Download Framework 1NC (Fairness)

Framework 1NC
A. Interpretation --- 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?
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.
B. Violation --- they claim advantages that are independent of the plan
C. Reasons to prefer:
D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and outweighs all other issues because without it, 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.
Framework 1NC (Fairness)
________: Fairness
Interpretation --- the ballot’s sole purpose is to answer the resolutional question: Is the advocacy of the resolution better than
a counter-advocacy or They violate by claiming ‘advantages’ independent of the plan. It’s a voting issue.
Our framework is the most fair --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.
2) 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.
C) Absolute openness requires some degree of closure --- only once a shared interpretation of the topic is established can
debate begin
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 contestthat 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.
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”
5) Impact:
B) It’s a prerequisite to education --- without equitable rules, debaters wouldn’t learn anything. Establishing a fair forum is
crucial to allow education to take place. Competition is critical to get young debaters hooked and invested enough to make
them desire to learn more in order to win.
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
C) 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.
Framework 1NC (Education)
C) 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 decisionmaking 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).
3) Utility --- policy education is more specific than critical literature that’s too abstract to describe specific state actions and
highly relevant to current events, requiring research and attentiveness to contemporary affairs
Henderson ‘90
(Bill, Professor of Communication – University of Northern Iowa, “A Proposal for Co-Mingling Value
and Policy Debate, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 27, Issue 1, Summer)
Students need competitive experience engaging in policy controversy. Policy debates are significantly different from those of fact or value. Since all debate
topics are complex, students need to learn how to debate all types of topics: fact, value, and policy.
Policy debates entail a greater number of variables than debates about values or facts because policy topics have issues of both value and fact embedded within
them. By definition, then, policy topics are more complex. For example, responding to a policy question regarding the appropriate U.S. military response to the Persian Gulf crisis in
1991 (or to any policy question, for that matter) entails issues which are value- or fact-oriented. Many debate coaches may wish to restrict academic debaters to less complex topics during the
students' careers. Until students are able to respond to more complex issues, coaches may encourage them to focus on questions of value. For example, students may be directed toward the
question of the value of U.S. military responses in the Persian Gulf crisis of 1991. That question entails a large number of propositions of fact. These coaches believe that the resulting
discussions can frequently inform and instruct students in the gentle art of persuasion far better than could questions of policy. However, many coaches claim policy questions are embedded
within value questions. That's clearly true. We might argue, for example, about the value of military responses; however, our arguments might be based on specific applications of military
policy. The point is, in my view, that students need to learn how to argue in both arenas; policy topics provide a central focus of argument which is often not developed in value
argument. Since policy argument is an inherent part of decision-making, some of an argumentation student's time ought to be spent learning how to argue policy. In this way,
students can learn to develop policy proposals, analyze the benefits and costs, and develop cases for or against those policy proposals. Unfortunately, many collegiate debaters do not have
sufficient opportunity to engage in policy argumentation.
4) Short-cuts ---- their framework allows debaters to side-step important research --- this undermines both policy and critical
learning
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)
Research is an important part of the activity, and in policy debate it is essential. The specific knowledge requirements for this form of debate are intense, and they are magnified by
the switch-side nature of the activity. Do other forms of debate require/teach research skills? Yes, but the results are not the same. Language and performance critiques produce shallow
debate: they are “ultra generic,” have a lower burden of proof associated with them, and provide vague alternatives. First, many of these critiques that
fail to challenge the desirability of the plan are “ultra generics” that discourage research across a spectrum of issues. While there is considerable literature addressing
language choices and performance, there is also always a vast amount of literature that addresses the resolution’s policy area. Reality is such that most individuals do not have the time to
dedicate to researching all of these issues. Delving into one area of research will trade-off with another. Additionally, because the language and performance literature
is so broad, and not necessarily linked to the policy area of the resolution or the affirmative plan, there is no way to fully research all of these issues, and
still have time for policy issues. Consider last year’s mental illness topic, there were so many options regarding language choice and so many
performances available for presentation that one could easily have only researched these issues and never made it into the policy literature. Some of
the more recently popularized forms of performance have even resulted in the virtual elimination of research. Second, the lower burden of proof that is asked of
these criticisms further undermines research. While it might be true that critique teams could engage in more research the fact is that they don’t because it is generally not needed.
