LD DEBATE: Debate 1AC
OBSERVATION ONE IS INHERENCY
First, High School debate programs are on the decline in urban, city schools
Hoffman 13
(Bradley Hoffman,2013,UMKC University News http://info.umkc.edu/unews/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/Issue-29-April-29-ALL-PAGES.pdf)
The art of argument is an immensely valuable skill for at-risk middle and high school students, which,
according to Debate-Kansas City director Gabe Cook, is not being fostered and cared for by the Kansas
City, Missouri school district. Since 2010, 14 schools have dropped the Debate-Kansas City program,
resulting in a 90 percent funding cut for the UMKC-supported urban debate league.“The reason they
said they did it was financial,” Cook said, “and the economic crisis that hit definitely affected all the
schools’ budgets. But we think that debate was unfairly targeted by then-superintendent [ John]
Covington.” Debate-Kansas City aims to bring debate programs to urban schools that have limited
financial resources. Cook recently saw the fruits of his work. Emporia State University’s Ryan Wash,
whom Cook coached at Central High School, teamed with Elijah Smith to win the National Debate
Tournament policy championship and the Cross Examination Debate Association championship.In 1998,
Linda Collier, then-director of the UMKC debate program, wrote a grant to start Debate-Kansas City
because, as Cook said, “Debate in city schools across America is pretty much dead.”Debate-Kansas City
had to significantly ramp up fundraising efforts to continue operating and avoid losing staff.In order for
a school to participate in Debate-Kansas City, it must pay an annual $3,500 fee, which guarantees it will
receive all services necessary to keep its debate program going throughout the year. But, with Kansas
City Public Schools cutting nearly all of its financial support for the program, Cook said he’s worried that
what he’s helped build will continue to lose steam, and the results of that could be longer lasting than
others realize.“If you can get a student to debate enough rounds in high school,” he said, “there is very
clear data that says they will graduate high school [and] they will be substantially better critical thinkers.
Second, Lack of federal funding is the problem – and it is causing participation by
urban debate teams to falter
Nyhand, 2006
(Paul Nyhand, 2006, School debate clubs face extinction
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/School-debate-clubs-face-extinction-1217732.php)
The city's urban debate teams are faltering just as the cerebral pursuit reaches more teenagers by
adding a little hip-hop to the formal world of debating. At Garfield High School, the team doesn't
have enough cash yet to attend next week's opening meet in Gig Harbor. At Franklin High School,
there is no coach. And Nova High School has debaters, but no official team. The problem is that
federal and private funds dried up this year for the Seattle Debate Foundation, a non-profit that finances
many urban debate teams. Today, it has just $15,000 of the $50,000 it needs to get through the fall.
Finally, Access to debate is unequal – the intellectual rewards of debate are currently
reserved for only wealthy suburban public and private schools
Evnen 12 (graduate student in Philosophy at the University of Chicago, curriculum director at the
National Debate Forum, Nebraska state champion debate)
(Evnen, T. (2012). A Plea: Help Low-Income Students Participate in Debate. Texas Debate Collective.
Retrieved from http://nsdupdate.com/2012/a-plea-help-low-income-students-participate-in-debate/)
Sadly, many students are not given a similarly transformative opportunity in their own education.
To put it mildly, the situation with this country’s educational system is grim—especially at those
institutions that are intended to serve low-income populations. In Chicago, where I live, we have a
public school system that virtually no one attends voluntarily; its student population consists
almost exclusively of those who are trapped in it. The inequity of this situation is mirrored in debate.
Debate stands out as a high school activity that we know can be tremendously intellectually rewarding.
But to truly gain those benefits, students need access to rigorous camps, quality coaching, and the chance
to attend competitive tournaments. So as it stands, the intellectual rewards of debate are, for the most part,
reserved only for those who can afford its high cost of admission . Last weekend, for example, those
students whose parents and schools could afford coaches and plane tickets and hotel rooms and
entrance fees gathered for the Glenbrooks tournament.
