Resolved / Should Definitions
“Resolved” before a colon reflects a legislative forum
Army Officer School 4 (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.
‘Should’ denotes an expectation the aff will be enacted. American Heritage Dictionary
2k
Used to express probability or expectation
Ross Smith Ev / Decision Making
WE ARE ALL POLICY MAKERS. Debating about alternative government policies is the
best way to instill a METHOD OF DECISIONMAKING that is useful in all parts of life.
Ross Smith, former debate coach at Wake Forest University, 7 (4/4/2007, Ross K., “Challenge to the
Community,” https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox, JMP)
Policy: a course of action undertaken by an agent. We are all policy makers every time we decide to
undertake a course of action. Most policies are non-governmental. We have an obligation to ourselves
and others to be good policy makers and advocates of good policies when dealing with others in our
spheres of influence.
Policy Deliberation and Debate: a METHOD for making and advocating better policy decisions.
Intercollegiate debate about PUBLIC policy: a useful way of teaching the SKILLS needed for successful
use of a METHOD of making and advocating good decisions. Public policy topics are
especially useful because the research base is public. While we could debate about
private actions by private agents, we have no way of poviding equal access to the kinds of information
that would help make those debates good ones. There is a side benefit that some of what we
learn about the public policy topics sometimes informs our later lives as citizens
engaged in public deliberation regarding those same policies, but that is not the
primary reason that public policy topics are necessary .
Andy Ellis is a policy maker. He makes decisions about courses of action for himself and for/with others.
But a topic about what Andy Ellis should do is inaccessable and, frankly, largely none of our business.
But Andy Ellis has been well served by having the training in one of the better methods of choosing
among and advocating whatever policies he is responsible for. That method is policy debate.
Debate about public policy is a subset of debate about policy, a subset that is "debatable" because
there is a common research base. The fact that the subject matter is at a remove from us personnally
while still residing in the "public sphere" is a feature, not a bug.
Steinberg & Freeley Ev / Decision Making
A limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground is key to productive
inculcation of decision-making and advocacy skills in every and all facets of life---even
if their position is contestable that’s distinct from it being valuably debatable---this
still provides room for flexibility, creativity, and innovation, but targets the discussion
to avoid mere statements of fact---T debates also solve any possible turn
Steinberg & Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on
criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication
Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45Debate is a means of settling differences , so there must be a difference of opinion or a
conflict of interest
policy, there
before there can be a debate.
If everyone is in agreement
on a tact or value or
is no need for debate : the matter can be settled by unanimous
consent . Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus
two equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. (Controversy is an essential
prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues,
there is no debate . In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear
identification of a question or questions to be answered . For example, general argument may
occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration . How many illegal immigrants are in the
United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our
communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social
services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage
illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegal
immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are
unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law
enforcement, housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation
of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should
we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national
identification can!, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you
can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of
illegal immigration. Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense.
However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular
question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy . To be discussed and
resolved effectively, controversies must be stated clearly . Vague understanding results in
unfocused deliberation and poor decisions , frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the
failure of the United States Congress to make progress on the immigration
debate during the summer of 2007 .
Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, socially
disenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They are
overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to
maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful
decision, such as "We ought to do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups
of
concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express
their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their
discussions , they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of
clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow . But if a precise question is
posed—such as "What can be done to improve public education?"—then a more profitable area of discussion is
opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more
judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary
debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a
program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program"
They provide
specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference.
To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing
more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate.
and
placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly
defined . If we merely talk about "homelessness" or "abortion" or "crime'* or "global
warming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable basis
for argument. For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is mightier than
the sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis for clear
argumentation . If we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical force for some
purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose.
Although we now have a general subject , we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad , too
loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned with—poems, novels,
government documents, website development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context?
What kind of physical force is being compared—fists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question
might be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?"
The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition
such as "Resolved: That the
United States should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that
fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative
interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing
interpretations of the controversy ; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging . The point is
that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of
difference , which will be outlined in the following discussion.