Critiques, for some reason, are given a lower burden of proof by many, and therefore are seen as having “the maximum competitive benefit with the least effort” (Truett, 2001, p. online). For
language critiques, for instance, the negative does usually engage in some pre-round/tournament research on the subject, but to make the argument apply to a specific team they only need listen
to, and read over, the 1AC to extract the words or phrases that can serve as links for the critique. Research into the specific policy area is not required. A third, and related, reason these
critiques undermine research is the lack of a need to defend a political alternative. When combined with the lower burden of proof assigned to these criticisms, this serves as a simple way to
sidestep a great deal of topic research. It increases the incentive to utilize these forms of argument. Why bother researching to learn the merits of a particular policy, or the desirability of a
certain counterplan, when it requires much less research to develop a performance or a critique that indicts the use of words independent of policy considerations? This substitution of topic
specific literature for critical research undermines policy learning, and critical learning, because the debaters never really learn anything about the issue that the
criticism is being applied to. What incentive exists to learn about policies and there differences if the only thing it takes to win a debate is to learn why one word is better than another is.
Furthermore, because these critiques don’t require debaters to learn how policies work debaters begin to make absurd claims because the warrants are deemed to be of lesser importance. This
has led to debaters making claims such as the ability of the critique to solve all global warming or genocide.
5) Activism --- policy focus and resolutional controversy trains activists and breaks down insular thinking
Coverstone ‘05
(Alan, Debate Coach – Montgomery Bell Academy, “Acting On Activism: Realizing the Vision of
Debate with a Pro-Social Impact”, NCA Paper, 11-17, Not Online – Email [email protected] For It)
Is it accurate, however, to portray tournament debating as a polarized enclave? If anything, the persistent conflicts over argument types, the role of
the judge, and so on, reveal that competitive debaters are far from a group of “like-minded others” (Sunstein, 2001, p. 101). If there were a risk of
developing a homogenous orthodoxy among competitive debaters, the competitive benefits of developing contrarian positions would quickly
decenter that orthodoxy. The great secret is that competitive contest debating ensures a dynamic, cross-cultural exchange without any intentional interventions
into student argumentation, save a resolution that forces research into public policy and political controversy. In that context, and using policy-centered
resolutions, even the present debate has decentered the supposed orthodoxy of public policy focus in debate facilitating the introduction of a wide
variety of philosophical, strategic, and argumentative approaches to the competitive victory. A public policy focused resolution is good for activist training
in debate precisely because it is problematic. Even if individual strategies are the preferred approach to solving societal ills, they can only claim preference in
opposition to another approach, and the public policy/political approach is an obvious and important foil for all social movements. The resolutional proposition in
policy debates is immediately controversial on a number of levels. The advent of the critique has helped to illustrate levels of controversy always present
in public policy resolutions. Contest debate forces students to defend problematic propositions, and that practice boosts their familiarity with the nature and
significance of public argument and controversy. Goodnight has argued that “controversy is a site where the taken-for-granted relationships between
communication and reasoning are open to change, reevaluation, and development by argumentative engagement” (1991, p. 5). Farrell describes the
taken-for-granted as “social knowledge” and argues for a realm of social knowledge that depends on others and is inherently related to “preferable public
behavior” (1976, p. 4). Role-playing political figures and social critics breeds a comfort level with controversy that encourages contest debaters to run toward
controversy, not away from it as polite society does. Argument enclaves cannot be maintained when people are attracted to difference, disagreement,
and controversy. Contest debate training exerts a strong countervailing force against the homogenous enclaves Sunstein describes. Almost without even
trying, competitive policy debate is unique among educational activities in its promotion of pro-social involvement and activism. Without meaning to disparage
other forensic activities at all, I do not know of any that experience the level of concern about getting students involved in the real world as the policy
debate community does. I am willing to be corrected here, but Lincoln-Douglas debate, extemporaneous speaking, and even public forum are not
engaged in anything like this controversy regarding the utility of their training for future political action. It probably is understood within these
activities that practitioners believe confronting controversy and public argument by itself is enough to train students to move from spectators to
participants. There is a sense of self-importance among those of us in policy debate who feel that our research and government policy focus better
situates us to become meaningfully participating citizens. Often this self-importance fuels our guilt at not doing more, but this same self-importance
leads us to believe we are so gifted that we can short change training if necessary in order to dive directly into activism.
