Theory Master File

Victory Briefs Institute
NEBEL/DIEHL THEORY FOCUS WEEK V !"!
Theory File
T#eory Fi$e%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%" &&&C#'(ter ") intro*uction&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% + F'irness is i,(ort'nt%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+ Front$ines to f'irness%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%F'irness . E*uc'tion%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/ E*uc'tion is i,(ort'nt%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"" E*uc'tion . F'irness%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%" Co,(etin0 inter(ret'tions . Re'son'1i$ity%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"2 Re'son'1i$ity . Co,(etin0 Inter(ret'tions%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"+ Dro( t#e *e1'ter3 not t#e 'r0u,ent%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"Dro( t#e 'r0u,ent3 not t#e *e1'ter%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"4 5 6e'nin0fu$ 6ess'0e%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% " T#eory is 'n RVI%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% RVI B'* 7ree,(ts%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 8 T#eory is not 'n RVI%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2 &&&C#'(ter ) To(ic'$ity&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% + 'ff ,ust 1e to(ic'$%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% + Re'son'1i$ity for to(ic'$ity%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 4 E9tr':to(ic'$ity B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% / E9tr':to(ic'$ity 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% / 5ff f$e9i1i$ity 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 8" 'ff f$e9i1i$ity B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 8 Fr',er;s Intent <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 88 Fr',er;s Intent B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%82 Un*er:$i,itin0 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%8O=er:$i,itin0 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 8> 7recision <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%84 7recision B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 8/ Fie$* Conte9t <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%2! Fie$* Conte9t B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%2" F?:T B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%2 F9 T <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%22
:INDE?:

NEBEL/DIEHL THEORY FOCUS WEEK V !"! Le0'$ Definitions B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%2Le0'$ Definitions <Oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2> Conte9tu'$ Definitions B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%2> Conte9tu'$ Definitions <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2> Diction'ry *efinitions 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%2/ *iction'ry *efinitions 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+! Bi*irection'$ity 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+" Bi*irection'$ity 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+ Co,,on us'0e 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+2 Co,,on us'0e 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ++ <r',,'r 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+<r',,'r 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% +> &&&C#'(ter 8) Sco(e&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+/ ($'n focus . Res focus%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% +/ 7$'n focus 0oo* front$ines%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-" RESOLUTION IS 5 TO7IC 5RE5%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-2 Res Focus . 7$'n Focus%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-+ To(ic'$ counter($'ns 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-To(ic'$ counter($'ns 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-> 7ics 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-4 7ICs <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% -/ &&&C#'(ter 2) St'tus&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%>! con*ition'$ity 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%>! con*ition'$ity 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >! *is(osition'$ity 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%>8 Dis(osition'$ity <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%>2 Li,ite* Con*ition'$ity B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%>+ $i,ite* con*ition'$ity 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >&&&C#'(ter +) Counter($'ns 'n* fi't&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%>4 Ne0'ti=e Fi't <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%>4 5LTERN5TIVE 5<ENT FI5T B5D%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%4! 5$tern'ti=e 50ent Fi't <OOD%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 48 6u$ti:'ctor fi't 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 4+ 6u$ti:'ctor fi't 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 44 Intern'tion'$ Fi't 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/!
:INDE?:

NEBEL/DIEHL THEORY FOCUS WEEK V !"! Intern'tion'$ fi't <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% / 7ri='te 'ctor fi't 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/8 7ri='te 'ctor Fi't 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/+ 7CCS B'* @Consu$tA%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/7CCS B'* @De$'yA%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% /> 7CCS B'* @Con*itionA%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/4 7CCS <oo* @<ener'$A%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%// Wor* (ics 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"!! Wor* (ics 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "!" Te9tu'$ . 6ec#'nic'$ Co,(etition%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"!8 6ec#'nic'$ . Te9tu'$ Co,(etition%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"!2 &&&C#'(ter -) KritiB 5$tern'ti=es&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"!+ Non:e9istent 5$ts B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"!+ ReCection is not 'n '$tern'ti=e%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"!7o$icy,'Bin0 . BritiB fr',eDorB%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"!4 Non:i,($e,ent'1$e K 5$ts B'* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ""! non:te9tu'$ '$ts 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"" Non:S(ecifie* 5ctor B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ""8 Res K;s B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%""2 &&&C#'(ter >) 7er,ut'tions&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ""+ 7er,ut'tions Nee* ' Te9t%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%""+ 7er, is 'n '*=oc'cy%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ""7er, is ' test of co,(etition%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%""> Se=er'nce (er,ut'tions 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ""4 SEVER5NCE 7ER6ut'tionS <OOD%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%""/ Intrinsicness 7er,ut'tions B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% " ! Intrinsicness (er,ut'tions 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% " " Ti,e Fr',e 7er,ut'tions B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%" Ti,e Fr',e 7er,ut'tions <oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% " 8 &&&C#'(ter 4) Bur*ens&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% " 2 Sin0$e NIB B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%" 2 Sin0$e ni1 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%" + 6u$ti($e ni1s 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%" I,('ct:e9c$usi=e st'n*'r*s B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% " 4 &&&C#'(ter /) ('r'*i0,s&&&%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "8"
:INDE?:

NEBEL/DIEHL THEORY FOCUS WEEK V !"! T'1u$' r's' 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "8" T'1u$' R's' B'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"8 offense:*efense . trut#:testin0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "82 7o$icy6'Bin0 . Trut#:testin0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"8+ Best Custific'tion . trut#:testin0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "8Offense:Defense . 7o$icy 6'Bin0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "84 Best Eustific'tion . 7o$icy 6'Bin0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"8/ Trut# Testin0 . 7o$icy 6'Bin0%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"2! Trut#:testin0 . Offense:*efense%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"2" Best Eustific'tion . Offense:*efense%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "2 (o$icy ,'Bin0 . 1est Custific'tion%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "28 offense:*efense . 1est Custific'tion%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "22 5ff fr',eDorB c#oice 0oo* c'r*s%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"2+ Co,('r'ti=e Dor$*s 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"24 trut# testin0 1'* c'r*s%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "+! 7o$icy,'Bin0 0oo* c'r*s%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "+ (o$icy,'Bin0 1'* c'r*s%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "++ &&&C#'(ter "!) 6isce$$'neous%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"+4 Citin0 Wit#out 7er,ission 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"+4 6iscut e=i*ence 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"-! Fu$$ cites necess'ry%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"-" E$$i(ses 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"SDitc#:si*es *e1'te 0oo*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "-8 N'rr'ti=es 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "-+ Ne0'ti=e$y Dor*e* inter(ret'tions 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"-5r1itr'ry counter:inter( ($'nBs 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%"-> Non:s#e$$ t#eory 1'*%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "-4
:INDE?:

NEBEL/DIEHL THEORY FOCUS WEEK V !"!
&&&C#'(ter ") intro*uction&&& F'irness is i,(ort'nt