Because we believe every student in the United States should have access to the
academic and intellectual rewards of debate we offer the following plan:
Plan
The Department of Education will mandate starting and/or maintaining a comprehensive forensics
programs that includes interscholastic debate for students at all public secondary schools in the United
States. Funding guaranteed in the amount of $520,000,000 from the Department of Education
discretionary budget.
Observation Two is Solvency
First, District funding is key to successful high school debate programs – it is key to
quality and dedicated coaching as well as travel and material resources
Lynn 98 (PH.D. nationally recognized as a key architect of urban debate programming)
(Lynn, Les. “Debating funding, funding debating.” Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol 19.
http://www.cedadebate.org/cad/index.php/CAD/article/download/228/212)
Unquestionably, finding a coach dedicated enough to devote the level of time and energy necessary to
facilitate the activity’s student-centered learning is crucial. In order to win tournaments, the coach must also be an
effective teacher, an engaging motivator, and an able strategist. But preceding the coach in importance as a key element in
“the formation of debate powerhouses,” and of more modest but still successful high school debate
programs, is school district funding. Zom seems to acknowledge as much earlier in the piece: “But they do get support
where it counts -- close to $220,000 a year in funding from the district. . . . I This money pays for the extensive travel demanded at
Debate coaches are professional
educators and rightly insist on being paid for their time and expertise; Suburban coaching stipends can amount
the highest levels of debate and for a pair of the top coaches in the country” (I).
to $10,000 or more, as an addition to the teacher’s regular salary. If the coach is the immediate “key” to a strong debate program,
then the First Cause and most essential condition is adequate district funding. Funding levels like those enjoyed by the Glenbrooks
Some of this money
is spent on travel – both local and national. Then there are assistant coaches. It is not unusual for a
suburban debate program to have four college debaters on staff throughout the debate season,
providing a sizable edge in training and support over the program that has only one coach. The suburban
leave plenty to spend after the coaches’ stipends and salaries are removed, roughly $60,000 per school.
budget also pays for various means to improve the team’s research -- from subscriptions to unpopular but useful magazines
delivered to the school’s debate office, to an expensive Lexis-Nexis hook-up.
It also pays for a ready supply of basic
debate materials, such as legal pads and abundant photocopies. A school's debate budget, therefore,
converts into competitive advantages at a rather high level of efficiency. Budgets, rather than merely the skills of
the coaches,“explain why a look through lists of top-finishing Illinois schools of the last 20 years shows many of the same names
occurring often” (Zom 1). The other half of the revised story one might tell would focus on the part of the Chicago area excluded by
an exclusive focus on suburban debate, namely the city proper. Glenbrook South coach Matt Whipple is quoted in the article saying
that “When a program dies, it’s usually because they lost their coach” (qtd. in Zom I). But that wasn’t what happened in Chicago.
Beginning in the late sixties, debate teams were strangled by tightening budgets, due primarily to
constricting property tax revenues. This is not the place to rehearse the well-documented case against
the public school funding system in llinois, which has at its base the local property tax, resulting in vastly unequal levels of
per-pupil funding between public school districts. Suffice it to say that incomparable public school debate budgets are a keen
manifestation of the way we fund our public schools. For the past thirty years, then, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) have been
bereft of debate. While debate has improved the educational prospects and enriched the minds of thousands of suburban students,
equally talented and deserving city students have not had the opportunity to participate in even the most basic competitive debate,
not to mention to join programs like those at the Glenbrooks.
Second, Statistical research proves that long-term, stable funding is necessary to not
just participation but competitive success
Neesen and Cramer, 2001 [Bill and Jason, MA candidates CSU Fullerton, “The economics of debate:
Debate success as a function of economic privilege,” NCA Convention Paper: Atlanta GA,
http://communications.fullerton.edu/clubs/forensics/pdf/jason%20and%20bill%20at%20NCA.pdf]
This study proved that the economic standing of a high school is directly related to the success of that
high school at debate tournaments. The investigation analyzed both rounds won and speaker points. In
either case, students from economically underprivileged high schools were not as successful as
students from richer high schools. Importantly, this study provides empirical support for Kozol’s
observations and confirms what many debate professionals have intuitively concluded. On the one
hand, these findings point to the need for debate outreach at economically under-served schools, but
on the other hand they point to the danger of relying exclusively on a 3-year funding strategy with the
hopes that districts will fully fund programs.
