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Affirmative Specific Definitions
“Domestic Surveillance” Includes Drones
By Evan Ackerman, Posted 19 Dec 2011 | 12:55 GMT, IEEE Spectrum, Could Domestic Surveillance
Drones Spur Tougher Privacy Laws?, http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/militaryrobots/could-domestic-surveillance-drones-spur-tougher-privacy-laws,
In a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, Ryan Calo discusses how domestic surveillance drones
would fit into the current legal definitions of privacy (and violations thereof), and how these issues could
inform the future of privacy policy. The nutshell? Surveillance robots have the potential to
fundamentally degrade privacy to such an extent that they could serve as a catalyst for reform.
Domestic surveillance robots aren't as much of an issue now as they could be, thanks mostly to the stickin-the-muddedness of the FAA that keeps unmanned aircraft from doing anything exciting. But
eventually, that's going to change, and there are already precedents (legal ones) for how domestic
agencies might (read: will) start using robots. Basically, there seems to be essentially no legal restrictions
which would prevent the police from having drones flying around all the time, watching people.
Affirmatives involving Metadata do not “Substantially Curtail Domestic Surveillance”
because they ignore the largest programs
By Shahid Buttar, Truthout ,Wednesday, 14 August 2013 00:00, USA vs. NSA: Legislative Efforts to
Curtail Spying, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18122-the-nsa-vs-usa#,
The Lynch bill, however, is underinclusive: It regards only telephony metadata and does nothing to
curtail internet spying under the PRISM or XKeyScore programs, for instance. It apparently was drafted
in response to the particular problems revealed in the first of the now several memos disclosed by
journalist Glenn Greenwald and whistleblower Edward Snowden but fails to address the vast remainder
of other NSA's domestic spying activities.
“Domestic Surveillance” Not Included in FISA – Any aff changing FISA is not Topical
Nick Harper, University of Chicago Law Review, BA 2009, University of Notre Dame; JD Candidate
2015, The University of Chicago Law School, NO DATE, FISA’s Fuzzy Line between Domestic and
International Terrorism,
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/81_3/Harper_CMT.pdf,
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
Consistent with FISA’s foreign focus, the government may use the statute to investigate members of
international terrorist groups within the United States.4 However, the activities of purely domestic
terrorist groups do not fall under FISA and must therefore be investigated using standard criminal
investigative tools.5 Often, terrorists will easily be identified as international; members of designated
“foreign terrorist organizations” operating within the United States are clearly international terrorists.
But the proliferation of modern communication technologies has caused increasing slippage between
the definitions of domestic and international terrorism. For example, many homegrown terrorists are
inspired by international groups to commit attacks in the United States.6 In many cases, the government
seems to classify these actors as international terrorists based on Internet activity that ranges from
viewing and posting jihadist YouTube videos to planning attacks with suspected foreign terrorists in chat
rooms, thus using FISA’s formidable investigatory weapons against them.7 The government is aided in
this task by FISA’s definition of international terrorism, which has an extremely vague and potentially
loose internationality requirement.8 An expansive interpretation of this requirement could be used to
subject what might properly be considered domestic terrorist groups to FISA surveillance.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
T SHELLS
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For affs who focus on International terrorism
A. Interpretation
“Domestic Surveillance” means finding Domestic Terrorists
Mark Lerner, American Policy Center, August 05, 2014, The Chilling Effect of Domestic Spying,
http://americanpolicy.org/2014/08/05/the-chilling-effect-of-domestic-spying/
In addition to the surveillance state we must not forget that state and federal government has said
domestic terrorism is the biggest threat to our country. Veterans, anti-abortion advocates, anti-war
activists, third party supporters, environmentalists, 2nd Amendment supporters, states’ rights
proponents, and many other groups of people have all been named as “potential domestic terrorists” by
state and federal government agencies and departments. Once again it is not a “Left/Right” issue.
People and groups on both sides of the political spectrum are “suspects.” The presumption of innocence
is no longer a consideration. This broad profiling of people and groups only exasperates the “Chilling
Effect” domestic spying has.
B. Violation
The Affirmative is focused on finding international terrorists.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For metadata Affs
A. Interpretation
Affirmatives involving Metadata do not “Substantially Curtail Domestic Surveillance”
because they ignore the largest programs
By Shahid Buttar, Truthout ,Wednesday, 14 August 2013 00:00, USA vs. NSA: Legislative Efforts to
Curtail Spying, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/18122-the-nsa-vs-usa#,
The Lynch bill, however, is underinclusive: It regards only telephony metadata and does nothing to
curtail internet spying under the PRISM or XKeyScore programs, for instance. It apparently was drafted
in response to the particular problems revealed in the first of the now several memos disclosed by
journalist Glenn Greenwald and whistleblower Edward Snowden but fails to address the vast remainder
of other NSA's domestic spying activities.