1) When debates rules are unfairly skewed, the activity becomes ,ore risBy D#i$e t#e ('yoff re,'ins t#e s',e% We participate after making an assessment of the risks of debating, such as the requisite large amounts of preparation and time commitments, measured against potential benefits like wins and trophies. An unfair advantage for one side destroys this calculations viability, dissuading debaters from remaining in debate. f risk calculations assume that we have an equal chance of winning on either side, but in reality we do not, there is a disincentive to participate. !eople leaving debate is bad because" A) De1'te (ro=i*es for e*uc'tion'$ 1enefits such as giving students the communication skills they need to succeed later in life, helping individuals and entire communities. #) We o1=ious$y c're '1out *e1'te 1ec'use De;re #ere% $herefore, we have an incentive to discourage actions that would destroy the community the activity is based upon. %) You 're o1$i0'te* to 0i=e (eo($e t#eir *ue. All humans have an intrinsic right to be treated fairly, as we interact with others in a moral community in which fairness provides a foundation for our relationships with other people. &ven though we are debating, we are still humans, so we still have obligations to treat one another fairly. ') It;s ' 0'teD'y issue( A skew in fairness makes impartiality impossible. )airness is necessary to determine the winner because you are asked to determine who is the better debater, not who is the better cheater. #oth opponents need equal opportunity to present their own arguments and contest each others arguments, or the basis for determining the better side is fundamentally skewed. *) If you c're '1out *e1'te3 t#en you s#ou$* c're '1out f'irness% $he basic premises of debate assume that the best debater should win the round. When the round is unfairly skewed toward one side, the fundamental aim of debate can never be achieved. +) #ecause debate also has educational value, unfairness in rounds would #in*er t#e e*uc'tion of debaters treated unfairly. ,ebate wouldn-t be educational if it was unfair . ie, if negs had a very small burden of proof, debate would be uneducational because neg research would be unnecessary and affs would do no work because they could never win. $he competitive equity of the activity gives us the ability to have educational discussion, so fairness is necessarily linked to education.
:INDE?:
File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page
6/169
Front$ines to f'irness
5 Ti,e SBeD for t#e (erson D#o r'n t#eory
No I,('ct . $ime skew has no impact because you have to allocate time to answer any argument. /oting me down for 0forcing1 them to run theory 2ustifies voting me down because they had to read a block against my argument. 6utu'$ . $he time skew is mutual. have to invest time in running theory 34 by going for one of my arguments. $his means also have an opportunity cost because can no longer go for a different argument.
5 ) F'irness $e'*s to inter=ention

On$y un*er a re'son'1i$ity model of fairness does fairness lead to intervention, competing interpretations hold that debaters should advance their own conception of what it means to be fair, so this argument would support competing interpretations rather than refute fairness. 5ompeting interps checks back fairness because debaters advocate what it means to be fair, so it is an issue that is resolved in the round. 5alling intervention bad conce*es t#e intern'$ $inB to f'irness, as intervention is only a bad thing if it unfairly advantages one debater. $his means that we both link to fairness, so fairness is a relevant consideration. $here is '$D'ys inter=ention as a 2udge has biases and arguments can never be fully fleshed out in a timed round. T#eory s#e$$s and fairness re*uce su1st'nti=e Cu*0e inter=ention by making a clear standards and having them vote on who is winning the theory debate rather than arbitrarily discluding a position because they feel its bad. 6udge intervention with fairness is good because as an evaluator you #'=e 'n o1$i0'tion to ensure ' f'ir *e1'te and set norms that some arguments screw our activity too much.
5 ) F'irness #'s no 1ri0#t$ine

7nder the competing interpretations, a bright line is not reFuire*. 5ompeting interpretations leads the debaters to promote their interpretation of fairness. A bright line is not required as to determine who gets the ballot but rather who promotes fairness more. )urthermore, even specifically give you the bright line. $he bright line for fairness can be est'1$is#e* 1y t#e t#eory st'n*'r*s which measure the fairness and unfairness of certain arguments. &ven if the bright line is vague, there are sti$$ so,e st'n*'r* of f'irness t#'t e=eryone '0rees 're true. )or e8ample, me punching you and ripping up your flow is considered to be unfair regardless who you ask. What youre doing has clearly passed the threshold of fairness, that it doesnt even matter if the threshold is vague.
5 ) You cou$*;=e 1een unf'ir 1'cB
7/169
$his argument is terrible for debate considering it 2ust encour'0es furt#er '1use to the point where debate has no more competitive value and it is no longer a test of debating skill but of who is the better cheater, defeating debates purpose 6ust because you punched me *oesn;t ,e'n I s#ou$* (unc# you 1'cB. f what youre doing is bad, shouldnt stoop to your level. 6ust because can be unfair doesnt mean should. m trying to make debate better. F'irness is uniFue. :y response would abuse you in some other way, preventing an equal playing field even if responding unfairly. :e being unfair back doesnt translate to me having an equal chance to win. :y opponent is 2ust tryin0 to t#eory 1'it ,e. ;<he is essentially saying 0Why dont you run something can run theory on=1 and should be re2ected on face. ;<he is trying to make me become abusive so that he<she can run<turn the theory on me.
5 ) T#eory is 'n e9:(ost f'cto