Part Scott Harris NDT Finals Ballot
http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=4762.0
For me the negative under develops the extent to which a forced choice that excludes the affirmative
approach in every debate is essential. I think the negative should have developed more of a traditional
limits type argument. The argument that allowing this affirmative to make the debate about their
social location would enable every debate to be framed about a different social location and that
there would be a tremendous incentive for fewer and fewer debates to talk about the topic. That the
permutation is a bad idea because in the world of the permutation there would be a vested interest in
more and more debates crowding out the political debates. In other words, I think the link to the loss
of traditional political research and debate from embracing the affirmatives approach in some
debates is not developed enough by the negative. The 2NR does say that under the affirmative vision
there would be no limits to what the affirmative talks about but the focus is on how that impacts on
the ability of the negative to prepare for debates rather than making it about an argument of what
debate would look like in the world of the permutation. The negative could also have argued for the
importance of Quare individuals specifically to discuss questions of politics and energy policy in
particular or answered more specifically the affirmatives assertions that government policy had no
relevance to them. The affirmative Quare specificity arguments are late breaking in the debate since
they only appear in CX and in rebuttals but the negative does not really address them explicitly. Had
these arguments for why the permutation was a bad idea been developed more I would most likely have
voted negative in this debate. I am sure that Northwestern’s reaction to this explanation will be to feel
“that is what we said.” While I think it is the implicit intent behind their arguments I do not believe that
these arguments as a response to the perm are explored sufficiently in the 2NR. I believe that the
permutation absorbs most of the negatives offense for why policy debates will be good and then
some debates that encourage performative resistance will also be good. I think the negative wins that
the framework argument itself is not violent and that voting negative to exclude the aff would not be
an act of violence. That does not mean, however, that there is not an inclusion advantage to voting
affirmative.
Ballot continues…portion deleted
I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwestern’s strategy in this debate round. This
criticism is premised on the idea that they ran framework instead of engaging Emporia’s argument
about home and the Wiz. I think this criticism is unfair. Northwestern’s framework argument did
engage Emporia’s argument. Emporia said that you should vote for the team that performatively and
methodologically made debate a home. Northwestern’s argument directly clashed with that
contention. My problem in this debate was with aspects of the execution of the argument rather than
with the strategy itself. It has always made me angry in debates when people have treated topicality
as if it were a less important argument than other arguments in debate. Topicality is a real argument.
It is a researched strategy. It is an argument that challenges many affirmatives. The fact that other
arguments could be run in a debate or are run in a debate does not make topicality somehow a less
important argument. In reality, for many of you that go on to law school you will spend much of your
life running topicality arguments because you will find that words in the law matter. The rest of us
will experience the ways that word choices matter in contracts, in leases, in writing laws and in many
aspects of our lives. Kansas ran an affirmative a few years ago about how the location of a comma in a
law led a couple of districts to misinterpret the law into allowing individuals to be incarcerated in jail for
two days without having any formal charges filed against them. For those individuals the location of the
comma in the law had major consequences. Debates about words are not insignificant. Debates about
what kinds of arguments we should or should not be making in debates are not insignificant either.
The limits debate is an argument that has real pragmatic consequences. I found myself earlier this
year judging Harvard’s eco-pedagogy aff and thought to myself—I could stay up tonight and put a
strategy together on eco-pedagogy, but then I thought to myself—why should I have to? Yes, I could
put together a strategy against any random argument somebody makes employing an energy
metaphor but the reality is there are only so many nights to stay up all night researching. I would like
to actually spend time playing catch with my children occasionally or maybe even read a book or go to
a movie or spend some time with my wife. A world where there are an infinite number of
affirmatives is a world where the demand to have a specific strategy and not run framework is a world
that says this community doesn’t care whether its participants have a life or do well in school or
spend time with their families. I know there is a new call abounding for interpreting this NDT as a
mandate for broader more diverse topics. The reality is that will create more work to prepare for the
teams that choose to debate the topic but will have little to no effect on the teams that refuse to
debate the topic. Broader topics that do not require positive government action or are bidirectional
will not make teams that won’t debate the topic choose to debate the topic. I think that is a con job.
I am not opposed to broader topics necessarily. I tend to like the way high school topics are written
more than the way college topics are written. I just think people who take the meaning of the outcome
of this NDT as proof that we need to make it so people get to talk about anything they want to talk
about without having to debate against topicality or framework arguments are interested in
constructing a world that might make debate an unending nightmare and not a very good home in
which to live. Limits, to me, are a real impact because I feel their impact in my
everyday existence .
Rules / Limits / Fairness Good
Rules are key to harness the educational value of intellectual contests – this accesses
the educational value of fun
Prensky, 01 – Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas of
education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice president
at the global financial firm Bankers Trust
(Marc, “Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging,” 2001,
www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)
fun — in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure — puts us in a relaxed, receptive frame of mind for
learning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases our involvement, which also helps us learn.
