1nc – Long (Intellectuals)



Download 149.9 Kb.
Page1/3
Date20.04.2016
Size149.9 Kb.
#12331
  1   2   3

1NC – Long (Intellectuals)



Contention 1: interpretation and violation
A. The ballot’s sole purpose is to answer the resolutional question: Is the outcome of the enactment of a topical plan better than the status quo or a competitive policy option or alternative? They violate this by failing to defend the enactment of a plan. It’s a voting issue.
Definitional support ---
1. “Resolved” before a colon reflects a legislative forum
Army Officer School ‘04

(5-12, “# 12, Punctuation – The Colon and Semicolon”, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)


The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive: Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. b. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael Shaara wrote: (colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle [Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more paragraphs.) c. A formal quotation or question: The President declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon) what can we do about it? d. A second independent clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. e. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) f. The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock g. A formal resolution, after the word "resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.
2. “United States Federal Government should” means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means
Ericson ‘03

(Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4)


The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains certain key elements, although they have slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions. 1. An agent doing the acting ---“The United States” in “The United States should adopt a policy of free trade.” Like the object of evaluation in a proposition of value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb should—the first part of a verb phrase that urges action. 3. An action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put a program or policy into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a limitation of the action desired. The phrase free trade, for example, gives direction and limits to the topic, which would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing diplomatic recognition, or discussing interstate commerce. Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The entire debate is about whether something ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative side in such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.
Contention 2: Voting issue
Having the resolution as the point of stasis is crucial to us debating; this does not reject their advocacy, as long as it is grounded in the topic
Panetta et. al ’10 (Chair Edward M. Panetta, University of Georgia; co-author, William Mosley-Jensen, University of Georgia Members Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern University Sherry Hall, Harvard University Kevin Kuswa, University of Richmond Ed Lee, Emory University David Steinberg, University of Miami (FL) Fred Sternhagen, Concordia College (MN) John Turner, Dartmouth College, “Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century”, “Controversies in Debate Pedagogy: Working Paper”, p. 220)
For adherents to the traditional mode of debate, when one retreats from grounding stasis in the annual proposition, there are two predicted intellectual justifications that surface. First, there is the claim that the existence of a resolution (without substantive content) and time limits is enough of a point of departure to allow for a debate. For traditionalists, this move seems to reduce the existing stasis to the point that it has no real meaning. How does the resolution mold the argument choices of students when one team refuses to acknowledge the argumentative foundation embedded in the sentence? What educational benefit is associated with the articulation of a two-hour and forty-five minute limit for a debate and decision where there is not an agreed point of departure for the initiation of the debate? Second, advocates of moving away from a resolutionbased point of stasis contend that valuable arguments do take place. Yes, but that argumentation does not meet some of the core assumptions of a debate for someone who believes that treatment of a stated proposition is a defining element of debate. Participants in a debate need to have some type of loosely shared agreement to focus the clash of arguments in a round of debate. Adherence to this approach does not necessarily call for the rejection of innovative approaches, including the use of individual narratives as a form of support or the metaphorical endorsement of the proposition. This perspective on contest debate does, however, require participants to make an effort to relate a rhetorical strategy to the national topic.
Topicality is a voting issue because without stasis, debate is impossible

Shively ‘2K

(Ruth Lessl, Assistant Prof Political Science – Texas A&M U., Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2)



The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest-that consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
Continued page 184…

But, again, the response to the ambiguist must be that the practice of questioning and undermining rules, like all other social practices, needs a certain order. The subversive needs rules to protect subversion. And when we look more closely at the rules protective of subversion, we find that they are roughly the rules of argument discussed above. In fact, the rules of argument are roughly the rules of democracy or civility: the delineation of boundaries necessary to protect speech and action from violence, manipulation, and other forms of tyranny.


Contention ____: Plan Focus

1) Only our framework preserves it --- the role of the ballot is to answer the resolutional question: Should the federal government expand its visa policy? Considering any impact other than the outcome of the enactment of the plan creates the illogical decision where you vote Aff even though their policy is a bad idea that should not be affirmed.
2) This teaches the best decision-making skills. Changing the role of the ballot from a yes/no question about the desirability of the plan to something else. This undermines the singular logical purpose of debate: the search for the best policy.
3) Biggest educational impact --- learning is useless if it’s not connected to the real world

Strait and Wallace ‘07

(L. Paul, USC and Brett, George Mason U., The Scope of Negative Fiat and the Logic of Decision Making, Policy Cures? Health Assistance to Africa, Debaters Research Guide, p. A2)