$his is not 'n e9 (ost f'cto ru$e. ,ebaters run standards like >>>>>>> all the time in theory debates and win rounds off of these arguments. f each of these arguments ostensibly establishes a rule for how debate should be carried out in the future, then the rule has already been established. ts your 2ob to investigate if youre unfair, as running an argument is a choice and shows that youve thought about it. As long as your rational, its your burden to be able to t#inB '1out 'n* *efen* your (r'ctices, thats what comes with being able to think. $heory is the on$y D'y to c#ecB 1'cB '1use and make a change in what arguments are common, since it actively punishes transgressions. &ven if this were the first theory argument being run of this sort, it is necessary to initiate some sort of theoretical ob2ection to the argument. &8 post facto rules are on$y unf'ir if t#ey 're not contest'1$e. ?iven that she has the opportunity to debate the rule that would take effect this round, the concept of 0e8 post facto1 does not carry the same weight that it does in legal cases. At the very least, *ro( t#e 'r0u,ent. Accepting an 0e8 post facto1 rule is similar to accepting any other kind of response that proves why you may not vote for a given argument. @ou should drop the debater for the other reasons e8pressed in the shell and my previous responses, but err on the side of dropping the argument even if you accept this argument about e8 post facto rules. ?iven the structure of a debate round and infinite amounts of potential , it is i,(ossi1$e to est'1$is# '$$ of t#e ru$es for the debate before the round, and thus, some rules must be e8(post facto )urthermore, allowing debaters to determine for themselves what constitutes the fairest and most educational debate (ro,otes critic'$ t#inBin0 and argumentative skill, rather than simply forcing debaters to conform to e8ternal rules
5 ) T#eory is unf'ir
At the very least, my theory is co,('r'ti=e$y ,ore f'ir than substance youre running. )urthermore, theory provides a c#ecB '0'inst team resource and siAe 0'(s . its a lot easier for a massive school like ?reenhill or ?lenbrooks to write new positions as opposed to a smaller school, but
B
8/169
the fundamentals of theory doesnt change. &ven if my school is bigger than his<hers, that checks back my advantage. $his argument ,'Bes 'n '((e'$ to f'irness so it concedes the internal link that fairness is intrinsically valuable. What constitutes fair argumentation requires theory standards to establish, showing why the argument is self(contradictory. I D's force* to run t#eory or would have been screwed over. &ven if m responding with something unfair thats not my fault because they made me do it.
9/169
F'irness . E*uc'tion
1) E*uc'tion reFuires f'irness to prevent all the knowledge from 2ust becoming arbitrary knowledge( any education(related standards they have are linked specifically into topic(specific education. )or this sort of education to happen, we have to have a framework of fairness e8isting such that we know what is topic(specific and what is 2ust arbitrary. %) $hey may win that the overall quantity of education may increase, however, Fu'$ity is *eter,ine* 1y f'irness. We need to have a framework of fairness to guide the in(depth research required for good debates( in other words, fairness is key to making sure that research creates an in(depth debate that our education applies to and is used. $hus, even if they win that education is more important, ll win that fairness is the Bey intern'$ $inB to any benefits from education. ') )airness is more important than education because what constitutes structur'$ f'irness is ,uc# ,ore o1Cecti=e than what promotes education, so it is much easier to evaluate the theoretical legitimacy based on its fairness than its education. *) E*uc'tion is ' su1Cecti=e standard. $he 2udge can evaluate how easy it is for each debater to win the round, and yet any standard of education is based upon a sub2ective idea of what is important to know about, and different 2udges have educations in differing fields making them biased to what is educationally important. Also, theory standards help us determine what fairness means, but they can-t help us determine what is educational. !referring fairness prevents intervention and for you to vote on something you need to know e8actly what youre voting on. +) De1'te is *istinct from other academic pursuits because of its competitive nature. nstead of 2ust doing research on potential topics in a friendly setting, we choose to engage in a more adversarial activity in which we have the opportunity to be evaluated and win recognition. $he educational benefit of debate stems from its adversarial nature and the critical thinking it creates. $hese are best preserved through fairness because it ensures that both sides can engage in the discussion. 9) We #'=e ' fun*',ent'$ ,or'$ o1$i0'tion to treat others fairly, while we do not have a moral obligation to constantly educate and be educated. &ven though we are debaters, we are still humans, so we should still treat others fairly. )airness links to the fundamental basis of our relationships with others. B) $here are an infinite number of educational arguments that can be made, but not '$$ e*uc'tion'$ 'r0u,ents 're f'ir. When we foster a system in which people can make countless unfair arguments as long as they are educational, people no longer engage in the substance of the arguments and can only ever turn to theory. f my opponent wants to further education, then he<she must accept that fairness precludes education for this reason. C) &mpirically we care about fairness more than education. We go for strategies that will help us win more but we dont necessarily always go for the most educational arguments. )or e8ample, theory is not the most educational argument because it doesnt teach us about the topic, but debaters go for it because it allows them a better chance to win the round. What debaters care about is most consistent with the
D
10/169
true goal of debate because it reveals why people do debate in the first place. T#is $inB turns t#eir ('rtici('tion 'r0u,ent.
1E
11/169
E*uc'tion is i,(ort'nt
1. &ducation is valuable because it helps us succeed in life and makes society better as a whole by increasing societys ability to function. $he impacts garnered from education are $'stin03 'n* i,('ct our re'$ $i=es, as well as the lives of those around us. %. &ducation is the (ri,'ry 0o'$ of debate" the skills that debate measures . like critical thinking and research skills . are educational, meaning that it is undeniable that debate has an educational element. '. @ou as a 2udge have the duty to vote on education. <,oug Si0e$. F)ormer debate coach and professor at Gorthwestern 7niversityH. 0$he !unishment $heory" llegitimate ;tyles and $heories as /oting ssues.1 1D42< A second reason for punishment sees the 2udge as an educator. $eams damaging the goals of the debate activity should lose because the 2udge has a duty to improve the debate form((independent of the duty he has to render a decision on the issues surrounding the plan. $he medium in debate is the message" to abuse the medium is to destroy the message. A teacher, for e8ample, would not accept a paper with good ideas that are presented in an unscholarly fashion(in disorganiAed, ungrammatical style replete with spelling errors and devoid of organiAation. While it stretches the analogy to suggest that 2udges should be solely concerned with skills, it is reasonable for the 2udge to punish teams violating the criteria presented in the round to determine the better 2ob of debating.
11
12/169
E*uc'tion . F'irness
1. &ducation is the u$ti,'te 'i, of *e1'te" $he point of debate is to educate debaters on global issues, how to research, critical thinking . not how to be fair. 3therwise, topics would be about issues like multple a prioris or time skew rather than real(world political issues. %. F'irness is su1Cecti=e, different people have different ideas as to what arguments and practices are fair so we can never know when fairness is being achieved. )urther, people have different conceptions of what it means to be fair. )or instance, we don-t know if fairness is procedural or if it is substantive, ie if fairness means correcting the neg win skew or not. '. Unf'irness is non:uniFue because theres always some aspect of an interpretation that isnt as a good as another. *. &ducation is something we take away from debate" t is impossible to take fairness away from debate because we never know what it truly is and how to apply itI whereas, e*uc'tion is something that c'n 1e '(($ie* in any situation. )airness has no impacts outside of round compared to education that shapes how we understand and operate in the world. 4eal world impacts come first because were humans before were debaters and thus should prioritiAe helping society over winning debate rounds. ;trait and Wallace1 write, $he ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. t is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. ,ecision(making transcends boundaries between categories FofH learning like Jpolicy educationJ- and Jkririk education,J it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. $he implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real(world decision(making arc conductively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed them. t is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives.) +. Sc#oo$s fun* *e1'te for its educational value, not because its competitive, meaning that if debate is no longer educational it dies as an activity. ,ebate is often regarded as an educational club, like ;cience 3lympiad, rather than a sport, like tennis, and is funded as such. 9. ,ebate was cre'te* 's 'n e*uc'tion'$ 'cti=ity, therefore it should reward the skills it values. f it was solely based on fairness, participants would have no reason for 2oining debate over a coin flipping contest. $he reason debate was created and the reason people 2oin it is because it emphasiAes critical thinking and argumentative skills. ,ebate should reward educational benefits because of its function, otherwise the activity becomes pointless. B. As we become more educated, we better understand how things interact, and thus can come to better conclusions about what is fair, making education a necessary intern'$ $inB to f'irness.
1
K. !aul ;trait L?eorge :ason 7niversity) and #rett Wallace L?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. Fhttp"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$he M%E;copeM%EofM%EGegativeM%E)iatM%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf 1%
13/169
1'
14/169
Co,(etin0 inter(ret'tions . Re'son'1i$ity

@GA R'ce to t#e 1otto, ( 4easonability leads to a race to the bottom because there is incentive to push the line of whats reasonable lower and lower as more people start running slightly abusive arguments. $his sets a norm for lowering the bar because debaters have an incentive to lower the bar for a competitive advantage. As debaters push the bar lower and arguments seem more reasonable over time as the bar is lowered. $his leads to bad debate because any argument can be accepted as reasonable leading away from debate on substance, which makes debate progressively worse. 5ompeting interpretations solves for this by establishing a clear standard for what is the best interpretation. L>) 4easonability has no 1ri0#t $ine, meaning( a. 5ant make a decision to see if it is actually reasonable so dont use it to evaluate arguments. b. 6udges have different views for what is reasonable forcing intervention to decide what is reasonable which is opposite to a fair debate. c. &ven if they make one, it is arbitrary as they get to make it, causing the line to be skewed in their favor. L>) 5ompeting interpretations creates an incentive to promote fair debate because it forces *e1'ters to *efen* t#eir inter(ret'tionsI defending the interpretation is the only way to generate offense on theory, so debaters have incentives to run advocacies consistent with the most fair interpretation, because otherwise they would lose the theory debate. @GA T#eory is 0oo*( it allows us to check abuse and make debate the best it can be. 4easonability discourages this because it skews time to run it if they can 2ust get out of it because they-re reasonable. @GA Re'son'1i$ity is an inconsistent method of ad2udication( you as a 2udge dont use reasonability as a way to evaluate substantive arguments so to be consistent you should evaluate all arguments including theory from a competing interpretations standpoint if a argument is winning more offense even if its marginally it should be preferred. L>) 4easonability cre'tes 'n incenti=e for *e1'ters to run 'r0u,ents t#'t 're 's '1usi=e 's (ossi1$e without crossing a threshold that they themselves established. 4easonability pushes the standard of reasonability down because arguments which are only marginally more unfair than other arguments can be construed as within the limits of reasonability. $his harms education because there is less engagement on the substantive debate and more generic theory. $his is unfair because threshold set up arbitrarily can allow for really abusive cases to be fair, while in reality they destroy my chance to win. 5ompeting interpretations solves for this because there is no bright line and debaters will always be trying to promote the most fair interpretations.
1*
15/169
Re'son'1i$ity . Co,(etin0 Inter(ret'tions

