Predictability
Here’s evidence that our limits arguments are true – broad topics destroy participation in
debate, which internal link turns all 1ac standards
Rowland, 84(Robert C., Baylor U., “Topic Selection in Debate”, American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Parson, p. 53-4)
The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is the decline in participation
in the National Debate Tournament (NDT) policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a growing dissatisfaction
with academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are oriented toward debating the
national policy debate proposition, so-called “NDT” programs, are diminishing both in scope and size. This
decline in policy debate is tied, many in the work group believe, to excessively broad topics. The most obvious
characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is extreme breadth. A resolution calling for regulation of land
use literally and figuratively covers a lot of ground. National debate topics have not always been so broad.
Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a particular policy change. The move from narrow to broad
topics has had, according to some, the effect of limiting the number of students who participate in policy
debate. First, the breadth of topics has all but destroyed novice debate. Paul Gaske argues that because the
stock issues of policy debate are clearly defined, it is superior to value debate as a means of introducing
students to the debate process. Despite this advantage of policy debate, Gaske believes that NDT debate is not
the best vehicle for teaching beginners. The problem is that broad topics terrify novice debaters, especially
those who lack high school debate experience. They are unable to cope with the breath of the topic and
experience “negophobia,” the fear of debating negative. As a consequence, the educational advantages
associated with teaching novice through policy debate are lost: “Yet all of these benefits fly out the window as
rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caught without evidence or substantive
awareness of the issues that confront them at a tournament.” The ultimate result is that fewer novices
participate in NDT, thus lessening the educational value of the activity and limiting the number of debaters
who eventually participate in more advanced divisions of policy debate. In addition to noting the effect on
novices, participants argued that broad topics also discourage experienced debaters from continued
participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is that it takes so much time and effort to be competitive on a
broad topic that students who are concerned with doing more than just debate are forced out of the activity.
Gaske notes, that “broad topics discourage participation because of insufficient time to do requisite research.”
The final effect may be that entire programs wither cease functioning or shift to value debate as a way to
avoid unreasonable research burdens. Boman supports this point: “It is this expanding necessity of evidence,
and thereby research, which has created a competitive imbalance between institutions that participate in
academic debate.” In this view, it is the competitive imbalance resulting from the use of broad topics that has
led some small schools to cancel their programs.
A2: Role-Playing Makes Us Spectators
Turn – Role-playing teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power which is
critical to genuine and effective political activism – personal experiences must be tied to
concrete political strategies to avoid cooptation
Coverstone, 05 – masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach
(Alan H., “Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact,” Paper presented at the
National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05)
It is very important to note that Mitchell (1998b) tries carefully to limit and bound his notion of reflexive fiat by maintaining that because it “views fiat as
a concrete course of action, it is bounded by the limits of pragmatism” (p. 20). Pursued properly, the debates that Mitchell would like
to see are those in which the relative efficacy of concrete political strategies for pro-social change is debated. In a
few noteworthy examples, this approach has been employed successfully, and I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed judging and coaching those
debates. The students in my program have learned to stretch their understanding of their role in the political process because of the experience.
Therefore, those who say I am opposed to Mitchell’s goals here should take care at such a blanket assertion.
However, contest debate teaches students to combine personal experience with the language of political power.
Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the
language of power. One need look no further than the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after
personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest
debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the
ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate.
Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public
argument in an interesting place.
I’m up against…their aversion
to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It’s as if such students
can’t imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere
may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today’s students’
lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for
centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p.
57)
The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the great virtues of the traditional
notion of fiat that critics deride as mere simulation. Simulation of success in the public realm is far more empowering
to students than completely abandoning all notions of personal power in the face of governmental hegemony by
teaching students that “nothing they can do in a contest debate can ever make any difference in public policy.” Contest
debating is well suited to rewarding public activism if it stops accepting as an article of faith that personal agency is
somehow undermined by the so-called role playing in debate. Debate is role-playing whether we imagine government
action or imagine individual action. Imagining myself starting a socialist revolution in America is no less of a fantasy than imagining myself
making a difference on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, both fantasies influenced my personal and political development virtually ensuring a life of active, prosocial, political participation. Neither fantasy reduced the likelihood that I would spend my life trying to make the difference I imagined. One fantasy
actually does
make a greater difference: the one that speaks the language of political power. The other fantasy
disables action by making one a laughingstock to those who wield the language of power. Fantasy motivates
and role-playing trains through visualization. Until we can imagine it, we cannot really do it. Role-playing without
question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power, and that language paves the
way for genuine and effective political activism.
Debates over the relative efficacy of political strategies for pro-social change must confront governmental
power at some point. There is a fallacy in arguing that movements represent a better political strategy than voting and person-to-person
advocacy. Sure, a full-scale movement would be better than the limited voice I have as a participating citizen going from door to
door in a campaign, but so would full-scale government action. Unfortunately, the gap between my individual decision to
pursue movement politics and the emergence of a full-scale movement is at least as great as the gap between
my vote and democratic change. They both represent utopian fiat. Invocation of Mitchell to support utopian movement fiat is
simply not supported by his work, and too often, such invocation discourages the concrete actions he argues for in favor of the personal rejectionism that
under girds the political cynicism that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.