More to the point, debate certainly helps teach a lot of skills, yet we believe that the way policy debate participation encourages you to think is the most valuable educational benefit, because how someone makes decisions determines how they will employ the rest of their abilities, including the research and communication skills that debate builds. Plenty of debate theory articles have explained either the value of debate, or the way in which alternate actor strategies are detrimental to real-world education, but none so far have attempted to tie these concepts together. We will now explain how decision-making skill development is the foremost value of policy debate and how this benefit is the decision-rule to resolving all theoretical discussions about negative fiat. Why debate? Some do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many just believe it is fun. These are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to join the debate team, but as debate theorists they aren’t the focus of our concern. Our concern is finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. It is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. Decision-making transcends boundaries between categories of learning learning like “policy education” and “kritik education,” it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. The implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making are comparatively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions. The academic studies and research supporting this position are numerous. Richard Fulkerson (1996) explains that “argumentation… is the chief cognitive activity by which a democracy, a field of study, a corporation, or a committee functions. . . And it is vitally important that high school and college students learn both to argue well and to critique the arguments of others” (p. 16). Stuart Yeh (1998) comes to the conclusion that debate allows even cultural minority students to “identify an issue, consider different views, form and defend a viewpoint, and consider and respond to counterarguments…The ability to write effective arguments influences grades, academic success, and preparation for college and employment” (p. 49). Certainly, these are all reasons why debate and argumentation themselves are valuable, so why is real world decision-making critical to argumentative thinking? Although people might occasionally think about problems from the position of an ideal decisionmaker (c.f. Ulrich, 1981, quoted in Korcok, 2001), in debate we should be concerned with what type of argumentative thinking is the most relevant to real-world intelligence and the decisions that people make every day in their lives, not academic trivialities. It is precisely because it is rooted in real-world logic that argumentative thinking has value. Deanna Kuhn’s research in “Thinking as Argument” explains this by stating that “no other kind of thinking matters more-or contributes more to the quality and fulfillment of people’s lives, both individually and collectively” (p. 156).
4) Judge intervention ---

A) Their framework lacks clear criteria --- only policy debate avoids subjective decision-making
Speice and Lyle ‘03

(Patrick, Wake Forest, and Jim, Debate Coach – Clarion, “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever”, Debaters Research Guide, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm)



While some criticize the cost-benefit analysis method of evaluating a debate as subjective (for example, how does one weigh the people that may be saved by a plan against the immorality of the action), the role of the judge is much more clearly defined than in a debate about language and performance. In TPD, the teams are able to make weighing arguments that guide the judge in evaluating competing claims. For example, teams will regularly argue that even if an action is immoral, it is justified in order to save lives. This type of argument fits neatly into the formula for evaluating a TPD because it seeks to weigh the impact of an argument against the plan and the impact of an argument for the plan. Weighing impacts is much easier in a round where the plan is the focus of the debate because the judge must simply determine what the largest impact is before determining whether or not the plan is a good idea. If morality is more important than lives, the plan would be rejected in the above example; if preserving life is more important than acting morally, the plan would be endorsed. In a round focused on language and performance, the team advocating a critical position will usually attempt to divorce the judge’s decision from a topical plan-focus. The role of the judge is not to make a cost-benefit calculation that seeks to determine the desirability of a policy, but instead the judge is placed into a realm where his or her decision is based on some other criteria. If the plan seeks to answer the resolutional question in the affirmative, how does one evaluate a round in which the plan is not the focus of the debate? There is no obvious yes/no question that the judge can answer when attempting to evaluate which team did the better debating (Smith, 2002). A number of questions arise when one considers how a judge may evaluate a round in which questions of performance replace the plan as the focus of the debate. For example, does the judge listen the same way as each team does? What if each team interprets a performance differently? What makes one performance better than any other? What if the negative re-reads the 1AC with more emphasis or emotion? What if one team gives their speech more quickly or more slowly that the other? What if a performance that is aesthetically pleasing to one person is offensive to another? These questions all point to the lack of criteria that exist for evaluating a non-TPD round around a single yes/no question (Smith, 2002). Without clearly defined criteria, judges will be likely to make subjective decisions about which team does the better debating. For example, what would happen if the 1AC spoke of the racism that is inherent in US foreign policy and read narratives to that effect and asked the judge to vote for the performative effects of their speaking out against racism? What if the negative did the same sort of performance, but spoke only of sexism? Both performances are good, so how could the judge ever reconcile those competing claims? What if the judge fundamentally disagrees with the ideas presented in the affirmative’s performance? Should the judge intervene and vote against a performance they don’t like, even if the negative fails to highlight those shortcomings that the judge perceives? There is no method for evaluating two “good” performances against one another, even assuming criteria exist for differentiating between a “good” and “bad” performance.
B) This destroys both fairness and education