Both “fun” and “play” however, have the disadvantage of being somewhat abstract, unstructured, and hard-to-define concepts. But there exists a more formal and
structured way to harness (and unleash) all the power of fun and play in the learning process — the
powerful institution of games. Before we look specifically at how we can combine games with learning, let us examine games themselves in some detail.
So
Like fun and play, game is a word of many meanings and implications. How can we define a game? Is there any useful distinction between fun, play and games? What makes games engaging?
How do we design them?
Games are a subset of both play and fun. In programming jargon they are a “child”, inheriting all the characteristics of the “parents.” They therefore carry both the good and the bad of both
Games, as we will see, also have some special qualities, which make them particularly appropriate and well
suited for learning.
terms.
So what is a game?
Like play, game, has a wide variety of meanings, some positive, some negative. On the negative side there is mocking and jesting, illegal and shady activity such as a con game, as well as the
“fun and games” that we saw earlier. As noted, these can be sources of resistance to Digital Game-Based Learning — “we are not playing games here.” But much of that is semantic. What we
are interested in here are the meanings that revolve around the definition of games involving rules, contest, rivalry and struggle.
What Makes a Game a Game? Six Structural Factors
The Encyclopedia Britannica provides the following diagram of the relation between play and games: 35
PLAY spontaneous play organized play ( AMES)
noncompetitive games competitive games (CONTESTS)
intellectual contests physical contests (SPORTS)
(repreinted with permission from Britanica.com © 1999-2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.)
Our goal here is to understand why games engage us, drawing us in often in spite of ourselves. This powerful force stems first from the fact that they are a form of fun and play, and second
from what I call the six key structural elements of games:
1. Rules
2. Goals and Objectives
3. Outcomes & Feedback
4. Conflict/Competition/Challenge/Opposition
5. Interaction, and
6. Representation or Story.
There are thousands, perhaps millions of different games, but all contain most, if not all, these powerful factors. Those that don’t contain all the factors are still classified as games by many,
but can also belong to other subclasses described below. In addition to these structural factors, there are also important design elements that add to engagement and distinguish a really good
game from a poor or mediocre one.
Let us discuss these six factors in detail and show how and why they lead to such strong engagement.
Rules are what differentiate games from other kinds of play. Probably the most basic definition of a
game is that it is organized play, that is to say rule-based. If you don’t have rules you have free play, not
a game. Why are rules so important to games? Rules impose limits – they force us to take specific paths to reach goals
and ensure that all players take the same paths . They put us inside the game world, by letting us know what is in and out of
bounds. What spoils a game is not so much the cheater, who accepts the rules but doesn’t play by them (we can
deal with him or her) but the nihilist, who denies them altogether. Rules make things both fair and exciting. When the
Australians “bent” the rules of the America’s Cup and built a huge boat in 1988, and the Americans found a way to compete with a catamaran, it was still a race — but no longer the same
game.
rules become increasingly more important as we grow older.
The rules set the limits of what is OK and not OK, fair and not fair, in the game. By elementary school, kids know to cry
While even small children understand some game rules (“that’s not fair”),
“cheater” if the rules are broken. Monopoly and even Trivial Pursuit have pages of written rule sets, and by adulthood we are consulting Hoyle, hiring professional referees to enforce rules,
and even holding national debates — the designated hitter, the 2 point conversion, the instant replay — over whether to change them.
Fun debate is a prerequisite to education and retention
Prensky, 01 – Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas of
education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice president
at the global financial firm Bankers Trust
(Marc, “Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging,” 2001,
www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)
Fun and Learning
People with the notion that learning cannot and should not be fun are clearly in an archaic mode.
-Mark Bieler, former head of HR, Bankers Trust Company
So what is the relationship between fun and learning? Does having fun help or hurt? Let us look at what some researchers have to say on the
subject:
“Enjoyment and fun as part of the learning process are important when learning new tools since the
learner is relaxed and motivated and therefore more willing to learn.”6 "The role that fun plays with
regard to intrinsic motivation in education is twofold. First, intrinsic motivation promotes the desire for
recurrence of the experience… Secondly, fun can motivate learners to engage themselves in activities
with which they have little or no previous experience." 7
"In simple terms a brain enjoying itself is functioning more efficiently." 8
"When we enjoy learning, we learn better" 9
Fun has also been shown by Datillo & Kleiber, 1993; Hastie, 1994; Middleton, Littlefield & Lehrer, 1992, to increase motivation
for learners. 10
It appears then that the principal roles of fun in the learning process are to create relaxation and
motivation. Relaxation enables a learner to take things in more easily, and motivation enables them to put forth effort
without resentment.
