Topicality File GDS 2010
Juniors
Topicality File
Topicality File 1
***Reduce*** 2
1NC Shell Total Withdrawal =/= Reduction 3
2NC Extension Total Withdrawal =/= Reduction 4
1NC Shell Relocation =/= Reduction 5
2NC Extension Relocation =/= Reduction 6
Reduction Specification (R-Spec) 7
Reduce Definitions 8
***Presence*** 9
Presence Isn’t Virtual 10
Presence is Routine Missions 11
Presence Excludes Active Combat Missions 12
Presence is Visible 13
Presence is Boots on the Ground 14
Presence is Bases 15
***Aff*** 16
Aff Presence Definitions 17
Aff A/T: Relocation =/= Reduction 18
Aff: Changing = Reduction 19
Aff: Okinawan Relocation = Reduction 20
***Reduce***
1NC Shell Total Withdrawal =/= Reduction
A) Interpretation: To reduce is to lessen, it does not mean to eliminate or diminish to nothing.
Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases Volume 4 1914, The Editorial Staff of the National Reporter System St. Paul West Publishing Company
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=IJMNAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
REDUCE Rev. Laws, c. 203, § 9, provides that, if two or more cases are tried together in the superior court, the presiding judge may "reduce" the witness fees and other costs, but "not less than the ordinary witness fees, and other costs recoverable in one of the cases" which are so tried together shall be allowed. Held that, in reducing the costs, the amount in all the cases together is to be considered and reduced, providing that there must be left in the aggregate an amount not less than the largest sum recoverable In any of the cases. The word "reduce," In its ordinary signification, does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but to diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state. Green v. Sklar, 74 N. E. 595, 596, 188 Mass. 303.
B) Violation: The affirmative withdraws all military presence and therefore does not actually reduce but eliminates military presence.
C) Standards:
1. Ground: Some troop presence is key to negative CP and Disad ground. They can spike out of links by saying removal solves back.
2. Limits: Total withdrawal allows the affirmative to claim a variety of deontological impacts they otherwise wouldn’t be able to. It explodes predictable limits the negative is unable to predict new advantage ground the affirmative can garner through distortion of the word reduce.
3. Predictability: Negatives are prepared to debate a reduction in troops not the effects of a total withdrawal. The affirmative’s interpretation justifies an affirmative that eradicates the entire U.S. military.
D) T is a voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction. It’s a prima facia requirement.
2NC Extension Total Withdrawal =/= Reduction
In the specific context of the military, reduce does not mean a total withdrawal.
Dougherty and Lehman 1967 Chairman Foreign Policy Research Institute, Staff Member National Security Council, Former Secretary of the Navy “Arms Control for the Late Sixties” Van Nostrand Outgrowth of the Third International Arms Control Symposium
With respect to some of the things President de Gaulle is trying to accomplish. In the arms control context, we should look for possible steps to reduce – and I emphasize the word reduce and not totally withdraw – our troops from Germany.
Reduce is a technical term that has different meanings in every trade. Must define it in context.
The Insurance Law Journal: Reports of Decisions Rendered in Insurance Cases in the Federal Courts, and in the States Supreme Court Volume 8 1899 New York Court of Appeals
The well-established general rule of law that an agent is bound to carry out the instructions of his principal, and must respond for losses that occur in consequence of his failure to do so, was clearly stated by the learned trial judge in his charge. The material exceptions taken were to the refusal of the court to admit certain questions put by counsel for the plaintiff, the first being, "What, by the custom of the trade, is the duty of an agent when instructed to reduce the amount of a policy?" This question wa"S asked John S. Lockwood, one of the general managers, and, being objected to, was overruled. The ground for overruling this question, briefly stated, as it appears from the record, was the absence of any condition in ihe policy itself providing for a reduction of its amount, and, therefore, the only remedy for the insuring company, if dissatisfied with its contract, was to order its cancellation on paying a rebate of premium in the manner prescribed by the terms of the policy; and that the instructions given in the letter to the agents could not be carried out, and were inconsistent with the rights of the party insured; and that the evidence proposed would, in effect, vary the terms of the policy. We think there was error in this ruling. By its express terms the question was only an offer to show that some duty devolved upon an agent who received instructions to reduce a policy, and what, according to the custom of the business or trade, that duty was. The object was to affirmatively prove that the word ''reduce," as used, has a definite and well-understood meaning among those engaged in the fire insurance business. Its purport was not to relieve any one from doing what he was bound to do by the terms of any contract, nor to show that either party should not carry out fully every promise or undertaking in this policy of insurance, which was done after the fire; and the cold-storage company, whose property was insured, is not a party to this suit in any way. It was not, and of course, VOL. XXVIII.—47 -> 7 could not be, contended that a fire insurance company must carry until the policy expires, what it deems to be an excessive risk, and it is equally true that, with the consent of the insured, the amount carried may be reduced to any sum satisfactory to both parties, and there is nothing in the record from which the presumption arises that the consent of the insured could not have been obtained to a reduction to the sum desired, no effort to that end having been made. There is no room to doubt the true meaning of the letter, and there is no suggestion that the agents did not understand that the plaintiffs were unwilling to carry an insurance of $3,500 for the coldstorage company. The evidence proposed by the question overruled was to show that the word "reduce," as used in the letter, has a special and technical meaning according to the customs of the fire insurance business, and thus was a trade term, and clearly indicated to the defendants, who were fire insurance agents of large experience, what steps should be taken to relieve plaintiffs from the excessive amount. The ruling of the court denied any such meaning to the word in the present case. That parol evidence is competent to prove the special or trade meaning of words has long been settled. The rule established by a multitude of cases is stated in 1 Greenl.. Ev. (§ 295), as follows: "In regard to words which are purely technical or