Advantage 1 is Critical Thinking
First, Secondary school students in the US currently lack the necessary training and
education in critical thinking
Koch, 2011
(Christopher, “Improve Critical Thinking in the US' education system - mathematically as well as
linguistically” May 23, http://www.ted.com/conversations/1403/improve_critical_thinking_in_t.html)
The high and middle schools of the US do not encourage enough critical thinking among their students.
Everything is being done with guidance of a teacher going through steps of a procedure - and this is
where the problem is. For example, in Math: Teachers provide step-by-step instructions how to solve an
equation, how to divide, how to... This does not teach students how to think about math individually. It
teaches them to follow the procedure, and maybe get the answer right - but it does not teach how it
works, and it does not teach how to think beyond that point. This education system cannot produce
great mathematicians, because all the people with potential are taught to follow procedures and
instructions! Sure, there are some smart students that want to figure it out on their own, and they do.
But teachers need to encourage it, because there are a lot of students with great potential in this
country. Critical Thinking also teaches responsibility, and the other way round. And do we want
irresponsible individuals in charge in the future? But Math is only an example. The same thing accounts
for English, Science, - anything. Literacy is another problems. Students that cannot read a text, a short
story or novel on their own - with their own crticial individual thinking - cannot understand any Science
or Math textbook either.
As an anecdote: In high school year in Texas, I was taught critical thinking in
the English lessons as a step-by-step procedure - and that is not the way to get students thinking
individually.
I can't fit more in 2000 characters, even though I'd like to. The bottomline is: Teachers
need to encourage critical, individual thinking among their students. Only then this country can produce
great thinkers and leaders of the world.
This critical thinking problem is pervasive amongst secondary school students in both
reading and writing
Yanklowitz 2013 ( doctorate in Moral Development and Epistemology)
(Yanklowitz, Shmuly. 2013. “A Society with Poor Critical Thinking Skills: The Case for 'Argument' in
Education.” The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuly-yanklowitz/a-societywith-poor-criti_b_3754401.html)
Researchers have shown that most students today are weak in critical thinking skills. They do poorly on
simple logical reasoning tests (Evans, 2002). Only a fraction of graduating high school seniors (6 percent
of 12th graders) can make informed, critical judgments about written text (Perie, Grigg, and Donahue,
2005). This problem applies to both reading and writing. Only 15 percent of 12th graders demonstrate
the proficiency to write well-organized essays that consisted of clear arguments (Perie et al., 2005).
The result of this is citizens who lack knowledge and are easily taken in by simplistic
thinking and irrational arguments
Davison 13 (Ph.D professor of history at West Chester University)
(Davison, L. (2013, April 7). The Problem of Ignorance: The Decline of Critical Thinking. Counter Punch.
Retrieved from http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/05/the-decline-of-critical-thinking/)
In 2008 Rick Shenkman, the Editor-in-Chief of the History News Network, published a book entitled Just
How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter (Basic Books). In it he demonstrated,
among other things, that most Americans were: (1) ignorant about major international events, (2) knew
little about how their own government runs and who runs it, (3) were nonetheless willing to accept
government positions and policies even though a moderate amount of critical thought suggested they
were bad for the country, and (4) were readily swayed by stereotyping, simplistic solutions, irrational
fears, and public relations babble.
Luckily, research shows that debate cultivates critical thinking
AOYAGI et al 2010 (Graduate School of Energy Science)
(Aoyagi, S., Itami, Y., Ishii, H., Shimoda, H., Tomie, H., Kitagawa, K., & Kawahara, S. (2010). AN
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM USING A DEBATE SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR CULTIVATING CRITICAL THINKING
DISPOSITION.INTED2010 Proceedings, 3772-3777.)