Letting other concerns trump rules of the game guts its effectiveness and participation
Villa 96—Dana Villa Political Theory @ UC Santa Barbara Arendt and Heidegger: the Fate of the
Political p. 37
If political action is to be valued for its own sake, then the content of political action must be politics “in the sense that political
action is talk about politics.” The circularity of this formulation, given by George Kateb, is unavoidable.
It helps if we use an
analogy that Kateb proposes, the analogy between such a purely political politics and a game. “A game,” writes Kateb, “is
not ‘about’ anything outside itself, it is its own sufficient world…the content of any game is
itself.” What matters in a game is the play itself, and the quality of this play is utterly dependent
upon the willingness and ability of the players to enter the “world” of the game. The Arendtian
conception of politics is one in which the spirit animating the “play” (the sharing of words and deeds)
comes before all else—before personal concerns, groups, interests, and even moral claims. If allowed to
dominate the “game,” these elements detracts from the play and from the performance of action. A
good game happens only when the players submit themselves to its spirit and do not allow subjective
or external motives to dictate the play. A good game, like genuine politics, is played for its own sake.
Competitive debate is a dialogue between two teams. Their willful refusal to defend
the resolution is an act to exclude the negative from meaningful participation in the
dialogue. Placing a priority on a balanced topic exists to provide a voice for both
sides.
Galloway, 7 –professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, “DINNER AND CONVERSATION
AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE”,
Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco)
Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunity
to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies
one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness
requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic
selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure.
Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic
consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical
arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to
fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table.
When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the
respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally
denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as
dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition
of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for
links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice
backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced.
Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies.
Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a
dialogue. They are unable to “understand what ‘went on…’” and are left to the whims of time and
power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning:
Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their
own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it
sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed
people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reach
agreement which binds us to a common cause…If we are to be equal…relationships among equals must
find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197).
Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintains equality for
the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114).
For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor
international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case
essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are
philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the
interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful
role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective “counter-word” and undermining the
value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do
not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
It’s a voting issue and outweighs their offense – their attempt to exclude the negative
obliterates the pedagogical benefits of in-round dialogue. Fairness norms are vital
because they allow both teams to be heard in a meaningful way. Debate as dialogue
is vital to refine and develop positions, test ideas and is a prerequisite to meaningful
political participation
Galloway, 7 –professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, “DINNER AND CONVERSATION
AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE”,
Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco)
A second reason to reject the topic has to do with its exclusivity. Many teams argue that because
topicality and other fairness constraints prevent particular speech acts, debaters are denied a
meaningful voice in the debate process. Advocates argue that because the negative excludes a particular
affirmative performance that they have also precluded the affirmative team. The problem with this line
of reasoning is that it views exclusion as a unitary act of definitional power. However, a dialogical
perspective allows us to see power flowing both ways. A large range of affirmative cases necessitates
fewer negative strategies that are relevant to the range of such cases. If the affirmative can present any
case it desires, the benefits of the research, preparation, and in-depth thinking that go into the creation
of negative strategies are diminished, if not eviscerated entirely. The affirmative case is obliged to invite
a negative response.
In addition, even when the negative strategy is not entirely excluded, any strategy that diminishes
argumentative depth and quality diminishes the quality of in-round dialogue. An affirmative speech act
that flagrantly violates debate fairness norms and claims that the benefits of the affirmative act
supersede the need for such guidelines has the potential of excluding a meaningful negative response,
and undermines the pedagogical benefits of the in-round dialogue. The “germ of a response” (Bakhtin,
1990) is stunted.
While affirmative teams often accuse the negative of using a juridical rule to exclude them, the
affirmative also relies upon an unstated rule to exclude the negative response. This unstated but
understood rule is that the negative speech act must serve to negate the affirmative act. Thus,
affirmative teams often exclude an entire range of negative arguments, including arguments designed to
challenge the hegemony, domination, and oppression inherent in topical approaches to the resolution.
Becoming more than just a ritualistic tag-line of “fairness, education, time skew, voting issue,” fairness
exists in the implicit right to be heard in a meaningful way. Ground is just that—a ground to stand on, a
ground to speak from, a ground by which to meaningfully contribute to an ongoing conversation.
