The argument has seemed to work well from my experiances on it. So long as you can explain to the judge the fundamental difference between Sig-T and the stock issue Significance, you should have no problems. Just come up with some good impacts (both generic and case specific) and you should be able to win on it.
I actually like running Top/Sig better than stock issue/Sig. In my experience, I've almost found it harder to impact stock issue/Sig.
I don't understand this statement. Significance as a stock issues is easy. The harm isn't big enough to merit a reform. Simple as that. Sig T is harder to impact. You have to link the size of a reform to the resolution, however, with any definition you give to create a bright line doesn't matter. Significance is a relative term. You can't just say that plan X is insignificant, because who decides what is significant, and what is insignificant? What are the guidelines? Where is that line drawn. No one can quantify that, or place that line there.
Let me see if I can clarify my statement.
Here's an example: last year with CJS, there were numerous cases that dealt with death penalty/criminal sentencing. Say the affirmative was reforming one small little aspect of the CJS (like DNA evidence, or how prosecutors handle eyewitness testimony, etc.).
The Negative can come up and say that it's not that significance, so nbd. There's no reason to vote Aff.
What happens if the Aff comes back then, and claims that even if they are saving one innocent person's life from unfair punishment, then the judge should vote for them? They are being significant in some aspects, while in other's they are not.
This seems kinda unfair, although I did win an Aff round last year on this type of argument.
(Disclaimer: I have nothing whatsoever against this argument in real life. I totally respect the sanctity of life, but this is just used as an example)
Or another example: What happens if Aff is running a Criterion, which is something like net benefits. They can argue that even however small the benefits they get by an Aff ballot are, it's still better than the SQ, so Sign doesn't matter.
Then the obvious response is: Pin them down through their own guidelines. Topicality.
It's just a matter of showing why they don't fulfill their own definition of significant (or provide a counter one), impact it, etc. Then, even if they say they claim net benefits, or even save one life, you can prove that it doesn't matter because they provided the resolution, and are bound to uphold their own rules. You can use the classic basketball analogy: The resolution says to shoot a three pointer. They shoot a layup. It doesn't matter if they make it or not. It doesn't count, cause it's not what the resolution said to do.
Make any sense?