Speice and Lyle ‘03

(Patrick, Wake Forest, and Jim, Debate Coach – Clarion, “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever”, Debaters Research Guide, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm)

But why does it matter if the judge has a clearly defined role in the debate? If the judge is unable to determine what the criteria are for evaluating a debate, and subjective decisions will therefore be made about which performance or whose language the judge thinks is most valuable, debate would cease to be an educationally rewarding enterprise. Hard work and research would not be rewarded with competitive success. While the debate would not be slanted in one particular direction (save for that of the judge’s political biases), those that worked hard to research new positions and hone their skills would not be rewarded. In this sense, non-TPD rounds make the game less fun, as the better team would only have a 50% chance of winning any given round, despite the quality of their debating. The TPD format avoids this problem by establishing clear criteria for evaluating a debate that are known to both teams prior to entering a debate. This predictability stems from requiring the affirmative to advocate and defend a topical plan as the focus of the debate. Accordingly, the negative is able to use the resolution as a guide to predict what the likely affirmative cases will be. The affirmative has reciprocal predictability in knowing that the negative can only seek to argue against their plan by advocating that the status quo or a competing policy option is superior to the plan based on a cost-benefit analysis. This framework for evaluating debates reduces judge intervention. Accordingly, TPD is a better game than non-TPD, because it affords each team a realistic chance to emerge victorious by making the game fair for both teams.

*** Note: “TDP” = Acronym for “Traditional Policy Debate”

Contention 2: Fairness
Limits:
A) Our framework narrows the topics of debate to a finite set of political potentialities. Expanding beyond this makes an infinite number of philosophical beliefs germane.

Lutz ‘2K

(Donald, Professor of Political Science – U Houston, Political Theory and Partisan Politics, p. 39-40)



Aristotle notes in the Politics that political theory simultaneously proceeds at three levels – discourse about the ideal, about the best possible in the real world, and about existing political systems. Put another way, comprehensive political theory must ask several different kinds of questions that are linked, yet distinguishable. In order to understand the interlocking set of questions that political theory can ask, imagine a continuum stretching from left to right. At the end, to the right is an ideal form of government, a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination. At the other end is the perfect dystopia, the most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce. Stretching between these two extremes is an infinite set of possibilities, merging into one another, that describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end points. For example, a political system defined primarily by equality would have a perfectly inegalitarian system described at the other end, and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they embodied equality. An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities between the extremes. Of course, visions of the ideal often are inevitably more complex than these single-value examples indicate, but it is also true that in order to imagine an ideal state of affairs a kind of simplification is almost always required since normal states of affairs invariably present themselves to human consciousness as complicated, opaque, and to a significant extent indeterminate. A non-ironic reading of Plato’s republic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characterizes political philosophy. This is not the case. Any person can generate a vision of the ideal. One job of political philosophy is to ask the question “Is this ideal worth pursuing?” Before the question can be pursued, however, the ideal state of affairs must be clarified, especially with respect to conceptual precision and the logical relationship between the propositions that describe the ideal. This pre-theoretical analysis raises the vision of the ideal from the mundane to a level where true philosophical analysis and the careful comparison with existing systems can proceed fruitfully. The process of pre-theoretical analysis, probably because it works on clarifying ideas that most capture the human imagination, too often looks to some like the entire enterprise of political philosophy. However, the value of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of the General Will, for example, lies not in its formal logical implications, nor in its compelling hold on the imagination, but on the power and clarity it lends to an analysis and comparison of the actual political systems. Among other things it allows him to show that anyone who wishes to pursue a state of affairs closer to that summer up in the concept of the General Will must successfully develop a civil religion. To the extent politicians believe theorists who tell them that pre-theoretical clarification of language describing an ideal is the essence and sum total of political philosophy, to that extent they will properly conclude that political philosophers have little to tell them, since politics is the realm of the possible not the realm of logical clarity. However, once the ideal is clarified, the political philosopher will begin to articulate and assess the reasons why we might want to pursue such an ideal. At this point, analysis leaves the realm of pure logic and enters the realm of the logic of human longing, aspiration, and anxiety. The analysis is now limited by the interior parameters of the human heart (more properly the human psyche) to which the theorist must appeal. Unlike the clarification stage where anything that is logical is possible, there are now define limits on where logical can take us. Appeals to self-destruction, less happiness rather than more, psychic isolation, enslavement, loss of identity, a preference for the lives of mollusks over that of humans, to name just a few ,possibilities, are doomed to failure. The theorist cannot appeal to such values if she or he is to attract an audience of politicians. Much political theory involves the careful, competitive analysis of what a given ideal state of affairs entails, and as Plato shows in his dialogues the discussion between the philosopher and the politician will quickly terminate if he or she cannot convincingly demonstrate the connection between the political ideal being developed and natural human passions. In this way, the politician can be educated by the possibilities that the political theorist can articulate, just as the political theorist can be educated by the relative success the normative analysis has in “setting the Hook” of interest among nonpolitical theorists. This realm of discourse, dominated by the logic of humanly worthwhile goals, requires that the theorist carefully observe the responses of others in order not to be seduced by what is merely logical as opposed to what is humanly rational. Moral discourse conditioned by the ideal, if it is to e successful, requires the political theorist to be fearless in pursuing normative logic, but it also requires the theorist to have enough humility to remember that, if a non-theorist cannot be led toward an idea, the fault may well lie in the theory, not in the moral vision of the non-theorist.
B) Limits are critical to ensuring fair debate with a baseline of predictability. A narrow, mutually agreed-upon understanding of the topic is a pre-requisite to meaningful research and strategy. The Neg can always say the exact opposite of the Aff, but it isn’t fair or productive unless they have the opportunity to prepare those arguments in advance.
3) Ground: their framework inevitably caters to the Aff --- arguments that aren’t linked to the plan are amorphous and unstable. The Aff can dodge the best arguments by claiming that their “discourse” outweighs disads linked to the plan or avoid critical impact turns by re-clarifying their advocacy