@GA Co,(etin0 inter( c'uses r'ce to t#e to(: 7nder competing interps, there will always be an interp thats slightly better, meaning we would always run theory because its a gateway issue. $his would distract us from substance, which is the educational part of debate that we can apply to other parts of lifeI theory can not be applied to anything but high(school debate. @GA Destroys cre'ti=ity: 5ompeting interpretations forces debaters to think out side the bo8, forcing them to conform to only arguments that are perfectly fair . otherwise, they would always face theory about a slightly more fair practice. $his causes stasis in debate because everyone would run the same 0fair1 issues over and over again. 4easonability checks back this problem because debaters can be creative when choosing positions as long as they are reasonably fair. @GA Contr'*icts our notions of (unis#,ent( We should only re2ect debaters<arguments if they are bad, not because they are less good. )or instance, we punish people for breaking the law, but not for failing to donate to charity, and not for donating some, but not all, of their money to charity. $his makes punishments under competing interps unproportional to the abuse. !roportionality is key to fairness as what is fair is determined by what we are due. L>) :akes theory infinite$y re0ressi=e. $hey prep out reasons why both sides of a theory issue would be preferable in order to win on theory no matter what do( causing endless theory debates. 4easonability solves for theoretical issues that can not be resolved. )or instance, there are interps and counter(interps for plans good and plans bad . no matter what do, lose. 4easonability stops these no(way(out situations from occurring. L>) L3nly if topicality) !eople *on;t #'=e 'ccess to resources that provide the best definition so reasonability doesnt screw over small schools without the ability to get the best definition. L>) 4easonability prevents a r'ce to t#e 1otto, because a significant impact is needed to win the theory debate. A marginal impact is sufficient under competing interpretations, so debaters have an incentive to make their interpretations and counter(interpretations as similar as possible, minimiAing points of clash. $his makes it impossible for the person responding to theory to win the debate because she has to generate offense off a tiny part of the original interpretation. )urther, it harms education because both debaters agree on DEM of the theoretical issues, so they have few opportunities to defend their positions.
1+
16/169
Dro( t#e *e1'ter3 not t#e 'r0u,ent

L>) $ime spent on theory cant be made up( was forced to run theory and undercover substance meaning dropping the argument doesnt rectify the ti,e sBeD. Also, K, times are short enough that once theory is brought up or abuse occurs, theres simply not enough time to rectify the abuse and get back to a fair round. $he implication is that you need to vote off fairness as the round is irrevocably altered away from the substance. L>) $his argument encourages people to run lots of terrible abusive arguments. f my opponent runs a ton of abusive arguments ll be forced to run theory on each, then my opponent will 2ust kick each and win on substance thus winning the time trade off. $hat means you have to drop the debater to ensure 'r0u,ent 'ccount'1i$ity% L>) /ote them down to *eter future abusive strategies. Si0e$ in C*
F,oug ;igel 1DC*, 0$he !unishment $heory" llegitimate ;tyles and $heories as /oting ssues,1 6ournal of the American )orensics Association, available online at http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<,4?Artiarticles nde8.htm.H
$here are at least * reasons that can be isolated for voting on punishment positions irrespective of what occurs in the rest of the round. )irst, most central to the entire notion of (unis#,ent is t#e *eterrent view. 6ust as De (unis# cri,in'$s to *eter cri,e3 De s#ou$* (unis# *e1'ters D#o inCure the *e1'te process. A ballot that says J think you may have won that second ,A((but voted against you based on the illegitimacy of the conditional counterplans you ranJ sends a strong message to the teams involved and other participants in the activity that there are high costs of abusive strategies. $here does seem to be merit to the negative reinforcement approach to debate. T#e 'r0u,ents and styles t#'t 're successfu$ 're co(ie*H t#ose t#'t 'renIt 're s#unne*% W#i$e the decision in one roun* c'nIt 1y itse$f fundamentally c#'n0e *e1'te3 ' general tren* c'n 1e initi'te* 'n*/or reinforce* 1y ' *ecision% $he e8perience of this author has been that, at least in college debate, the threat of punishment now hangs over teams using strategies and styles that are generally regarded as illegitimate. Deterrence see,s es(eci'$$y '(($ic'1$e to the *e1'te setting 1ec'use the ('rtici('nts #'=e contro$ o=er their (r'ctices% We all practice 2udge analysis, trying to adapt to the inevitable likes and dislikes of even the most tabula rasa critic. $he fee*1'cB ' (unis#,ent *ecision (ro=i*es is *irect) e=eryone is 0i=en notice t#'t t#e Dinnin0 te', Di$$ 'n* c'n Din roun*s in t#e f'ce of '1usi=e *e1'tin0 'n* t#'t t#e Cu*0e involved Di$$ =ote '0'inst suc# (r'ctices% t only takes a few instances of
punishment
*. )airness can be maintained only if the debater is punished with the loss for unfair practices. ;igel %
F,oug ;igel 1DC*, 0$he !unishment $heory" llegitimate ;tyles and $heories as /oting ssues,1 6ournal of the American )orensics Association, available online at http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<,4?Artiarticles nde8.htm.H
A third reason that can be introduced in support of punishment is fairness. If it is s#oDn t#'t ' 0i=en sty$e or t#eory #urts t#e *e1'te 'cti=ity3 t#e '1usin0 te', #'s #urt t#e e*uc'tion'$ e9(erience of t#e '1use* te',% One te', in=ests #un*re*s of *o$$'rs3 #un*re*s of #ours3 'n* 0i=es u( ot#er e*uc'tion'$ o((ortunities on$y to confront ' ,e'nin0$ess e9(erience((we all have had the feeling after some particularly useless debates that maybe we-d be better off not debating. Nuite simply, t#e soci'$ contr'ct De '$$ ,'Be to try to en0'0e in 0enuine inte$$ectu'$ *iscourse is 1re'c#e* 1y t#ose D#o e,($oy *isru(ti=e t'ctics in or*er to Din% 5 1'$$ot on t#e i$$e0iti,'cy of suc# *isru(ti=e '1uses see,s t#e $e'st t#'t c'n 1e e9(ecte*% Co,(etiti=e eFuity is '$so restore* 1y =otin0 on (unis#,ent% 51usi=e t'ctics 're e,($oye* to 0'in str'te0ic '*='nt'0e" conditional counterplans , for e8ample, imply a geometric increase in the burdens placed upon the affirmative% Inco#erent *e$i=ery is
19
17/169
('rticu$'r$y unf'ir 1ec'use ' *e1'ter c'n ne=er 1e sure if t#e 1its 'n* (ieces of ' s(eec# #e un*erstoo* Dere t#e s',e 1its 'n* (ieces t#e Cu*0e un*erstoo*% T#e D'y to restore co,(etiti=e eFuity is to =ote '0'inst te',s 0ui$ty of *isru(tin0 t#e n'tur'$ co,(etiti=e o((ortunity t#'t e9iste* in t#e '1sence of '1usi=e t'ctics% To ,ere$y *ro(:out 1'* *e1'te (r'ctices is to encour'0e t#eir use::te',s Di$$ run ,u$ti($e counter($'ns3 counterD'rr'nts 'n* t#e $iBe 'n* #o(e to *r'D $ots of 'tt'cBs on t#e, to D'ste t#e ,'9i,u, ti,e (ossi1$e3 '$$oDin0 =ictory on t#e ot#er issues% It see,s ('rticu$'r$y unCust for ' te', to #'=e to 'nsDer ,u$ti($e counter($'ns3 counterD'rr'nts3 'n* t#e $iBe 'n* to en* u( $osin0 on to(ic'$ity% On$y 1y =otin0 to (unis# te',s e,($oyin0 t'ctics t#'t 're s#oDn to 1e inCurious to *e1'te((in terms of education and fairness((c'n co,(etiti=e eFuity 1e ,'int'ine*%
1B
18/169
Dro( t#e 'r0u,ent3 not t#e *e1'ter