B. Violation
The affirmative action is to curtail metadata – which is not substantial as it is not the
main acts of NSA Domestic Surveilance.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For Affs that amend or repeal FISA
A. Interpretation
“Domestic Surveillance” is Not Included in FISA – Any aff changing FISA is not topical
Nick Harper, University of Chicago Law Review, BA 2009, University of Notre Dame; JD Candidate
2015, The University of Chicago Law School, NO DATE, FISA’s Fuzzy Line between Domestic and
International Terrorism,
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/81_3/Harper_CMT.pdf,
Consistent with FISA’s foreign focus, the government may use the statute to investigate members of
international terrorist groups within the United States.4 However, the activities of purely domestic
terrorist groups do not fall under FISA and must therefore be investigated using standard criminal
investigative tools.5 Often, terrorists will easily be identified as international; members of designated
“foreign terrorist organizations” operating within the United States are clearly international terrorists.
But the proliferation of modern communication technologies has caused increasing slippage between
the definitions of domestic and international terrorism. For example, many homegrown terrorists are
inspired by international groups to commit attacks in the United States.6 In many cases, the government
seems to classify these actors as international terrorists based on Internet activity that ranges from
viewing and posting jihadist YouTube videos to planning attacks with suspected foreign terrorists in chat
rooms, thus using FISA’s formidable investigatory weapons against them.7 The government is aided in
this task by FISA’s definition of international terrorism, which has an extremely vague and potentially
loose internationality requirement.8 An expansive interpretation of this requirement could be used to
subject what might properly be considered domestic terrorist groups to FISA surveillance.
B. Violation
The affirmative action is to curtail FOREIGN or INTERNATIONAL surveillance not
DOMESTIC.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For affs that repeal a section of an act
A. Interpretation
“Substantially” means great in size and number – means topical affs must repeal
whole legislation, not just individual sections.
Meriam Webster Dictionary 2015, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial
Substantially: large in amount, size, or number
B. Violation
The affirmative repeals section ________ and not the entire legislation, this is not a
substantial curtailment.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For Affs that are Performance/of Critical Nature
A. Interpretation – how the resolution is defined.
In policy-related contexts, ‘resolved’ denotes a proposal to be enacted by law
Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by
resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,”
which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.
B. Violation –How the Affirmative does not meet the burden of the resolution.
The Plan focuses on Social Change not on Legislative Change.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For affs that change the surveillance of other countries
A. Interpretation – how the resolution is defined.
“Its”, in the legal context of surveillance, must mean the US as the actor and the US’s
surveillance, this includes the Agencies of the Government.
Tim Cushing, June 9th, 2015, tech dirt, Surveillance Tech Company Sues US Government For Patent
Infringement, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150603/09341831204/surveillance-tech-companysues-us-government-patent-infringement.shtml, web.
[A] Small business that designs, installs and services digital video surveillance systems, 3rd Eye
Surveillance, [has] sued the United States federal government for alleged patent infringement. The
lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages exceeding $1 billion for unlawful use
of the company’s three video and image surveillance system patents – U.S. Patent Nos. 6,778,085,
6,798,344, and 7,323,980. The surveillance system patents are owned by Discovery Patents, LLC of
Baltimore Maryland, who is also a Plaintiff in the case, and exclusively licensed by 3rd Eye Surveillance.
In addition to contract work and direct sales, 3rd Eye also makes a bit of money litigating. This trio of
patents, which have been successfully used against more than 10 municipalities and private businesses,
allows for the provision of real-time surveillance video, audio recognition, facial recognition and infrared
images to emergency responders and defense agencies. 3rd Eye is claiming the US government's wideranging "exploitation" of its unlicensed patents is worth $1 billion. The suit names several agencies
directly, while holding the option to name others as needed. The Defendant is the United States of
America, acting through its various agencies, including by way of example, and not limitation, the
Department of Justice, the Department Of Homeland Security, USSTRATCOM, the Department of
Defense, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the United States Army, the United States
Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency.
B. Violation –How the Affirmative does not meet the burden of the resolution.
The Affirmative curtails INTERNATIONAL or FOREIGN surveillance, not domestic.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For affs that do unconventional surveillance
A. Interpretation
“Domestic Surveillance” means electronic surveillance
Small 2008, http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2013/10/pf-november-2013-nsa-introductionand.html,
Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this
context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been
collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic
surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best
understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States
persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly
broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic
surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone
companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as: [T]he acquisition
by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio
communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in
the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person,
under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes; by the NSA.
B. Violation –How the Affirmative does not meet the burden of the resolution.
The Affirmative does _______ which is not what the government considers “domestic
surveillance”
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For Affs that are temporarily curtailing domestic surveillance
A. Interpretation – of how the resolution is defined.
“Curtail” means to END something
Hyper Dictionary 2015, http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/curtail
Terminate or abbreviate before its intended or proper end or its full extent; "My speech was cut short";
"Personal freedom is curtailed in many countries" To cut off the end or tail, or any part, of; to shorten;
to abridge; to diminish; to reduce.