6) Terminal defense --- educational benefits are overstated --- changing from plan-focus simply over-inflates the value of bad
policy arguments
Shors and Mancuso ‘93
(Mathew and Steve, U Michigan, “The Critique: Skreaming Without Raising Its Voice”, Debaters
Research Guide, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/ShorsMancuso1993.htm)
In our view the abuses of the Critique, therefore, come from the rules that accompany it, not the intellectual questions raised by the Critique per se.
Although stripped of its framework the Critique alone carries little, if any, weight in policy comparison. Arguments which can easily be made as conventional
debate positions have become Critiques, not because the Critique is particularly meaningful, but because it is easier to win if a substantial portion of the
responses suddenly do not apply. Two arguments which we have encountered in particular come to mind: (1) The First World should not blame the
Third World for overpopulation, since industrialized countries are guilty of resource depletion as well; and (2) U. S. aid has never achieved economic
modernization as planned in the past - capitalist development does not work. Instead of these arguments being used as solvency challenges they were
run as Critiques, the first a Critique of Hypocrisy, the second a Critique of Defend Your Assumptions. Is this because the arguments are more valid as
Critiques? No - it is because conventionally argued they are difficult to win, but as Critiques they no longer had to worry about trivialities such as
thresholds, uniqueness, turns etc. Unfortunately, these uses of the Critique are not only inevitable when its rules are accepted, but they also make a
mockery of any potential intellectual power of the Critique. Taken to its logical end, soon there will be Critiques of business Confidence and the like,
when the overriding set of principles includes "the judge should never harm the confidence of businesses." Precisely because normative statements
are always relative, no one set of principles is ever always defensible. What the Critique allows is that debaters find any philosopher or advocate in the
history of humankind who writes "Rational thought is a myth" and therein lies a Critique.
Case
Line-by-line and flow debate is good --1. Education –-- it organizes clash so arguments can be explored through competing warrants and debaters don't just talk
past each other. Education outweighs their impacts because the point of debate is education --- that’s why schools compete .
2. Their kritik is hype --- Line-by-line doesn’t preclude non-traditional debate or sacrifice analysis or persuasion – Fort Hays,
West GA, and Long Beach are all examples.
3. Line-by-line is a device that we use for argumentative precision, accountability, and the best possible judgment and
feedback. “Abandon the flow” logic is what allows people like Bush to get away with double-speak and contradictions that
conflate issues and confuse the audience. That is one of the main tools used to maintain hegemonic hierarchies of
dominance and oppression that lies in direct opposition to the goals of debate and deliberation.
Policy debate isn’t exclusionary and can empower minorities --- attempting to increase participation by changing traditional
practices such as flowing eliminates the progressive potential of debate
Bailey ‘04
(Stephen, Fmr Debater at Emory, Email Correspondence with Will Repko, 2-4,
http://www.geocities.com/caseyharrigan/bailey.html)
Feel free to quote me on this...I think that it is essentializing and very troubling theoretically to argue that African
Americans can only be attracted to debate if it is in a rap-type format and does not include traditional techniques such as
rapid delivery, flowing, cutting evidence, etc.. Louisville's argument is troubling because it seems to imply that African
Americans do not possess the skills necessary to compete in debate as currently structured or there is something about our
race that makes us less apt to excel at such an activity. Obviously, I do not believe that this implication is inherently true. At the same
time, ironically enough, Louisville's argument does seem to have some practical appeal to me given the inequitable educational system
that exists in this country. Unfortunately, the lack of quality educational opportunity that currently exists for the average African
American student means that, practically, it is very difficult for the average African American student to successfully compete in
debate as currently constituted. It is also difficult to attract such students to debate when they do not possess the relatively high level
of academic training that is necessary to perceive debate as a rewarding activity. That being said, I do believe that Louisville's
argument can validly be framed as a reification of the status quo. If African Americans are always discussed as being
unable to participate in activities that require high levels of academic achievement, it seems unlikely that the achievement
gap will ever be effectively remedied. The success of U rban D ebate L eague programs and the enthusiasm that many inner
city African American students show for conventional debate structures (I know from personal experience teaching such students)
militates against Louisville's claim that such conventional structures are inherently exclusionary. Overall, I am of the belief that
it is best to give African American students the opportunity to participate in activities that expand the academic horizons that
have been set for them in woefully inadequate public schools rather than encourage them to participate in activities that seek
to conform to such horizons. Louisville's vision of debate might increase African American participation in the activity, but at
what cost?