"% 7ro(ortion'$ity J t is not proportional for me to lose the round because violated some rule of debate."
4oger ;olt. 0$O&34@ A; A /3$ G? ;;7&" $O& 54 :& 3) !7G ;O:&G$ %EE% http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<,4?Artiarticles nde8.htm
:y third argument is that the punishment of =otin0 on t#eory is '$,ost '$D'ys *is(ro(ortion'te% $o me this seems almost true by definition. So,eone '*='nces ' K1'*L 'r0u,ent% T#ey $ose t#'t 'r0u,ent% It is not ' *ecisi=e 'r0u,ent in ter,s of t#e su1st'nti=e $o0ic of t#e *e1'te3 be that a policy logic, a discursive logic, or a critical logic. But inste'* of Cust $osin0 t#'t 'r0u,ent3 Dit# D#'te=er $o0ic'$3 $i,ite* i,('ct t#'t ,'y #'=e in t#e roun*3 t#e te', D#ic# '*='nce* t#e K1'*L 'r0u,ent su**en$y is su((ose* to $ose t#e D#o$e *e1'te% n other words, e=ery ot#er issue in t#e roun*3 all of the policy arguments, all of the critical arguments, all of the discursive arguments become moot. $hey no $on0er ,'tter 'n* t#ey nee* not 1e reso$=e* 1ec'use one t#eory 'r0u,ent #'s 1een $ost%
)or me to lose the round my opponent has to be showing that my violation of ground was so egregious that they were unable to make any arguments. #ecause they made arguments outside of theory, they had the capacity to engage in the substantive debate meaning that its un(proportional as am being prima facie dropped for me making an argument they wouldnt be prima facie dropped for. %. :aking theory a reason to vote down the debater forces debaters to allocate their time on the theoretical debate, therefore detracting from the substantive debate. a. 6udge willingness to vote down debaters for theory violation incentiviAes debaters to run theoretical rather than substantive arguments to win the ballot. Si0e$ "/4+" F!unishment" ,oes t )it the 5rime= ,oug ;igel, Gorthwestern 7niversity.
1DC+ ( 5larifying Water !olicyH
By e9(ressin0 ' Di$$in0ness to =ote on (unis#,ent3 Cu*0es encour'0e t#eory *e1'te 't t#e e9(ense of (o$icy *iscussion% t is true that abusive debate practices have been a problem. T#e (unis#,ent so$ution, however3 is counter(ro*ucti=e% W#en one te', runs 'nyt#in0 s$i0#t$y cre'ti=e t#eir o((onent i,,e*i'te$y D#ines t#'t it is unf'ir 'n* une*uc'tion'$ 'n* forces t#e entire *e1'te 'D'y fro, su1st'nce% t seems obvious that a successful strategy against punishment is to argue that voting against bad theory
encourages e8cessive theoretical discussion. If (unis#,ent 1eco,es 'n 'cce(te* t'ctic3 te',s Di$$ nit:(icB '1out =io$'tions of f'irness 'n* e*uc'tion inste'* of tryin0 to c$'s# on t#e issues% T#e '*='nt'0es of (unis#,ent in ter,s of sto((in0 1'* *e1'te 're simply outDei0#e* 1y t#e '$'r,in0 focus 'D'y fro, t#e (o$icy 0o'$s of t#e 'cti=ity% b. c. d. /oting on theory crowds out substantive debate as the massive risk of under covering theory forces me to allocate so much time on it that going for substance becomes unreasonable. ,ropping the debater disincentives innovative argumentation as debaters become threatened by the prospect of loss. )earing the severe punishment of a loss, debaters will be hesitant if not altogether unwilling to run new arguments fearing that the theoretical illegitimacy of one argument will guarantee a loss despite the legitimacy of the rest of the position. ,ropping the debater incentiviAes theory over substance, killing topic specific education, because theory is generic and does not differ from topic to topic while the substance of the debate changes from topic to topic. $he topic(specific education we garner from a substance debate is preferable compared to a generic theory debate. $herefore re2ect the argument not the debater so we can focus more on substance. ;ubstantive argumentation has the only significant value in debate. So$t concurs" 4oger ;olt. 0$O&34@ A; A /3$ G? ;;7&" $O& 54 :& 3) !7G ;O:&G$ %EE% http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<,4?Artiarticles nde8.htm
$he first main argument would make against punishment is that it e8aggerates theory. 3ne view of debate is that it is 2ust a game and that theory is as worthwhile to debate as anything else. n contrast is the view that would defend" that
e.
*e1'te #'s ' su1st'nti=e inte$$ectu'$ content D#ic# it is f'r ,ore Dort#D#i$e to $e'rn '1out t#'n it is to 1C
19/169
$e'rn '1out *e1'te t#eory% De1'te te'c#es us ' 0re't *e'$ '1out current e=ents 'n* (rinci($es of (o$icy 'n'$ysis3 '1out (o$itic'$ t#eory3 (o$itic'$ (#i$oso(#y3 'n* (r'ctic'$ (o$itics3 '1out ,e*icine 'n* $'D3 et#ics 'n* e(iste,o$o0y% t teaches both (ro1$e, so$=in0 'n* t#e criticis, of un*er$yin0 'ssu,(tions% 5n* it teaches ,'ny ot#er t#in0s 's De$$% !eople disagree about which of these areas of inquiry is most important, but 'ny 'n* '$$ of t#ese su1Cects 're of ,ore intrinsic si0nific'nce t#'n *e1'te t#eory%
Oowever, theoretical issues contain no educational value. So$t furthers"

