Cerisano/Green Topicality – Russians vs.

Russia Page 1 of 2
Vector Debate – Region IX IPP Specific

Topicality – Russians vs Russia

[IPP specific, but you can twist it to fit multiple cases (FLEX, Human Trafficking Centers, etc.) ]
Featuring a Peter Voell card contribution. ; P

A. Standard/Interp

People ≠ the country. “Russia” in the resolution refers to the specific entity of Russia Federation
[aka its government] not to its people, scientists, dog, or somebody's Russian au pair.

“In its political meaning, the term Russia applies to the Russian Empire until 1917, to the Russian
the Russian Federation since 1991.”
Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) from 1917 to 1991, and to
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2007, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Russia (RC)

B. Standards
Brightline: Negative establishes a clear cut-off point at which the affirmative team isn't topical.
Brightlines provide clarity when interpreting the resolution.

Limits: The resolution cannot be a gargantuan monstrosity without limits. Limits are key for
literature checking and promoting educational debate. A more limited resolution allows the
negative team to do more in depth research, allowing for better debates. The affirmative has
forever to prepare, limits give the neg at least closer to as long prep time. Under an Affirmative
interpretation, a topical policy could be towards any person, animal or mineral, as long as it was
located in Russia. Notttt legit.
Cerisano/Green Topicality – Russians vs. Russia Page 2 of 2
Vector Debate – Region IX IPP Specific

C. Violation
IPP is not a program towards the government of Russia, instead it is simply towards scientists
within Russia.

IPP is not gov-to-gov and it’s that way for a reason. it also happens to make aff super
non-topical. it’s all good. [Underline as you feel necessary]
Scheinman 08 Adam Scheinman [assistant deputy administrator for nonproliferation and international security in
the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In this position, he has responsibility for all
nonproliferation policy, arms control, and regional security programs. Prior to this, Scheinman held the position of policy
director in the same office, where he was responsible for coordinating research, policy programming, and outreach. From
January 2001 through March 2005, Scheinman was director of the NNSA Office of Export Control Policy and Cooperation.
From June 1998 through December 2000, he served as special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Energy for
Nonproliferation and National Security, where he coordinated all aspects of the department’s nonproliferation and arms
control agenda. From November 1995 through June 1998, Scheinman was a foreign affairs specialist in the DOE
International Policy and Analysis Division, where he was lead officer for the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and South Asian regional affairs. Prior to joining the Department of Energy, Scheinman
held positions with non-governmental organizations specializing in nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. He has also
published a number of scholarly articles in the field and is co-editor of At the Nuclear Crossroads: Choices About Nuclear
Weapons and the Extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1995). Scheinman graduated from Cornell University
in 1987, where he received a Bachelors of Arts degree. He received a Master of Arts degree from the George Washington
University Elliot School of International Affairs in 1990], “COMBATING NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S INITIATIVES FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION (IPP) PROGRAM,” HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, JANUARY 23, 2008,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg47234/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg47234.pdf (PV)
“Q21. Why wasn’t the IPP program set up on a government-to-government basis?
A21. Because scientist engagement involves multiple governments, agencies and institutes, the
United States and its partners agreed to work under existing multilateral agreements that
established the International Science and Technology Center in Russia, the Science and Technology
Center in Ukraine, and the Civilian Research and Development Foundation. It did not make sense
to duplicate these established mechanisms, which have worked well to guarantee tax-free
treatment for project funds, among other benefits.”

D. Voters
A priori: Topicality is an a priori issue that must be voted on before any other issues are weighed.
If the affirmative loses on T, then the rest of their case is pretty much sunk.

Education: A limited resolution is key to promoting education. If the rez was as broad as the way
the affirmative wishes to interpret it, we'd have more squirrelly cases to deal with which would
limit our education as debaters of this resolution. Favor in-depth, educational debate.

Judge's Jurisdiction: By the affirmative team straying outside of the designated boundaries of
the resolution, they have essentially stolen your power to vote affirmative. Outside of the fantasy
world of debate and fiat power, judges can only judge on issues within their jurisdiction. Just like a
stereo thief wouldn’t be tried in a traffic court, the plan can’t be tried in a court with jurisdiction
only over the resolution