Conversely, in a dialogical exchange, debaters come to realize the positions other than their own have
value, and that reasonable minds can disagree on controversial issues. This respect encourages debaters
to modify and adapt their own positions on critical issues without the threat of being labeled a
hypocrite. The conceptualization of debate as a dialogue allows challenges to take place from a wide
variety of perspectives. By offering a stable referent the affirmative must uphold, the negative can
choose to engage the affirmative on the widest possible array of “counterwords,” enhancing the
pedagogical process produced by debate.
Additionally, debate benefits activism by exposing the participants to a wide range of points of view on
topics of public importance. A debater starting their career in the fall of 2005 would have debated about
China, landmark Supreme Court decisions, Middle East policy, and agricultural policy. It is unsurprising
that many debaters contend that debate is one of the most educationally valuable experiences of their
lives.
Thus, the unique distinctions between debate and public speaking allow debaters the opportunity to
learn about a wide range of issues from multiple perspectives. This allows debaters to formulate their
own opinions about controversial subjects through an in-depth process of research and testing of ideas.
Putting the cart before the horse by assuming that one knows that the resolution is oppressive and
cannot be meaningfully affirmed denies debaters the ability to craft a nuanced answer to the question
posed by the resolution.
People will ignore the 1AC because you don’t give the other side a fair chance to
respond
Michael Underwood, summarizing Carl Hovland, communication at Yale University, 2000 (Psychology of
Communication, www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/psy/hovland3.html)
Whether or not you should include arguments for and against your case depends very much on your
audience. If you know that they already agree with you, a one-sided argument is quite acceptable. If
they are opposed to your point of view, then a one-sided message will actually be less effective, being
dismissed as biased. Even if your audience don’t know much about the subject, but do know that there
are counterarguments (even if they don’t know what they are) will lead them to reject your views as
biased. Hovland’s investigations into mass propaganda used to change soldiers’ attitudes also suggests
that the intelligence of the receivers is an important factor, a two-sided argument tending to be more
persuasive with a more intelligent audience.
Researching / Debating Government Good
Christopher C. Joyner is a Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown
University, Spring, 1999 [5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377]
Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand different
perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student
Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences.
participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives
and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views
and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks
are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with
relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved:
The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or
"Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional lawschool-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other
more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the
average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times,
international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States
policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their
debate
exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a
cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this
way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other
subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The
members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the
research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary
issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thus
becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real
world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense.
former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally,
Keller, Whittaker, and Burke, 2001. [Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U.
of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice
skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]
Based on a review of the literature, the authors’ experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those debates,
the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured
think debates on important policy questions have
numerous benefits: prompting students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them to
investigate and analyze competing alternatives , compelling them to advocate a particular
position, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a persuasive manner. We think engaging
in these analytic and persuasive activities promotes greater knowledge by stimulating active
participation in the learning process.
student debates in policy-oriented courses. The authors
Keller, Whittaker, and Burke, 2001. [Thomas E., James K., and Tracy K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U.
of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice
skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]
Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of social
policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research,
identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to
influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony.
social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy
practice activities:
* value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions;
* conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options;
* interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point of
view in a convincing manner;
According to Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58),
* political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and
* position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy.
These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill,
1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions,
exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of
questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making
process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple
alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skills
seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking.
Brad Hall Ev
Brad Hall, 8 – Masters in Communication Studies from Wake Forest and Special Projects Manager with
the Offices of Al and Tipper Gore
(“[eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair,” 7-11-2008,
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-July/075330.html)
As someone who has (at least temporarily) left debate to do public policy-related research, I think Andy
overlooks the benefits of the *process* of policy debate and its connection to his call for "political
agency in the real world." Ross and others have made this point many times, but it is worth briefly
reiterating: switch sides public policy debate enables activism by teaching a research and decision
making process that is applicable outside of the insulated debate community. While debates do not
directly change public policy (after all, Mohammed Ali Hammadi still roams the streets of Beirut), the
skills of debate teach debaters how to help with "activist" causes once they leave debate. For example,
policy debaters are taught the skills of researching a topic both quickly (finding one or two politics cards
in 3 minutes) and in depth (consider that hundreds of high school debaters around the country are
currently attempting to exhaust the debate over global warming and alternative energy). Debaters learn
a number of other useful skills, from word economy to prioritization of the best arguments. But most
importantly, the process of reflecting on this research and considering both sides of a public policy issue
teaches the participants of debate a decision making process that is applicable to the rest of their life.