Fostering critical thinking ability of students is one of the most important educational goals in high
school education. Critical thinking, which was defined as “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused
on deciding what to believe or do” by Ennis[1], is very useful way of thinking in daily life, academic
context, or business. Japanese government introduced “integrated study” to elementary school, junior
high school[2] in 2002, and a study say that fostering critical thinking ability can contribute purposes of
integrated study[3]. According to some studies about critical thinking[1][4], critical thinking ability
consists of (a)cognitive elements, such as skill or knowledge of critical thinking, and (b)emotional
elements, which are typified by disposition of critical thinking. In particular, cultivating critical thinking
disposition is an essential because it is necessary for proactive or autonomous critical thinking. Debate
learning is often introduced as an effective program for cultivating critical thinking ability. Debate is
defined as “a communication form which speakers of two teams are divided into the pros side and the
cons side of a theme, discuss the theme based on objective evidence in order to make their own
assertion’s advantage understood by listener”[5]. Because debate requires logical persuasion to
participants, debate have been regarded as useful for cultivating logical thinking or debating skills, and
practiced in educational contexts as debate learning. This characteristic of debate is also useful for
cultivating critical thinking. It is, however, difficult to introduce the debate learning into actual high
school classes because it needs much time for all the students to participate in the debate. Moreover, it
would be seen that some Japanese students have difficulty in criticizing other side’s position in the
front of other side students, because they are afraid that it affects human relationship in classrooms,
misinterpreting debate as something like real battle of words, even though they know debate is just a
logical game.
A foundation in argumentation and exploration of multiple perspectives on issues
produce not only more educated and engaged citizens, but also increases epistemic
and moral development of our youth and hence, our future leaders
Yanklowitz 2013 (doctorate in Moral Development and Epistemology)
(Yanklowitz, Shmuly. 2013. “A Society with Poor Critical Thinking Skills: The Case for 'Argument' in
Education.” The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuly-yanklowitz/a-societywith-poor-criti_b_3754401.html)
Critical thinking and argument skills -- the abilities to both generate and critique arguments -- are crucial
elements in decision-making (Byrnes, 1998; Klaczynski, 2004; Halpern 1998). When applied to academic
settings, argumentation may promote the long-term understanding and retention of course content
(Adriessen, 2006; Nussbaum, 2008a). According to the ancient Greeks, dialogue is the most advanced
form of thought (Vygotsky, 1978). Critical thinking and dialogue are often made manifest in the form of
argument. Dialectical arguments require an appeal to beliefs and values to make crucial decisions, what
Aristotle referred to as endoxa (Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008). In all careers, academic classes, and
relationships, argument skills can be used to enhance learning when we treat reasoning as a process
of argumentation (Kuhn, 1992, 1993), as fundamentally dialogical (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986; Wertsch, 1991),
and as metacognitive (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Significant differences in approach have emerged as to
how best cultivate the skills necessary to form, present and defend an argument. Differences have
emerged as to whether the best practices include the use of computers, writing exercises, metacognitive
activities, debates, modeling, or frontal instruction. To many "argument" sounds combative and
negative but the use of argument can be constructive and generative. Epistemological understanding
becomes most evident when an individual is confronted with uncertain or controversial knowledge
claims (Chandler et al., 1990; King and Kitchener, 1994; Kuhn et al., 2000; Leadbeater and Kuhn, 1989). It
is imperative that high school students, of diverse personal, moral and intellectual commitments,
become prepared to confront multiple perspectives on unclear and controversial issues when they
move on to college and their careers. This is not only important for assuring students are equipped to
compete in the marketplace of ideas but also to maximize their own cognitive development more
broadly. Longitudinal studies focused on high school students (Schommer et al., 1997) show a positive
correlation between educational level and epistemological level. Cross-sectional studies demonstrate
that educational experiences influence epistemological development and that it is the quality of
education and not age or gender that contributes to different developmental levels of epistemological
understanding (Chandler et al., 1990; Leadbeater and Kuhn, 1989). Education is therefore key. Argument
is a more complex and challenging cognitive skill for students than other genres of reading and writing,
such as exposition or narration. It is also more challenging for most teachers who may not have the
knowledge or experience of working with argumentive reading and writing (Hillocks, 1999, 2010). In
addition, most teachers try to avoid conflict when it comes to learning (Powell, Farrar, and Cohen,
1985). Many teachers have observed that students sitting in classrooms today are bored by the frontal
authoritarian model of learning. For years, as a student, I was told to take out my notebook and copy
what was written on the board. A curriculum in which they are active participants and engaged in
democratic, and cognitively challenging for students works better. In the frontal model, teachers provide
the questions and answers. In the argument model, the students provide the questions and the answers
while the teachers provide the structure, the facilitation, and the guidance. Students gain the necessary
skills to be critical thinkers in a complex society with many different agendas, facts, and perspectives.