local,— that is, words which are not of universal use, but are familiarly known and employed, either in a particular district, or in a particular science or trade,—parol evidence is always receivable to define and explain their meaning among those who use them. And' the principle and practice are the same in regard to words which have two meanings, the one common and universal and the other technical, peculiar, or local; parol evidence being admissible of facts tending to show that the words were used in the latter sense, and to ascertain their technical or local meaning.1' Now, is the word "reduce," as used in the instructions given, such as to bring it within the operation of the foregoing rule? We think it is. There are but few words in our language that have so many technical meanings as this one. In the medical profession instructions to reduce a fracture would mean one thing; in the military world, to reduce a fort, quite another: to the mathematician, to reduce a problem, another; to the chemist, to reduce a substance, still another; and so on. But in each case it would be competent to show by parol evidence, if any exigency required it, just what the words "to reduce" meant in the connection in which they were used, and that they clearly implied to any one in the business or trade in which the instructions were given just what means should be used and steps taken to accomplish the purpose intended. Therefore, when the offer was made to prove by parol evidence that in the fire insurance business this elastic verb "to reduce," as used in the letter which is the foundation of this suit, has a well-known technical and special meaning, this testimony should not have been excluded from the jury, whose duty it would be to determine what weight it should have in the case. The fact that the actual meaning of a trade term is a question for the jury is not in conflict with the general rule that it is the duty of the court to construe written instruments. In Goddard vs. Foster (17 Wall., 123142), the court said: "The rule of law that the interpretation of written instruments is a question of law for the court is ap. plied in full force to agreements to be deduced from the correspondence of the parties, and the fact that the language of the letters containing the offer or acceptance is doubtful does not relieve the court of this duty, or make the question one of fact for the jury. It is only where terms are technical, or terms having a peculiar meaning in a particular trade or place, that the aid of a jury is invoked to ascertain their meaning.
1NC Shell Relocation =/= Reduction
A) To reduce is to lessen the overall size of something, it is distinct from a process used to offset (like troop relocation), that’s mitigation.
Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand 2008 : “How will carbon footprinting address the issues of reduction, mitigation, emissions trading and marketing http://www.horticulture.com.au/librarymanager/libs/162/VG08107%20Discussion%20Paper%202.PDF
For example, an enterprise or supply chain can use the LCA footprinting exercise to increase the efficiency of its resource use by reducing its footprint. It could also, if it wished, mitigate the size of its footprint by purchasing offsets so that it might advertise itself as being ‘carbon’ or ‘climate’ neutral. Here we use the word ‘reduce’ simply to mean a change in practice that reduces the size of the GHG footprint, such as a lower use of fertiliser. In contrast, we use the word ‘mitigate’ to mean that there has been an external process used to offset the size of the GHG footprint, such as the purchase of carbon credits outside of the business. The assignment of the appellation ‘carbon neutral’ may be used to provide a marketing edge, such as by New Zealand’s Grove Mill winery (http://www.grovemill.co.nz/page/home ).
B) Violation: The affirmative simply moves the troops to another location to offset their previous presence in ______, this isn’t a reduction of military presence but rather a mitigation.
C) Standards:
1. Ground: Key to negative ground they can just spike out of disad links like resolve by saying they move the troops somewhere else. Troop relocation arguments are negative ground.
2. Limits: Affs can relocate anywhere read advantages to relocation. This unlimits - the negative cannot research every possible area of relocation within every country, every region and every mission in those regions.
D) T is a voter for fairness, education, and jurisdiction. It’s a prima facia requirement.
2NC Extension Relocation =/= Reduction
The word “reduce” implies a permanent reduction.
MATTER OF MONTESANI v. Levitt, 9 AD 2d 51 - NY: Supreme Court, Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 1959
Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it must later pay it anyway. The section says "reduced", does not say that monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency. Aside from the practical aspect indicating permanency other indicia point to the same conclusion. From 1924 (L. 1924, ch. 619) to 1947 (L. 1947, ch. 841) a provision appeared in the Civil Service Law which read substantially as follows: "If the pension of a beneficiary is reduced for any reason, the amount of such reduction shall be transferred from the pension reserve fund to the pension accumulation fund during that period that such reduction is in effect." (See L. 1924, ch. 619, § 2 [Civil Service Law, § 58, subd. 4]; L. 1947, ch. 841 [Civil Service Law, § 66, subd. e].) This provision reappears in the 1955 Retirement and Social Security Law as subdivision f of section 24. This provision is useful for interpretative purposes. Since it prescribes that moneys not paid because of reduction should be transferred back to the accumulation fund the conclusion is inescapable that such reductions were meant to be permanent. If temporary suspensions were intended this bookkeeping device would result in a false picture of the funds, i.e., the reserve fund would be depleted when it would contain adequate funds to meet eventual payments 57*57 to present pensioners. Likewise, the accumulation fund would be improperly inflated with respect to the present pensioners. Section 64 of the Retirement and Social Security Law (§ 85 under the 1947 act) provides that any disability pension must be reduced by the amount payable pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Law if applicable. In Matter of Dalton v. City of Yonkers (262 App. Div. 321, 323 [1941]) this court interpreted "reduce" to mean "offset" in holding that under then section 67 (relating to Workmen's Compensation benefits as do its successors sections 85 and 64), pensions were to be offset by compensation benefits. This is merely another indication that "reduce" means a diminishing of the pension pursuant to a given formula rather than a mere recoverable, temporary suspension during the time other benefits or salaries are being received by the pensioner. (Also, cf., Retirement and Social Security Law, § 101 [§ 84 under the 1947 act].)