Many, many traditional policy debaters have taken these skills and translated them into work at think
tanks, law firms, universities, corporations, journalism, and other sectors. NDT Champion Larry Tribe has
produced groundbreaking societal change through the law just to cite one example. Glenn Greenwald is
one of the most popular progressive bloggers whose research acumen is obvious. Real change has been
produced by these individuals (and many others), and it continues to be.
The real question should be: how do alternative models of debate promote any of these skills/process,
or if they don't (since they often base their existence on a criticism of these aspects of policy debate),
what do they offer to activism outside of debate? It is somewhat noble to claim that the structures of
debate are changed by alternative models (though this is often not the case), but unless you expect the
actual channels of power like Congress to be similarly changed, what impact does non-traditional nonpolicy debate have on the "real world"?
To return to the thrust of Andy's original post, there are few activities I would rather see public money
be spent on than training high school and college students in traditional, switch sides policy debate.
AT: Delgado
Delgado wrote an article (“shadowboxing: an essay on power”) against the use of procedural fairness
because it overlooks larger cultural factors that prevent the application of fairness equally.
1. Delgado’s arg is that the rich and the powerful have written the rules, so the claim to fairness
overlooks that the rules themselves are unfair: they reward one type of participation for
example, or overlook structural constraints on fairness. He uses 3 examples:
a.
tobacco label laws – if warning labels on cigarretes are fair because you had an informed
choice to smoke – that benefits the stronger party – the tobacco company – and ignores
things like addiction or social pressure to smoke.
b. Informed consent to medical treatment – doctor has a responsibility to disclose risks of
medical treatment but not liable to discuss patient fears, religion, alternative forms of
treatment, etc
c. date rape laws which define consent as verbal – it’s fair for the man but overlooks other
things that may be in play, such as when the woman feels coerced.
2.
the focus on legal rules tradesoff with questions of justice. His alternative is to advocate legal
storytelling – that essentially you can’t look at procedural rules but in deciding a case it requires
looking at the full story
Responses:
1. It doesn’t apply to debate: Delgado is talking about the use of legal rules in a courtroom that
define the civil or criminal liability of a stronger party against a weaker plaintiff.
Debate has two important differences:
a. Coercion isn’t a factor – participation in debate is voluntary and there aren’t legal
consequences. There aren’t power differentials between the aff and neg and no one’s life
depends on winning a debate.
b. Storytelling is inevitable in debate – Debate is not a courtroom. Legal rules are nonnegotiable while the rules of debate are flexible and accommodating – lawyers aren’t
speaking for you according to predetermined rules, you’re interpreting the rules yourself.
Affirmatives craft interpretations of a topic and we debate about which interpretation is
best
2. Procedural fairness establishes rights of participation for both sides. Throwing out the rules is
worse – it’s more arbitrary and power differentials would be magnified. Delgado never says
throw out the rules. He says to incorporate legal storytelling into the rules. He never says
fairness is bad as an absolute, he says there is always context that informs judgments about
fairness.
Fairness exists to ensure participation from both sides – our framework allows for
storytelling, they just have to ground it in a topical affirmative
Burch, 8 - Assistant Professor, Cumberland School of Law (Elizabeth, “CAFA'S IMPACT ON LITIGATION AS
A PUBLIC GOOD” 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 2517, May, lexis)
Given this shortcoming, the second procedural justice component is fairness. Fairness arguments are
typically offered as policy reasons to trump pursuit of certain reform proposals and aggregate social
goals; n101 however, I use fairness here (and in assessing CAFA) as a supplemental constraint
rather than a substitute . Employing a deontological conception of fairness to balance utility aids
in, not only distributing procedural costs and correcting procedural errors, but also in ensuring that the
procedural system does not disproportionately favor or burden plaintiffs or defendants. n102 Put
differently, process should disperse the risk of error and the cost of access as evenly as possible.
Neither party [*2535] should have an advantage . n103 This idea of "fairness" as avoiding
lopsided distribution of error can be likened to the concept of "neutrality." n104 To be sure, some
imparity in distributing risks may be inevitable.
Finally, although analogous to fairness, participation - manifested as adequate representation in the
class context - humanizes process. n105 In its simplest form, participation necessitates that those who
are bound by a decision have an opportunity to take part (and be heard) in adjudication. n106
Moreover, it encompasses inherent rights to present evidence, observe the proceedings, cross-examine
witnesses, and hear the judge's decision. n107 And participation, even in class litigation, affords
litigants dignity by granting them a forum in which to tell their story. n108 "Storytelling" has been
criticized when used to demonstrate satisfaction with process as a proxy for "justice." n109 I use the
term here, however, for its cathartic value only when situated within this larger [*2536]
procedural fairness framework .