A single round produces virtually no change – their project is not going to change the community
Atchison and Panetta ‘05
(Jarrod, PhD Candidate – U Georgia, and Ed, Professor of Communication – U Georgia, “Activism in
Debate: Parody, Promise, and Problems”, NCA Paper)
The first problem is the difficulty of any individual debate to generate community change. Although any debate has the potential to create problems
for the community (videotapes of objectionable behavior, etc…), rarely does any one debate have the power to create community wide change. We
attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problems inherent in individual debates and the collective forgetfulness of the debate community. The
structural problems are clear. Debaters engage in preliminary debates in rooms that are rarely populated by anyone other than the judge or a few scouts. Judges
are instructed to vote for the team that does the best debating, but the ballot is rarely seen by anyone outside the tabulation room. Given the limited
number of debates in which a judge actually writes meaningful comments, there is little documentation available for use in many cases. During the
period when judges interact with the debaters there are often external pressures (filing evidence, preparing for the next debate, etc…) that restrict the ability for
anyone outside the debate to pay attention to why a judge voting a particular way. Elimination debates do not provide for a much better audience because
debates still occur simultaneously and travel schedules dictate that most of the tournament has left by the later elimination rounds. We find it difficult for
anyone to substantiate the claim that asking a judge to vote to solve a community problem in an individual debate with so few participants is the best
strategy for addressing important problems. In addition to the structural problems, the collective forgetfulness of the debate community reduces the impact
that individual debates have on the community. The debate community has a high turnover rate. Despite the fact that some debaters make their best effort
to debate for more than four years, the debate community is largely made up of participants who debate and then move on. The coaches and directors that
make up the backbone of the community are the people with the longest cultural memory, but they are also a small minority of the community when
considering the number of debaters involved in the activity. We do not mean to suggest that the activity is reinvented every year—certainly there are
conventions that are passed down from coaches to debaters and from debaters to debaters. However, given the fact that there are virtually no transcriptions
available for everyone to read, it is difficult to assume that the debate community would remember any individual debate. Additionally, given the focus on
competition and individual skill, the community is more likely to remember the accomplishments and talents of debaters rather than what argument
they won a particular round on. The debate community does not have the necessary components in place for a strong collective memory of individual
debates. We believe that the combination of the structures of debate and the collective forgetfulness means that any strategy for creating community
change that is premised on winning individual debates is less effective than seeking a larger community dialogue that is recorded and/or transcribed.
The second major problem with attempting to create community change in individual debates is that the debate community is made up of more
individuals than the four debaters and one judge that are a part of every debate. The coaches and directors that make up the backbone of the
community have very little space for engaging in a discussion about community issues. We suspect that this helps explain why so few debaters get involved
in the edebates over activist strategies. Coaches and directors dominant this forum because there is so little public dialogue over the issues that
directly affect the community that they have dedicated so much of their professional and personal lives. This is especially true for coaches and
directors that are not preferred judges and therefore do not even have a voice at the end of a debate. Coaches and directors should have a public
forum to engage in a community conversation with debaters instead of attempting to take on their opponents through the wins and losses of their own
debaters.