Call/text: (617) 682-9697 | e: [email protected] | f: 617-391-3067

Michigan Topic Lecture

image

T – 2019

Substantially Substantially can’t be incremental (Emory) Quantities/percentages (DebateUS!) In the Main (DebateUS!) Without Material Qualification! (DebateUS!) Reduce essay Cannot reduced against a future hypothetical (DebateUS!) Must break a contract (DebateUS!) Can’t break a contract because sale is already complete (DebateUS!) Adding a condition not a reduction (DebateUS!) Changing the sale process isn’t a reduction (DebateUS!) “Arms Sales” Military aid not an arms sale (DebateUS!) DebateUS! File Camp Files    

image

T — Reduce

All Topicality Arguments Without initially passing judgment, there are a number of different ways of interpreting “reduce” in the resolution. Reduce against the future.   “Reduce against the future” means to interpret the resolution to say the Affirmative can/should argue for the US selling fewer arms than it otherwise would sell in the future. . From a strict definition perspective, this doesn’t make a lot of sense – you wouldn’t say