Some argue that too much autonomy is given to students in a student-centered environment. But the
risk is much greater with frontal lecture education: that our students master content but do not gain the
cognitive, moral, and epistemic development necessary to become autonomous critical thinkers. The
choice of reading matter for students is also an important factor. Students are unlikely to develop
critical thinking skills naturally when their class reading assignments consist only of narrative and
explanatory texts, as opposed to argumentive texts (Calfee & Chambliss, 1987). The goal of an argument
curriculum is to enhance the development of the responsible citizens and the pedagogical methodology
consists of cultivating argument skills, epistemic development, and moral development. School-based
nurturance of this development will lead to students' autonomous critical thinking and their formation
as responsible citizens. We must invest in the education of our youth. They are our future!
In addition, individuals who think critically live reasonably and empathically – they
avoid simplistic thinking and consider the rights and needs of others
ELDER 2007 (doctorate in educational psychology. President of the Foundation for Critical Thinking and
Executive Director of the Center for Critical Thinking)
(Elder, Linda. "Defining Critical Thinking." Defining Critical Thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking, n.d.
Web. 14 Oct. 2013. <http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766>.)
Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of
quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally,
reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking
when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use
the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and
improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility,
intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no
matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall
prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules
and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and
contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often
inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to
appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in
developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They
embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that many
unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.
This consideration and empathy is necessary to avoid dehumanizing others
VAES et al 2012 (
(Vaes, J., Leyens, J., Paola Paladino, M., & Pires Miranda, M. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving
forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review Of
Social Psychology, 23(1), 64-106. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.665250)
Meanwhile other perspectives emerged proposing that an adequate understanding of humanness - the
quality that is denied to others when they are dehumanized - is necessary in order to get a full grasp of
what it means to dehumanise others (Haslam, 2006). When people are asked what makes them human,
they mention a great variety of characteristics that can be defined either as core or essential features or
as uniquely human attributes that differentiate us from other species. Indeed, as with all things, humans
can be defined by listing all their central and core attributes or by comparing them with other beings
and emphasising their unique aspects. Haslam (2006; see also Haslam, Loughnan, Kashima, & Bain,
2008) systematically looked at the human concept from these perspectives and in this way
distinguished between two senses of humanness. The first includes a set of core or central human
attributes that involve emotionality, warmth, cognitive openness, agency, and depth, and is referred to
as human nature. The second type of humanness sets us apart from animals, is denoted as human
uniqueness, and results in a list of uniquely human characteristics that involve, civility, refinement,
moral sensibility, rationality, and maturity. According to these authors two forms of dehumanisation
result from the denial of these senses of humanness. One involves the perception of others as more
machine-like, denying human nature attributes, and has been called mechanistic dehumanisation,
while the other occurs when we have an animalised view of others, denying them uniquely human
traits, and has been referred to as animalistic dehumanisation. This double view of dehumanisation is
illustrated in a study by Loughnan and Haslam (2007). Using a go–no-go task the authors showed that
artists, a social category pretested to be high in human nature, was indeed associated more with human
nature traits, while business people were more easily associated with uniquely human traits. Moreover,
social categories that lacked one form of humanness were associated with the corresponding type of
nonhuman. Artists’ lack of uniquely human traits led them to be associated with animals. Business
people were instead seen as short on human nature traits and were associated more easily with
automata.
Dehumanization causes violence, cruelty and genocide.
