The point doesn't go away.. How many times do I have to mention that the impact to topicality is the same, and OP may believe that they're topical under common, pragmatically justified interps, but not semantically justified ones? Reading Nebel T exposes the aff to topicality arguments that otherwise would be weak.
Obviously semantic arguments are applicable even absent Nebel T. Once again, it is fantastic that you have thought of arguments for OP to frontline, but it is not necessary for other people to think of responses on their behalf.
implies that it currently is not. To-be is definitionally the future. Even if "ought to be" doesn't directly imply future tense by itself, it does indicate a shift when, in the status quo, national service isn't compulsory, and affs defend implementation.
But in the status quo, national service is compulsory, according to OP's conception of what it means for national service to be compulsory. So your argument fails to apply. You presuppose your own conclusion.
"Murder ought to be abhorred" implies that it currently is not.
Let me get this straight. You think that if every person in the world except for one believes that murder is abhorrent, the statement is true, but once that guy changes his mind, it becomes false or incoherent. I don't buy that at all. You keep saying "by definition" -- by which definition?
Nebel T is most commonly used to justify spec bad arguments. If you think this requires mindreading to know, then you haven't debated enough. Nebel himself, in a module given at VBI LA2, talked about how Nebel T is used, on the nuclear power topic, to answer plans that spec a country. That is why he also writes about considering each topic from a new perspective -- because relevant phrases as generics in one resolution may not also be generic in the next.
It sometimes and often entails that conclusion, not that it always does. If you think that his argument necessarily entails that all specced advocacies are non-topical, you are misreading the argument.
Existential readings of bare plural subjects are eligible only when the predicate is indexed to some location (e.g., “is here” or “on the plate”)
Is "the United States" not a location that the resolution is fixed to?
Here's another way of thinking about it. True or false: is national service compulsory in Israel? Hopefully you answered yes to that question. If the aff "spec'ed" that the US adopt the Israeli model of national service, would it be the case that in the affirmative world, national service is mandatory in the United States? I think it would be. Hence, a plan just became topical under Nebel T.
Let's apply the nuclear power example. If France and the UK ban nuclear power, is it the case that countries have banned nuclear power? Not if "countries" is read as a bare plural. Hence that plan is not topical under Nebel T. Thus proving that on some topics but not others, plans can be topical depending on exactly what you are specing.
By the way, there is absolutely no need for me to come up with these arguments, OP could have done it themselves. Think about how many words you have written all for the conclusion "OP, if you follow /u/leLDtroll's advice, here are two potential responses your opponent can make. Either deal with those responses or pick a different strategy." Why are you arguing with me again?