Problem A: Affs need to be significant. This is a fact. If we remove this burden, absolutely an ridiculous policy (such as the aforementioned two bucks) is legitimate. This isn't really true because of the resolution; it's true because of presumption. The Aff needs to demonstrate a real reason to vote for them. (I say it's not a resolutional issue, although it really is; it's just that, generally speaking, significance is best measured by its outcome.)
Problem B: What is "significant" is wholly and exclusively subjective. Metaphysically speaking, the entire word is pretty much useless. It's not that significance is completely undefinable, it's just that it changes in different situations. Therefore, there has to be a standard of some sort:
Definitional. This works until the Negative proposes a counterdefinition; then you're back where you started.
What about the def "to have effect"?
The judge decides. This is actually a lot more legitimate than you might think; the judge is the final arbiter in the round, so why shouldn't he or she decide what is significant?
Because judges seem to buy it when neg cries and says "THEY AREN'T SIGNIFICANT! IT'S UNAFAIR
". Look who's talking.
My point is that the fact that significance is subjective does not make it a moot point. You just need some kind of objective reference point, like a standard, to make it meaningful.
My standard would be that the policy must have some important effect. Not "big" effect, because big is subjective. But "important", as in relevant to policy (in the case of JVA, Human Rights, Trade, Credibility, Leverage, etc.) can at least be detected.
As you said, it is an awful T press and if you have the right definitions, it's excruciatingly easy to beat. Last time we faced this T baby with MSSIS, we simply brought it back to our definition (slightly squirrelly definition) which defines "significantly" as "having or likely to have influence or effect," so the significance in our plan does not relate to the actual foreign policy change, but the impacts of the foreign policy change. It's totally legit.
That's how my partner and I plan to spike the press out. I pray that it works.
Bad T presses always have the potential to boost your speaker points too. Because when you're right, and you know you're right, and you the other guy is really wrong, it's not all that hard to come right up and say it.
under that standard, literally every case is topical.
No, literally every case that is TOPICAL is topical. It still has to meet every other word in the rez. And if it literally adds two bucks, then you can argue sig on other grounds.
that's FX T, isn't it?
No, it's saying that the only way we can tell if a change is significant is if it has an effect. That's it, and it's legit.
I meant a "significant" influence or effect. One dollar isn't going to make a big difference. MSSIS is.
The problem is that you're stuck with defining "sig" again. The Kohnkes did this to us.
My 1AR: "'Sig' should be 'have effect.'"
The 1NR: "No, it needs to have a 'significant' effect."
Just don't run the press unless aff is obviously unfair (MSSIS and JVA aren't), otherwise youre
I don't know exactly how you've structured your case
We basically argue (with precedent) that moving the goalpost destroys credibility and destroys leverage. Therefore, we should use things other than JVA for leverage (then we list seven alternatives that would work in lieu of Jackson-Vanik). The justification here is HRs, IPRs, etc. Effective leverage is better than coutner-productive leverage. Sisyphus analogy, FTW! Then we argue trade, with quotes from businesses and experts that PNTR is better than TNTR for trade stability.
The only J.V. round we lost was on the argument that essentially says the waivers are provided for within the amendment so we're not being unjust
Read my sig
it is hypocritical to only graduate Russia and not the other countries under the amendment.
That's easy to respond to.
::EDIT:: ninja'd. Thanks, Nate