HOMER-DIXON 2012 (Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the
Balsillie School of International Affairs)
(Homer-Dixon, T. (2012). CATASTROPHIC DEHUMANIZATION. http://www.homerdixon.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/02/CATASTROPHIC-DEHUMANIZATION-Homer-Dixon-Feb-13-draft.pdf)
Participants in violent conflict often dehumanize their opponents. Indeed, some form of dehumanization
is arguably a defining feature of the most brutal acts of human violence, such as saturation
bombardment of civilian populations, terrorist attacks on urban centers, intense battlefield combat, and
genocide. People who dehumanize members of another group appear to undergo at least three
cognitive shifts, not necessarily in the following temporal order. First, they de-individuate the members
of the other group. Where once they might have seen the other group’s members as individuals each
with distinct and complex characteristics, histories, and goals, they come to see them, once
dehumanized, as undifferentiated within their group. Second, they often apply to these
undifferentiated members of the other group a simplified and highly pejorative caricature or
stereotype, often involving an analogy to an animal or machine. Third, and most importantly, they deny
the moral legitimacy of the other group’s way of life, interests, actions, and even existence, and in the
process deny its members the protection afforded by general principles of morality. Together, these
three shifts render the group’s members as “unlike us” and, critically, put them beyond the boundary of
the perceivers’ community and thus beyond the range of the perceivers’ responsibility and care. 2 The
eminent social psychologist of conflict Herbert Kelman (1973: 49) writes: 1 Greg Baribeau and Manjana
Milkoreit provided key insights the led to the development of this paper’s thesis. 2 Herbert Kelman
(1973: 48-49) adopts a similar formula: “To understand the processes of dehumanization, we must first
ask what it means to perceive another person as fully human, in the sense of being included in the moral
compact that governs human relationships. I would propose that to perceive another as human we must
accord him identity and community . . . . To accord a person identity is to perceive him as an individual,
independent and distinguishable from others, capable of making choices, and entitled to live his own life
on the basis of his own goals and values. To accord a person community is perceive him—along with
one’s self—as part of an interconnected network of individuals who care for each other, who recognize
each other’s individuality, and who respect each other’s rights. These two features together constitute
the basis for individual worth—for the acceptance of the individual as an end in himself, rather than a
means towards some extraneous end.” Similarly, Esses et al. (2008: 6) highlight the denial of moral
legitimacy: “To the extent that a group is seen as . . . immoral, the group is likely to be seen as less than
human, and thus as less deserving of humane treatment. That is, because they do not share our
humanity, the fate of members of such a group is less relevant to our own, and their interests may be
ignored.”
Dehumanization renders nothing sacred – including human life – the result is a society
of total domination lacking in freedom and choice
Fasching 1993
(Professor of Religious Studies in the University of South Florida [Darrell J., Part II of The ethical
challenge of Auschwitz and Hiroshima: Apocalypse or Utopia?, Chapter 4 "The Ethical Challenge of
Auschwitz and Hiroshima to Technological Utopianism", part 4 "The Challenge of Auschwitz and
Hiroshima: From Sacred Morality to Alienation and Ethics", Ebooks])
Although every culture is inherently utopian in its potentiality, the internal social dynamic through which
its symbolic world-view is maintained as a sacred order has a tendency to transform it into a closed
ideological universe (in Karl Mannheim's sense of the ideological; namely, a world-view that promises
change while actually reinforcing the status quo) that tends to define human identity in terms
advantageous to some and at the expense of others. Historically the process of dehumanization has
typically begun by redefining the other as, by nature, less than human. So the Nazis did to the Jews, and
European Americans did to the Native Americans, men have done to women, and whites to blacks. By
relegating these social definitions to the realm of nature they are removed from the realm of choice and
ethical reflection. Hence those in the superior categories need feel no responsibility toward those in the
inferior categories. It is simply a matter of recognizing reality. Those who are the objects of such
definitions find themselves robbed of their humanity. They are defined by and confined to the present
horizon of culture and their place in it, which seeks to rob them of their utopian capacity for
theonomous self-transcending self-definition. The cosmicization of social identities is inevitably
legitimated by sacred narratives, whether religious or secular-scientific (e.g., the Nazi biological myth of
Aryan racial superiority), which dehumanize not only the victims but also the victors. For to create such
a demonic social order the victors must deny not only the humanity of the other who is treated as
totally alien but also their own humanity as well. That is, to imprison the alien in his or her enforced
subhuman identity (an identity that attempts to deny the victim the possibility of self-transcendence)