B. Violation –How the Affirmative does not meet the burden of the resolution.
The Affirmative only temporarily reduces Surveillance, therefore not curtailing.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For affirmatives that use the Courts
A. Interpretation – of how the resolution is defined.
In policy-related contexts, ‘resolved’ denotes a proposal to be enacted by law
Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by
resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,”
which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.
“Curtailing Domestic Surveillance” means legislation to reduce it
Ivan Eland, Huffington Post, Posted: 10/14/2013 3:13 pm EDT, We Don't Need More 'Spin' About
NSA's Unconstitutional Domestic Snooping, We Need It Stopped, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivaneland/nsa-domestic-spying_b_4097878.html
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) are making at least some effort to push back on
empire, in favor of the republic, by attempting to curtail unconstitutional snooping on Americans.
Sensenbrenner -- a co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act, which unfortunately originally authorized some
of the unconstitutional spying -- has now had second thoughts and is drafting legislation to reduce
domestic surveillance. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already drafted a bill to
terminate NSA's ability to systematically suck in Americans' phone records. Such domestic surveillance
should be eliminated, unless it falls strictly within the Constitution's requirement of obtaining a search
warrant only if "probable cause" exists that a suspect has committed a crime. The republic's national
security will hardly be compromised if the Constitution is followed, but the republic itself will be
undermined if it is not.
B. Violation –How the Affirmative does not meet the burden of the resolution.
The Affirmative only has the courts rule ______ unconstitutional instead of making
legislative change to curtail surveillance.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For affs that focus on Military Surveillance
A. Interpretation
“Domestic Surveillance” excludes the Military – the NSA is Foreign Intelligence
Friends Committee on National Legislation, June 2006, Spying on Americans,
http://fcnl.org/resources/newsletter/jun06/spying_on_americans/,
The NSA, with an annual budget of at least $26.7 billion (the 1998 budget is the most recent public
figure), was created in 1952 from existing Pentagon intelligence programs. The agency is charged with
gathering foreign intelligence information; it listens in on electronic communications around the world.
Unlike the CIA and the FBI, the NSA is a military operation, headed by a commissioned officer and
responsible to the Secretary of Defense.
B. Violation
The Affirmative is focused on curtailing military surveillance – which is not domestic
surveillance.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
For affirmatives who change FISA’s acts housed in the USA
A. Interpretation
THE NSA and FISA are not “Domestic Surveillance”
Friends Committee on National Legislation, June 2006, Spying on Americans,
http://fcnl.org/resources/newsletter/jun06/spying_on_americans/,
To bring intelligence collection in line with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures, the 1978 statute created a secret FISA court through which the government could
obtain warrants for domestic surveillance. Under FISA, the government must present to this court
evidence that it has probable cause to believe the person to be surveilled is an agent of a foreign power
or is involved with an international terrorism organization. Congress defined the FISA procedure for
procuring foreign intelligence as “the exclusive means by which electronic [domestic] surveillance … may
be conducted.” No one disputes that there are people within the United States who are suspected of
ties with violent groups intent on attacking people in this country or who are agents of foreign powers.
The NSA can electronically surveil such individuals by getting a warrant from the FISA court, thus abiding
by the Fourth Amendment. Outside of the FISA process, the NSA has no authority for domestic
surveillance.
B. Violation –How the affirmative does not meet the burden of the resolution.
The Affirmative may claim that they are domestic surveillance because the companies
doing surveillance are in the US – but that is a stretch. The NSA has no domestic
surveillance power and FISA is designed for INTERNATIONAL and FOREIGN
surveillance.
C. Standards – these are the reasons you, as the judge, should prefer our
interpretation.
1. Predictability – reading a case outside of the resolution, means the negative was unable to prepare
for this debate, and thus the clash in this debate is hurt as a result.
2. Ground – Reading cases outside of the topic hurts the quality of debate as the negative can only
read generic disadvantages rather than talking about the case in a more detailed manor.
3. Framer’s Intent – The topic committee wrote, and the country voted on, a resolution for a reason,
and with a specific purpose for our education and discussions – violating this hurts the activity of debate
as a whole.
4. Bright line – our interpretation provides a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not.
MSDI 2015 Topicality File –Wicks
D. Voters – these are the reasons for which you are signing your ballot for the negative
today.
1. Apriori – This issue comes first when evaluating the round – if the affirmative is not topical, this
round never should have happened.
2. Stock Issues – Topicality is one of the 5 stock issues to provide a foundation of an affirmative case.
If the negative wins won, the affirmative should lose.
3. Fairness and Education – Reading a non-topical case is unfair both to the negative as debaters
and to the judge to sit through a round that isn’t productive and not letting us learn as we were
supposed to.