AT: Social Location Key
We cannot assume a priori that their authors have a unique insight on reality
Hammersley, 93 – Prof. Education and Social Research @ Centre for Childhood, Development and
Learning @ Open U [Martyn, British Journal of Sociology, “Research and 'anti-racism': the case of Peter Foster
and his critics,” 44.3, 11-93, JSTOR]
The second view I want to consider is sometimes associated with versions of the first, but must be kept separate because it
involves a quite distinctive and incompatible element. I will refer to this as standpoint theory. Here people's experience and
knowledge is treated as valid or invalid by dint of their membership in some social category.'7 Here again
Foster's arguments may be dismissed because they reflect his background and experience as a white, middle class, male teacher. However, this
time the
implication is that reality is obscured from those with this background because of the effects of
ideology. By contrast, it is suggested, the oppressed (black, female and/or working class people) have privileged insight
into the nature of society. This argument produces a victory for one side, not the stalemate that seems
to result from relativism the validity of Foster's views can therefore be dismissed. But in other respects this position is no
more satisfactory than relativism. We must ask on what grounds we can decide that one group has
superior insight into reality. This cannot be simply because they declare that they have this insight;
otherwise everyone could make the same claim with the same legitimacy (we would be back to relativism). This
means that some other form of ultimate justification is involved, but what could this be? In the Marxist version of
this argument the working class (or, in practice, the Communist Party) are the group with privileged insight into the nature of social reality, but
it is Marx and Marxist theorists who confer this privilege on them by means of a dubious philosophy of history.l8 Something similar occurs in
the case of feminist standpoint theory, where the feminist theorist ascribes privileged insight to women, or to feminists engaged in the struggle
for women’s emancipation. l9 However, while
we must recognize that people in different social locations may have
divergent perspectives, giving them distinctive insights, it is not clear why we should believe the
implausible claim that some people have privileged access to knowledge while others are blinded by
ideology.
You should evaluate our arguments based on credibility and evidence – reversion to
personalized bases of knowledge eradicates the possibility of common knowledge and
educational development.
Hammersley, 93 – Prof. Education and Social Research @ Centre for Childhood, Development and
Learning @ Open U [Martyn, British Journal of Sociology, “Research and 'anti-racism': the case of Peter Foster
and his critics,” 44.3, 11-93, JSTOR]
the assessment of substantive and methodological claims should be based on judgments
about the plausibility and credibility of evidence with attempts to resolve disagreements such as that between
I suggest that
Foster and his critics, being pursued through a search for common ground and an attempt to argue back from that to some conclusion that all
will accept. By 'plausibility' here I mean what I referred to earlier as consistency with existing knowledge whose validity is taken to be beyond
reasonable doubt. By 'credibility I mean (Martyn Hammersley) the likelihood that the process that produced the claim is free of serious error.
Here I am assuming that factual claims vary in their credibility both according to their own content and according to the circumstances in which
Where a claim is neither sufficiently plausible nor credible to be accepted at face value,
evidence for it must be examined in terms of its plausibility and credibility, and so on until a judgment
can be made or until judgment must be suspended for want of the necessary evidence. Where there is initial disagreement,
ideally this process will result in the acceptance by all of one or other of the two original positions, or
(more likely) the construction of a third position( for example through clarification of the concept of racism); though unlike with
foundationalism there is no guarantee offered that disagreement will be resolved. It seems to me that maximizing
they were produced.
the chances that agreement will be reached in this way, and that the resulting consensus will capture
the truth, requires a research community operating on the basis of the following norms: 1 The overriding
concern of researchers is the truth of claims, not their political implications or practical consequences. 2
Arguments are not judged on the basis of the personal and/or social characteristics of the person
advancing them, but in terms of their plausibility and credibility. 3 Researchers are willing to change
their views if arguments from common ground suggest those views are false; and, equally important,
they assume (and behave as if) fellow researchers have the same attitude - at least until there is very strong
evidence otherwise. 4 Where agreement does not result, all parties must recognize that there remains
some reasonable doubt about the validity of their own positions, so that whenever the latter are
presented they require supporting argument, or reference to where such argument can be found. 5 The
research community is open to participation by anyone able and willing to operate on the basis of the
first four rules; though their contributions will be judged wanting if they lack sufficient knowledge of the field and/or of relevant
methodology. In particular, there must be no restriction of participation on the grounds of personal characteristics religious or political
attitudes. In my view, a
research community committed to the above norms maximizes the chances of
discovering error in empirical and theoretical claims, and of discovering the truth about particular
matters. It encourages the cumulative development of a body of knowledge whose validity is more
reliable on average than that of lay views about the same issues. This is not to say that in any particular instance current
research-based knowledge will be correct and commonsense wrong; simply that it will usually be closer
to the truth. Furthermore, it should be noted that this advantage is bought at considerable cost in terms of
the time taken to complete inquiries in this way, and (correspondingly)the limited size of the body of
research-based knowledge that can be produced.