verstone ‘95
. Former Debater @ Wake, Former Debate Coach at Montgomery Bell Academy. “An Inward Glance” 1995. groups.wfu.edu/debate //JVOSS]
chell's argument underestimates the nature of academic debate in three ways. First, debate trains students in the very skills required for navigation in the
lic sphere of the information age. In the past, political discourse was controlled by those elements who controlled access to information. While this basic reality will continue in the future, its
tial features will change. No longer will mere possession of information determine control of political life. Information is widely available. For the first time in human history we face the prospect of an
ly new threat. The risk of an information overload is already shifting control of political discourse to superior information managers. It is no longer possible to control political discourse by limiting
s to information. Instead, control belongs to those who are capable of identifying and delivering bits of information to a thirsty public. Mitchell calls this the "desertification of the public sphere." The
senses a deep desire for the ability to manage the information around them. Yet, they are unsure how to process and make sense of it all. In this environment, snake charmers and charlatans
nd. The popularity of the evening news wanes as more and more information becomes available. People realize that these half hour glimpses at the news do not even come close to covering all
ble information. They desperately want to select information for themselves. So they watch CNN until they fall asleep. Gavel to gavel coverage of political events assumes top spots on the Nielsen
. Desperate to decide for themselves, the public of the twenty-first century drinks deeply from the well of information. When they are finished, they find they are no more able to decide. Those who
decisions are envied and glorified. Debate teaches individual decision-making for the information age. No
other academic activity available today teaches people more about
rmation gathering, assessment, selection, and delivery. Most importantly, debate teaches individuals how to make and defend their own
isions. Debate is the only academic activity that moves at the speed of the information age. Time is required for individuals to achieve escape velocity. Academic debate holds tremendous value as
ce for training. Mitchell's reflections are necessarily more accurate in his own situation. Over a decade of debate has well positioned him to participate actively and directly in the political process.
e skills he has did not develop overnight. Proper training requires time . While there is a tremendous variation in the amount of training required for effective navigation of
ublic sphere, the relative isolation of academic debate is one of its virtues. Instead of turning students of debate immediately outward, we should be
ouraging more to enter the oasis. A thirsty public, drunk on the product of anyone who claims a decision, needs to drink from the pool of decision-making skills. Teaching these skills is
rtue. Second, Mitchell's argument underestimates the risks associated with an outward turn. Individuals trained in the art and practice of debate are, indeed, well suited to the
k of entering the political world. At some unspecified point in one's training, the same motivation and focus that has consumed Mitchell will also consume most of us. At that point,
al action becomes a proper endeavor. However, all of the members of the academic debate community will not reach that point together. A political outward turn threatens to corrupt the oasis in two
It makes our oasis a target, and it threatens to politicize the training process. As long as debate appears to be focused inwardly, political elites will not feel threatened. Yet one of Mitchell's primary
rns is recognition of our oasis in the political world. In this world we face well trained information managers. Sensing a threat from "debate," they will begin to infiltrate our space. Ready made
mation will increase and debaters will eat it up. Not yet able to truly discern the relative values of information, young
debaters will eventually be influenced dramatically by the
tion of political elites. Retaining our present anonymity in political life offers a better hope for reinvigorating political discourse . As perhaps the only
on-partisan space in American political society, academic debate holds the last real possibility for training active political participants . Nowhere else are people
ed, let alone encouraged, to test all manner of political ideas. This is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they believe it.
Exclusion Inevitable
EXCLUSION IS INEVITABLE: that they escape the informal structures of exclusion. However,
these informal structures are worse because they are smokescreens for excluded marginalized
groups in the name of inclusion. The affirmative’s dismissal of the resolution demonstrates their
ultimate politics of intolerance in the name of helping marginalized groups.
Mari Boor Tonn, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Maryland,
2005
(“Taking Conversation, Dialogue, and Therapy Public” Rhetoric & Public Affairs Vol. 8, No. 3)
Second, democratic processes and public problem solving necessarily diverge from social
conversations by articulating objectives at the outset; adhering to formal rules for
participating in, managing, and achieving problem resolution; and documenting outcomes. Through
the scrupulous recording of motions, discussions, amendments, and votes, the
dynamics of such joint action are rendered visible, accessible, and retrievable, even to
persons not party to the immediate deliberative process. “Democracies,” Schudson writes, “put great
store in the power of writing to secure, verify, and make public. Democracies require public
memories.”32 Thus, contrary to the framing of conversation and dialogue as egalitarian public
problem-solving models, they, in truth, can reify pecking orders by licensing group
members with social authority to set agendas, steer and dominate discussion, and—
absent the polling and recording of votes—interpret the “will” of the group. Moreover, such
informal processes can reward those who speak the loudest, the longest, are the most
articulate, or even the most recalcitrant. Freeman’s analysis of consciousness-raising groups is
instructive:
At any small group meeting anyone with a sharp eye and an acute ear can tell who is influencing
whom. The members of the friendship group will relate more to each other than to other
people. They listen more attentively, and interrupt less; they repeat each other’s points
and tend to give in amiably; they tend to ignore or grapple with the “outs” whose
approval is not necessary for making a decision . . . They are nuances of interaction, not
prewritten scripts. But they are discernible, and they do have their effect. Once one knows . . .
whose approval is the stamp of acceptance, one knows who is running things.33
As a result, Freeman argues that purportedly “structureless” organizations are a “deceptive
. . . smokescreen,” given that “‘structurelessness’ does not prevent the formation of
informal structures, but only formal ones . . . For everyone to have the opportunity to
be involved . . . and to participate . . . the structure must be explicit, not implicit. The
rules of decision-making must be open and available to everyone, and this can only happen if they are
formalized.” 34 Schudson likewise argues that the inherently “threatening” nature of political
deliberation demands procedures guaranteeing “equal access to the floor, equal participation in
setting the ground rules for discussion, and a set of ground rules designed to encourage pertinent
speaking, attentive listening, appropriate simplifications, and widely apportioned speaking rights.”35