4oger ;olt. 0$O&34@ A; A /3$ G? ;;7&" $O& 54 :& 3) !7G ;O:&G$ %EE% http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<,4?Artiarticles nde8.htm
think that we sometimes confuse debate theory with argument theory. think of as 0debate theory1 at a variety of points. #ut
am not arguing that argumentation is not a valid and useful field of thought. And argument theory may intersect with what we commonly
t#e ='st 1u$B of *e1'te t#eory3 's 'r0ue* in co,(etiti=e *e1'te roun*s3 re'$$y Cust in=o$=es D#'t 're '((ro(ri'te con=entions for t#is ('rticu$'r 'cti=ityM' contest3 s(onsore* 1y e*uc'tion'$ institutions3 Dit# ' cert'in for,'t 'n* cert'in con=entions% 5re con*ition'$ counter($'ns $e0iti,'teN 5re ($'n inc$usi=e counter($'ns $e0iti,'teN Are international counterplans legitimate= ;hould we assume that the 0fiat1 of the affirmative plan comes immediately or only after a normal implementation process= :ust the affirmative specify an agent= $hese are the staples of debate theory argument. &specially they are the kinds of issues which most invoke punishment claims. And none of t#e, #'s ('rticu$'r s'$ience outsi*e t#e fr',eDorB 'n* for,'t of contest *e1'te% 3f course3 it is (ossi1$e to re$'te so,e of t#ese 'r0u,ents to inte$$ectu'$ contro=ersies 1eyon* co,(etiti=e *e1'te. )or e8ample, a focus on international institutions distinguishes liberalism from realism as foreign policy paradigms. But t#e *e1'te o=er intern'tion'$ fi't *oes not *r'D =ery #e'=i$y on t#is ('r'*i0,'tic contro=ersy% 5n* our 'r0u,ents Dit#in co,(etiti=e *e1'te o=er t#e (ro(riety of intern'tion'$ fi't *oes ne9t to not#in0 to i$$u,in'te t#e $i1er'$is,/re'$is, *e1'te Dit#in intern'tion'$ re$'tions% '. ,ropping the debater leads to the proliferation of bad theory practices as debaters realiAe the strategic advantage to running theory instead of substance. a) ,ropping the debater incentiviAes unfair practices that bait theory that establishes the grounds for an 4/ , and thus further avoids substantive debate. Si0e$" Doug Sigel writes: [Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985; http://groups.wfu.e u/ e!"te/#is$Sites/D%&'rti$les/Sigel985("ter.ht)* )irst, (unis#,ent 'r0u,ents *o not *eter 1'* *e1'te% It #'s '$re'*y 1een 'r0ue* t#'t so(#istic'te* *e1'ters D#o run OCunBO 'r0u,ents O Di$$ e'0er$y $'tc# onto (unis#,ent 's 'not#er D'y to '=oi* rese'rc#% ;ome elaboration seems in order. Su((ose you 'n* your ('rtner ($'n on runnin0 ' Dor$* 0o=ern,ent counter($'n nearly every round. Your res(onse to t#e t#re't of (unis#,ent Di$$ 1e to Drite *et'i$e* 1riefs A *efen*in0 t#e $e0iti,'cy of your counter($'n% W#en 'not#er te', initi'tes ' (unis#,ent 'r0u,ent you Di$$ OturnO t#e 'r0u,ent 'n* ,'Be it ' re=erse =otin0 issue% W#en t#e "5R *ro(s nu,1ers ""3 " 'n* - because of time pressure you Di$$ $iBe$y Din t#e *e1'te% It see,s c$e'r t#'t for te',s t#'t syste,'tic'$$y '1use t#e 'cti=ity (unis#,ent isnIt re'$$y ' (ro1$e,% 5t Dorst t#ey c'n ,u**$e u( t#e issue 'n* 't 1est t#ey c'n Din on re=erse:(unis#,ent% b) /oting on theory creates a dangerous incentive for theory to be run every round. $he general communal norm against 4/ s makes theory an unreciprocal, easy way out for one debater. /oting on theory therefore encourages its use in every round, even when there is no actual abuse or when the interpretation is unfair, because it allows one debater to kick theory if their opponent answers it and win on substance 34 win on theory if their opponent under covers it. 4e2ecting the argument checks back this incentive by making debaters think twice about running theory as the time they need to invest on theory is rewarded by only taking out the abusive argument. $he incentive then becomes to only run theory if there is clear abuse. *. /oting the debater down for a theoretical ob2ection e8acerbates the consequences of 2udge bias because devastating consequences are attached to a 2udges unpredictable preference for certain arguments. So$t warrants" 4oger ;olt. 0$O&34@ A; A /3$ G? ;;7&" $O& 54 :& 3) !7G ;O:&G$ %EE% http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<,4?Artiarticles nde8.htm
1D
20/169
:y fourth ma2or argument against (unis#,ent is that it is into$er'nt% 5$$ Cu*0es #'=e 1i'ses D#ic# t#ey 're on$y ('rti'$$y successfu$ 't screenin0 out. And perhaps oddly, 2udges often seem less able to set aside their theory biases than their biases on substantive issues. As noted above, 2udges can generally 2ustify voting either way on a given theory argument in most rounds. At least if both sides are putting up a decent fight, this is the case. f a position is conceded, most 2udges will behave accordingly, though even here there are e8ceptions. And sometimes there will be such a clear preponderance of argument that 2udges are unable to find their way back to their own theory predispositions. #ut Dit# tDo re'son'1$y sBi$$e* te',s3 it is 0ener'$$y (ossi1$e to reso$=e ' 0i=en t#eory issue eit#er D'y3 so ,ost Cu*0es3 ,ost of t#e ti,e3 en* u( en*orsin0 t#e t#eory (osition D#ic# t#ey (refer% T#is ,'y 1e 'n unfortun'te f'ct '1out Cu*0es3 'n* it cert'in$y '(($ies to so,e Cu*0es ,ore t#'n to ot#ers3 1ut it is ' re'$ ten*ency% It is #'r*$y contro=ersi'$ to s'y t#'t Cu*0es #'=e 1i'ses% But t#e (ro1$e, Dit# (unis#,ent3 in $i0#t of t#is f'ct3 is t#'t =otin0 on t#eory e,(oDers t#ose 1i'ses% Inste'* of cre'tin0 ' str'te0ic s$'nt3 t#e 1i's 1eco,es '$$:*ecisi=e% What we should recogniAe, think, is that *ifferent (eo($e c'n 'n* *o $e0iti,'te$y #o$* *ifferent conce(ts of D#'t *e1'te s#ou$* 1e '1out% If one si*e '((e'$s to our t#eory (references 'n* t#e ot#er si*e *oes not3 it is not unre'son'1$e to e9(ect t#'t t#e si*e D#ose =ieDs De e,1r'ce Di$$ Din t#e *e1'te o=er ' ('rticu$'r issue ,ore often% But it is into$er'nt to ru$e t#e ot#er si*e co,($ete$y out of or*er3 to *eci*e t#e D#o$e *e1'te 1'se* on t#is one issue3 Cust 1ec'use t#ey #'=e 0otten on t#e Dron0 si*e of one of our t#eoretic'$ (re*is(ositions%
%E
21/169
5 6e'nin0fu$ 6ess'0e
Consistency : $heory doesnt send a meaningful message because it would be unreasonable to e8pect all of my opponents to run the same theory shell my opponent ran against my argument. $herefore, even if lose this round, still wont be deterred from running this position in the future as know other 2udges will not vote me down in future rounds . and even if 2udges would vote me down if theory were run, know that not all of my opponents will run theory. No I,('ct . ;ending a meaningful message doesnt translate into an action. ;chools who ran disclose on the wiki theory certainly sent a powerful message to the debate community, but many people still choose not to disclose. 6ust because a message is meaningful doesn-t mean that it is compelling enough of a reason for people to act on it.
%1
22/169
T#eory is 'n RVI