the victor must imprison himself or herself in this same world as it has been defined and deny his or her
own self-transcendence as well. The bureaucratic process that appears historically with the advent of
urbanization increases the demonic potential of this process, especially the modern state bureaucracy
organized around the use of the most efficient techniques to control every area of human activity. The
result is, as Rubenstein reminds us, the society of total domination in which virtually nothing is sacred,
not even human life. The heart of such a bureaucratic social order is the sacralization of professional
roles within the bureaucratic structure such that technical experts completely identify themselves with
their roles as experts in the use of techniques while totally surrendering the question of what those
technical skills will be used for to the expertise of those above them in the bureaucratic hierarchy. It is
no accident that the two cultures that drew the world into the cataclysm of World War II, Germany and
Japan, were militaristic cultures, cultures that prized and valued the militaristic ideal of the
unquestioningly obedient warrior. In these nations, the state and bureaucratic order became one and
the same. As Lewis Mumford has argued, the army as an invention of urban civilization is a near-perfect
social embodiment of the ideal of the machine. The army brings mechanical order to near perfection in
its bureaucratic structure, where human beings are stripped of their freedom to choose and question
and where each individual soldier becomes an automaton carrying out orders always "from higher up"
with unquestioning obedience.
DEHUMANIZATION DESTROYS THE VALUE TO LIFE AND OUTWEIGHS ALL CALCULABLE
IMPACTS
Berube 97
(David M., Professor of Communication Studies at University of South Carolina., “NANOTECHNOLOGICAL
PROLONGEVITY: The Down Side,” http://www.cas.sc.edu/engl/faculty/berube/prolong.htm)
This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of
humanity. They warn[s]: "its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or
natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized
society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth
Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought;
beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized
image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the
impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of
humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and
the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can
currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and
international genocide . When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are
dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every
epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
Scenario 2 Competiveness(not done yet)
Countries with higher critical thinking have higher GDP growth
Partnership for 21 Century Skills. 2008. “21st Century Skills, Education & Competitiveness.”
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_guide.p
df
Particularly disappointing is the showing of U.S. 15-year-olds on a special assessment of problem solving on the 2003 PISA: U.S. students ranked
29th out of the 40 countries participating (organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, 2004).
Countries that do well on pISA have higher
increases in GDp growth than countries that do not, according to studies by Stanford researchers Eric
Hanushek et al. (2008):
The critical thinking and problem solving skills measured on pISA, which Hanushek et al. term “cognitive
skills,” differentiate the economic leaders from the laggards among 50 countries from 1960 to 2000:“A
highly skilled work force can raise economic growth by about two-thirds of a percentage point every
year.” Worldwide, the average annual GDp growth rate for more than half a century is 2 to 3 percent, so this is a significant boost.“Higher
Beyond the obvious blow to national pride, this result is economically significant.
levels of cognitive skill appear to play a major role in explaining international differences in economic growth.”
•
Thinking critically and making judgments about the barrage of information that comes their way every day—on the Web, in the
media, in homes, workplaces and everywhere else. Critical
thinking empowers Americans to assess the
credibility, accuracy and value of information, analyze and evaluate information, make reasoned
decisions and take purposeful action.
Critical thinking is key to global competition
Center for Digital Education. 2013. “Graduating Globally Competitive Workers.”
http://resources.rosettastone.com/CDN/us/pdfs/K-12/CDE13-STRATEGY-Rosetta%20Stone_V.pdf
The first implication is that it will be more difficult for students to develop the necessary workforce
skills. In the Center for Digital Education’s survey, respondents from K-12, higher education and the
private sector were asked what the most important skills were for students to have when entering the
workforce. All three groups were in agreement that at the top of this list should be critical thinking,
problem solving, oral and written communication, and collaboration skills. However, when asked
whether the education system was actually preparing students with these much-needed skills, 62
percent of respondents from the private sector said K-12 schools and districts were not and 47 percent
said colleges and universities were not.