Dartmouth Debate Institute KM
--- Interpretation
–
Lays out the Negative’s vision of what a word or phrase in the resolution means
–
Grounded in evidence. o Good sources:

Dictionary

Legal code – laws and court decisions

Contextual usage by qualified experts
--- Violation
–
Explains why the Affirmative plan falls outside of the Negative’s vision of (the word or phrase from) the resolution
–
Does not require evidence, but evidence can substantiate the interpretation. Usually this type of evidence provides an exclusive , rather than a comprehensive definition. o Note – Why is a purely exclusive definition inadequate as an Interpretation?
--- Voting Issues
–
Describes the reasons to prefer the negative’s interpretation o “Reasons to prefer” are best understood as advantages to the Negative’s interpretation of the topic and disadvantages to interpretations of the topic that would allow the Affirmative plan.

Link:

Examples:

Impact:

Examples:
 Note: Voting for the negative’s interpretation provides uniqueness, by assuring that alternative interpretations of the topic are not allowed.
–
Does not require evidence, but evidence can aid in expressing the importance of individual reasons to prefer.

--- We Meet
– Argues that the Affirmative plan conforms with the Negative’s interpretation of the topic
–
Usually does not require evidence.
– Why shouldn’t you read a purely inclusive definition to establish a “we meet” argument? (Ex:
Exploration Includes Robotics)
--- Counter-interpretation
–
Provides a proposed vision of (a word or phrase in) the resolution that includes the Affirmative.
–
Almost always requires evidence. Usually, you want to look for a definition that is close as possible to the Negative’s interpretation.
–
The affirmative must always read a counter-interpretation. Why?
--- Reasons to Prefer
– Similarly to the reasons to prefer the Negative’s interpretation, these arguments provide advantages to the Affirmative’s interpretation and disadvantages to the Negative’s interpretation.
–
Does not require evidence, but evidence can aid in expressing the importance of individual reasons to prefer.
–
Examples –
--- Reasonability
–
Suggests that the judge should determine whether the Affirmative plan meets a reasonable interpretation of the topic, rather than forcing the Affirmative to meet the best possible interpretation of the topic
–
Note: Reasonability is a quality of an interpretation, not of an Affirmative plan.
–
Reasons to evaluate a topicality debate through the lens of Reasonability:

For Both Sides:
--- Defining Other Words and Phrases in the Resolution
--- Use More Evidence
--- Use Case Lists
--- Address Side Bias
--- Extend Diverse Reasons to Prefer
–
You always want to access both fairness and education
--- Impact Calc
–
Weigh relative benefits: fairness versus education, overlimiting versus underlimiting, and so forth
–
Why prefer fairness?
–
Why prefer education?
–
Why prefer over-limiting?
–
Why prefer under-limiting?
For the Negative:
--- Testing the Competitiveness of the Counter-interpretation
--- Beat Down on Contextual “We Meet” Arguments
– Why doesn’t evidence that says “the plan is (space exploration, space development, etc)” prove the
Aff is topical?
--- Winning Competing Interpretations
–
Why is it better than Reasonability?
For the Affirmative:
--- Extend the Counter-interpretation
--- Always Defend Aff Flexibility