f win the counter(interpretation or an meet argument vote, for me because f theory is an issue of competing interpretations, then you have to vote for the interpretation that is preferable in order to *iscour'0e t#e Dorse inter(ret'tion. f theory and counter interpretations are run, the debate must finish there. 3ne of them must be true. Weve transcended the realm of substance and have to resolve the discussion on how debate should be in the future, forcing me to debate on the theoretical level, giving me ground for an 4/ as thats the ground have to debate.
1. must in=est ti,e in order to answer theory because theory is a gateway issue. $his means that to answer theory must allocate time away from substance. $herefore, the only way for me to reasonably answer theory and not lose is to make theory a %(way street so that the time invest on theory is worth the opportunity cost.
4/ s *iscour'0e 1'* t#eory by making people think twice about running theory. 3therwise, debaters will run it every round because it is a no(risk issue and a time suck, giving my opponent a structural advantage in the round. 4/ s check this back as they ensure that people wont run bad theory as they know that will be punished. 3veruse of theory creates more problems than an 4/ ever could.
%. '. $heory gives my opponent the ability to 0o for su1st'nce or t#eory whereas must go for both theory and substance. $his is un(reciprocal as it gives my opponent twice as many outs in the round than have. 4eciprocity is key to fairness as un( reciprocal positions makes it easier for one debater to win the round. No risB issues encour'0e un:e*uc'tion'$ 'r0u,ent'tion since they encourage kicking arguments even when there are turns and going for less covered issues. $his is un(educational because a) it provides competitive incentive for debaters to not engage their opponents responses because they can 2ust kick it b) encourages debaters to make shallow, blippy arguments 2ust so they get to every argument on the flow because dropped arguments cant be weighed and c) distracts from substantive issues because debaters know that they cant lose on this level, unlike any other level.
%%
23/169
RVI B'* 7ree,(ts

"% 5 RVIs encour'0e t#eory 1'itin0
RVIs *on;t encour'0e t#eory 1'itin0 because if the interp is truly unfair, its impossible to win against someone who understands even basic theory.
% 5 T#ere is no ti,e sBeD

$heory takes a lot more time to answer than to run, especially if they had it prepared and didnt, thus they sti$$ #'=e ' ti,e sBeD.
8% 5 I *on;t nee* to s(en* t#'t ,uc# ti,e on t#eory

f my integrity is challenged, should be able to spend sufficient time defending it as it is more important than other parts of the flow that dont effect my persona. $his means I #'=e to s(en* ' $ot ,ore ti,e on t#eory, meaning have to have the ability to win on it as have to trade off with substance.
2% 5 RVI;s *iscour'0e t#eory

RVI;s on$y *iscour'0e 1'* t#eory. only need to run an 4/ because my opponents use of theory is itself abusive. $his means that will not discourage using theory in general as only get access to the 4/ so long as show that my interpretation is fairer than my opponents.
+% 5 You s#ou$*n;t Din for (ro=in0 your inter(ret'tion is ,ore f'ir

am not winning solely because my interpretation is fairer. 4ather, I ', settin0 u( '$tern'ti=e st'n*'r*s D#ic# Custify ,e Dinnin0 off the 4/ . only win off the 4/ because running theory as a no risk issue structurally advantages one debater, not because m fair.
%'
24/169
T#eory is not 'n RVI

@ou s#ou$*n;t Din 1ec'use you;re f'ir a) $heory is a litmus test to see if my opponent falls under the rules for debate, proving that your argument is not illegitimate is not sufficient for a ballot. f that was true, then any argument would be sufficient for affirmation. b) :y opponent should not win solely because they are fair. #eing fair is a precondition for engaging in the substantive debate. ;o, him<her winning a fairer interpretation only shows that s<he should have the ability to engage substance. %. 4/ s Decre'se t#e '1i$ity to c#ecB 1'cB '1use . 4/ s discourage people from running theory, even when there is real abuse in the round, because people know that if they are worse at theory than their opponent they will lose the round. $his creates a disincentive to run theory, as people will fear losing solely because they are worse at the theoretical debate than their opponents. 4/ s Incenti=iPe Unf'ir 5r0u,ents . f theory is an 4/ then debaters are encouraged to run abusive positions because they know that they can kick the arguments and 2ust win off of substance. $his puts debaters into a double bind where they either run theory and lose off of the 4/ 34 they go for substance and lose to the abusive position. *. 4/ s force (re( sBeD, for debaters running abusive positions will always be prepared for theory because they know coming into the round what theyll need to defend. $heir opponents, however, must divide their pre(round prep between many possible shells. ;o, allowing debaters to run 4/ s and go all( in for theory solidifies the advantage of the one committing the abuse. )orcing debaters to e8tend offense off substantive issues after responding to theory solves this problem by not allowing debaters to win purely off their pre(round prep.
%*
25/169
&&&C#'(ter ) To(ic'$ity&&& 'ff ,ust 1e to(ic'$

