Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
The affirmative says that they intend to increase the use of solar power. The negative argues that the affirmative actually would discourage the use of solar power. The affirmative gets up and argues that reducing solar power would actually be good. Can the affirmative do this?
This is an interesting question. The answer depends on the definition of "to" and your flexibility on topicality.
One side will argue that whether the affirmative actually increases renewable energy use is irrelevant. The point is that the plan intended to do so, so it is therefore topical.
The other side will argue that to allow the affirmative to "intend" to increase renewables gives the affirmative too much leeway as it means they can just say they intend to increase renewables to be topical. This would open up the topic to almost any plan where the affirmative says it is to increase renewables.
The affirmative can argue that the definition of "to" (for the purpose of) means that they just need to establish a purpose and that as long as reading the plan would make a reasonable person believe that it does indeed intend to increase renewables, then it is topical.
The negative can argue that the topic should be interpreted as whether we should have a policy that actually does increase renewable energy. If the affirmative isn't defending increased renewable energy at the end of the debate--then, what justification has the affirmative given for the topic?
Jim
Thanks to Jenny Gaskins for asking this question.