AT: Green & Hicks / Debaters Lose Conviction
Conviction emerges from discussion, not prior to it – debate exists to establish and
refine positions so that ideas may be subsequently chosen
Galloway, 7 –professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, “DINNER AND CONVERSATION
AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE”,
Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco)
Those who worry that competitive academic debate will cause debaters to lose their convictions, as
Greene and Hicks do in their 2005 article, confuse the cart with the horse. Conviction is not a priori to
discussion, it flows from it. A. Craig Baird argued, “Sound conviction depends upon a thorough
understanding of the controversial problem under consideration (1955, p. 5). Debate encourages
rigorous training and scrutiny of arguments before debaters declare themselves an advocate for a given
cause. Debate creates an ethical obligation to interrogate ideas from a neutral position so that they may
be freely chosen subsequently.
Defending an argument in a debate doesn’t force you to be a real life proponent of it –
only subjecting your views to examination can establish their validity
Baird, 55 – Professor of Speech at the University of Iowa (C. A., “The college debater and the red china issue,” Central States Speech Journal, 6(2), 5-7)
A second indictment of you debaters is that if you discuss recognizing Red China you may fall victim to the Communistic
propaganda. The assumption is that you may become inoculated. You may become brainwashed. The issue here is whether you may be gullible
enough to swallow the "wrong" side of any subject— whatever that "wrong" side is—if you happen to argue it.
This criticism is a vote of non-confidence in you. It amounts to the expression of the ancient distrust of
democratic participation. The implication is that we Americans, even if we are reasonably well trained, are nevertheless incompetent
to decide important questions. We cannot be trusted to push out into the troubled seas of
propagandist^ conflict.
Our only reply at this point is to invite those who fear open discussion on important issues, to read again any treatise on
American government. We furthermore suggest a reading again of the great documents of our heritage.
The principles in all of these documents steadily affirm that ours is a government by talk; that the secret voting
is accompanied by popular assemblies and the free exchange of ideas and arguments; that all citizens
share the right and ability to think, communicate, and decide, and that we can rely upon the molding of
public opinion through these avenues of our democratic system.
My other recommendation to those who look askance at free discussion and debate is to read again John Stuart Mill's Liberty of Thought and Expression. According to Mill,
the opinion or side which we ignore or sidestep may be true. Or, continued Mill, the forbidden side or opinion
which we ignore or sidestep may be partly true. Or, concluded Mill, even if one hundred per cent truth is
on our side, our opinions or conclusions become valid and properly significant only if we subject them to
examination. Indeed, as Mill suggested, our beliefs and convictions, unless under continual review, may become enfeebled or lost, and so "inefficacious for good."
Sound conviction can only happen after thoroughly researching and debating both
sides of an issue – it is hypocritical and immoral not to require debaters to defend
both sides
Muir, 93 – Department of Communications at George Mason
(Star A., “A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile)
In a tolerant context, convictions can still be formed regarding the appropriateness and utility of
differing values. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters are hypocritical and sophistical,
Windes responds with a series of propositions:
Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under
consideration. . . . This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issues
and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence. . . , This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done
by the careful testing of each argument pro and con. . . . The learner's sound conviction covering controversial questions
[therefore] depends partly upon his experience in defending and/or rejecting tentative affirmative and
negative positions.""*
Sound conviction, a key element of an individual's moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasoned
assessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters
to defend both sides of the issues."" It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two
opposing accounts are present on everything, and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions.
Debate might be rendering students a disservice, insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them some
knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction.
AT: Resolved Before the Colon
A more reasonable interpretation is that the resolution posits a question that must be
affirmed by the affirmative
Parcher, 2001 (Jeff, “Re: Jeff P--Is the resolution a question?” eDebate,
www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)
(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm
decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts
See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in
original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or
decision.
(2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of
action determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature.
(3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context.
The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The
committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue.
There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic
community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on
issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which
will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do,
but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committtee somewhere to adopt
their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary
wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon.
(4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasize the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved
comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is
not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not.