Ground is key to fairness --- without it, we couldn’t possibly prepare to compete.

Shively ‘2K

(Ruth Lessl, Assistant Prof Political Science – Texas A&M U., Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 182)



The point may seem trite, as surely the ambiguists would agree that basic terms must be shared before they can be resisted and problematized. In fact, they are often very candid about this seeming paradox in their approach: the paradoxical or "parasitic" need of the subversive for an order to subvert. But admitting the paradox is not helpful if, as usually happens here, its implications are ignored; or if the only implication drawn is that order or harmony is an unhappy fixture of human life. For what the paradox should tell us is that some kinds of harmonies or orders are, in fact, good for resistance; and some ought to be fully supported. As such, it should counsel against the kind of careless rhetoric that lumps all orders or harmonies together as arbitrary and inhumane. Clearly some basic accord about the terms of contest is a necessary ground for all further contest. It may be that if the ambiguists wish to remain full-fledged ambiguists, they cannot admit to these implica­tions, for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good and some orders as helpful or necessary, is to open the door to some sort of rationalism. Perhaps they might just continue to insist that this initial condition is ironic, but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real business of subversion. Yet difficulties remain. For agreement is not simply the initial condition, but the continuing ground, for contest. If we are to success­fully communicate our disagreements, we cannot simply agree on basic terms and then proceed to debate without attention to further agree­ments. For debate and contest are forms of dialogue: that is, they are activities premised on the building of progressive agreements. Imagine, for instance, that two people are having an argument about the issue of gun control. As noted earlier, in any argument, certain initial agreements will be needed just to begin the discussion. At the very least, the two discussants must agree on basic terms: for example, they must have some shared sense of what gun control is about; what is at issue in arguing about it; what facts are being contested, and so on. They must also agree—and they do so simply by entering into debate—that they will not use violence or threats in making their cases and that they are willing to listen to, and to be persuaded by, good arguments. Such agreements are simply implicit in the act of argumentation.

Fairness is the most important consideration ---
A) It’s a prerequisite to education

Lahman ‘36

(Carroll Pollack, Director of Men’s Forensics – Western State Teacher’s College, Debate Coaching: A Handbook for Teachers and Coaches, p.19)



Not knowledge but thought is the end of education. Educational values lie not so much in knowledge of subjects in themselves as in the processes of investigation, judgment, and expression by which the debater strives to win an audience to his opinion. This end can be attained only when the student is working with material which is of genuine interest both to himself and to his audience. The discussion of such a question, if engaged in voluntarily, enlists the earnestness and enthusiasm of the student in an effort to learn and weigh the facts, to balance evidence, and to make the results of his own thoughts clear and interesting to others. Those are truly educational values.8
B) Affects participation --- if it wasn’t fair, debaters would have no incentive to be involved. People would quit and couldn’t learn anything.
Speice and Lyle ‘03

(Patrick, Wake Forest, and Jim, Debate Coach – Clarion, “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever”, Debaters Research Guide, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/SpeiceLyle2003htm.htm)

As with any game or sport, creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted toward one particular competitor, the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game.” Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose. The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. TPD, as defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants.



Download 149.9 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message

    Main page