5ffir,'ti=e Nee*s to 1e To(ic'$: 5% Inter(ret'tion) $he affirmative must defend a topical advocacy B% Vio$'tion) $he affirmative does not defend a topical advocacy C% St'n*'r*s) "A Rese'rc# Bur*ens: when the affirmative defends a non(topical advocacy they only have to research one hyper(specific topic area, while the negative has the burden to develop and research responses to all of the potential random topic areas the affirmative may choose. $here is no predictability of what the affirmative will be running. &8ploding the negative burden while lessening the affirmative burden destroys fairness because the ballot is not equally accessible if one side is required to do infinitely more work than the other, while keeping research burdens balanced gives both debaters an equal chance to win. 4esearch burdens are key to education because having equal requirements to research the topic as a whole encourages detailed understanding of a topic area instead of requiring a negatives superficially un(educational knowledge of all potential topics. A SDitc#:si*e *e1'te: a. f the affirmative is given permission to be un(topical, the debate round would inherently become unfair. A non(topical affirmative advocacy allows the debater to run the same advocacy on both the affirmative and negative, cutting their topic education in half. ;ince this is a measurable education deficit, prefer this internal link to education over those to other standards. $his is also unfair because my opponent only has to be prepared to defend one side of the resolution whereas must defend both. )urther, my opponent can force me to defend morally reprehensible things . if a debater can choose to defend anything, then their opponent must defend its opposite. :y interpretation solves because if the aff must be topical then they cannot run the same advocacy when they affirm and when they negate. 1% SDitc#:Si*e *e1'te '$$oDs for t#e ='$ue of e*uc'tion to incre'se%
,ouglas ?. ,A@, Assistant !rofessor and ,irector of )orensics at the 7niversity of Wisconsin, 1D99 FJ$he &thics of ,emocratic ,ebate,J Central States Speech Journal, /olume 1B, )ebruary, p.H
To *isco=er t#e trut# which democratic QofR *e1'te can provide De ,ust 'tten* OeFu'$$y 'n* i,('rti'$$y to 1ot# si*es P to see the reasons of both in the strongest light.J'9 One si*e *e1'tin0 *oes not ,eet t#is et#ic'$ o1$i0'tion% De1'tin0 1ot# si*es, however, (re('res stu*ents to contri1ute ,'9i,'$$y to t#e democratic so$ution of conf$ict. Keonard 5ottrell has observed" 3ne of t#e deepest (ro1$e,s of ,o*ern society is to deal with the profound and dangerous cleavages that threaten the basic consensus on which the society rests. P 5 democratic so$ution of t#e (ro1$e, reFuires that the citiAens interacting in their roles as ,e,1ers of o((osin0 0rou(s 1eco,e incre'sin0$y '1$e to t'Be t#e ro$es of t#eir o((onents% It is on$y t#rou0# t#is '1i$ity t#'t inte0r'ti=e so$ution of conf$ict rather than armed truces ran Qc'nR 1e 'rri=e* 't.'B
c% Wit#out si*e:sDitc# *e1'te3 (erson'$ con=ictions $ose si0nific'nce J $urns the Fnarrative, advocacy, etc.H
,ouglas ?. ,ay, Assistant !rofessor and ,irector of )orensics at the 7niversity of Wisconsin, 1D99 FJ$he &thics of ,emocratic ,ebate,J 5entral ;tates ;peech 6ournal, /olume 1B, )ebruary, p. <<$om5H
$hus, personal conviction can have moral significance in social decision(making only so long as the integrity of debate is maintained. And t#e inte0rity of *e1'te is ,'int'ine* on$y D#en t#ere is ' fu$$
%+
26/169
'n* forcefu$ confront'tion of 'r0u,ents 'n* e=i*ence re$e='nt to *ecision% When an argument is not presented or is
not presented as persuasively as possible, then debate fails. As debate fails decisions become less Jwise.J As decisions become less wise the process of decision(making is
if 'n* D#en *e1'te is set 'si*e for t#e '$tern'ti=e ,et#o* of *ecision:,'Bin0 1y 'ut#ority3 t#e (erson'$ con=ictions of in*i=i*u'$s Dit#in society $ose t#eir ,or'$ si0nific'nce 's *eter,in'nts of soci'$ c#oice%
questioned. And finally,
*% Si*e sDitc# *e1'te is Bey to *ri=e *e1'te forD'r*3 (ro,ote ,inority =ieD(oints3 'n* cre'te 1etter '*=oc'tes for (ositions 5A;&@ Oarrigan, A $hesis ;ubmitted to the ?raduate )aculty of WAQ& )34&;$ 7G /&4; $@ in !artial )ulfillment of the 4equirements for the ,egree of :A;$&4 3) A4$;, %EEC, 0A ,&)&G;& 3) ;W $5O ; ,& ,&#A$&1. $om5 While such pragmatic 2ustifications for ;;, are persuasive, they are admittedly secondary to the greater consideration of pedagogy. Although it is certainly true that debate is a game and that its competitive elements are indispensable sources of motivation for students who are otherwise apathetic about academic endeavors, t#e o=erD#e$,in0 1enefits of contest *e1'tin0 're t#e BnoD$e*0e 'n* sBi$$s t'u0#t t#rou0# ('rtici('tion% T#e Dins 'n* $osses Land marginally(cheesy trophies), by and large, are quickly forgotten with the passage of time. Oowever, t#e e*uc'tion'$ ='$ues of *e1'te 're so fun*',ent'$ t#'t t#ey e=entu'$$y 1eco,e in0r'ine* in t#e *ecision:,'Bin0 'n* t#ou0#t (rocesses of *e1'ters3 0i=in0 t#e, ' uniFue$y ='$u'1$e *ur'1i$ity% To t#is en*3 SSD is essenti'$% T#e 1enefits of *e1'tin0 1ot# si*es #'=e 1een note* 1y ,'ny 'ut#ors o=er t#e ('st fifty ye'rs% $o name but a few, SSD #'s 1een $'u*e* for fosterin0 to$er'nce 'n* un*er,inin0 1i0otry 'n* *o0,'tis, L:uir, 1DD'), cre'tin0 stron0er 'n* ,ore BnoD$e*0e'1$e '*=oc'tes L,ybvig and version, %EEE), 'n* fortifyin0 t#e soci'$ forces of *e,ocr'cy 1y 0u'r'nteein0 t#e e9(ression of ,inority =ieD(oints L,ay, 1D99). ;witching sides is a crucial e$e,ent of *e1'te;s (e*'0o0ic'$ 1enefitH it for,s t#e 0e'rs t#'t *ri=e *e1'te;s inte$$ectu'$ ,otor% e. ;ide switch debate is key to solve for global warming, disease, international conflict, and nuclear proliferation% 5A;&@ Oarrigan, A $hesis ;ubmitted to the ?raduate )aculty of WAQ& )34&;$ 7G /&4; $@ in !artial )ulfillment of the 4equirements for the ,egree of :A;$&4 3) A4$;, %EEC, 0A ,&)&G;& 3) ;W $5O ; ,& ,&#A$&1. $om5 Along these lines, t#e 0re'test 1enefit of sDitc#in0 si*es, which goes to the heart of contemporary debate, is its in*uce,ent of critic'$ t#inBin0% ,efined as 0reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do1 L&nnis, 1DCB, p. 1E), critic'$ t#inBin0 $e'rne* t#rou0# *e1'te te'c#es stu*ents not Cust #oD '*=oc'te 'n* 'r0ue3 1ut #oD to *eci*e 's De$$% &ach and e=ery stu*ent3 whether in debate or Lmore likely) 't so,e later (oint in $ife3 Di$$ 1e ($'ce* in t#e (osition of t#e *ecision:,'Ber% F'ce* Dit# co,(etin0 o(tions D#ose costs 'n* 1enefits 're initi'$$y unc$e'r3 critic'$ t#inBin0 is necess'ry to 'ssess '$$ t#e (ossi1$e outco,es of e'c# c#oice3 co,('re t#eir re$'ti=e ,erits3 'n* 'rri=e 't so,e fin'$ *ecision '1out D#ic# is (refer'1$e% n some instances, such as choosing whether to eat 5hinese or ndian food for dinner, the importance of making the correct decision is minor. For ,'ny other *ecisions, however, t#e i,($ic'tions of c#oosin0 'n i,(ru*ent course of 'ction 're potentially 0r'=e. As 4obert 5rawford notes, there are 0issues of unsurpassed importance in the daily lives of millions upon millions of people...being decided to a considerable e8tent by the power of public speaking1 L%EE'). Although the days of the 5old War are over, and the risk that 0the ne8t !earl Oarbor could be Rcompounded by hydrogen1 L&hninger and #rockriede, 1DBC, p. ') is greatly reduced, t#e ,'ni(u$'tion of (u1$ic su((ort 1efore t#e in='sion of Ir'F in !!8 (oints to t#e continuin0 necessity of tr'inin0 ' De$$:infor,e* 'n* critic'$$y:'D're (u1$ic LSarefsky, %EEB). In t#e '1sence of *e1'te:tr'ine* critic'$ t#inBin03 i0nor'nt 1ut ',1itious (o$itici'ns 'n* (ersu'si=e 1ut nef'rious
%9
27/169
$e'*ers Dou$* 1e ,uc# ,ore $iBe$y to *r'D t#e country3 'n* possibly the Dor$*, into conf$icts Dit# inc'$cu$'1$e $osses in terms of human Bwell(being. ?iven t#e ,yri'* t#re'ts of 0$o1'$ (ro(ortions t#'t Di$$ reFuire incisi=e so$utions3 inc$u*in0 0$o1'$ D'r,in03 t#e s(re'* of ('n*e,ic *ise'ses3 'n* t#e (ro$ifer'tion of QW6DsR weapons of mass destruction, cu$ti='tin0 ' ro1ust 'n* effecti=e society of critic'$ *ecision:,'Bers is essenti'$% As Kouis 4ene #eres writes, 0with such learning, we Americans could prepare...not as immobiliAed ob2ects of false contentment, but as authentic citiAens of an endangered planet1 L%EE'). $hus, it is not surprising that critic'$ t#inBin0 #'s 1een c'$$e* Kt#e #i0#est e*uc'tion'$ 0o'$ of t#e 'cti=ityL L!archer, 1DDC).
'. Di=ision of <roun*: the affirmative is able to defend the best ground period if they do not have to be topical as they can pick the topic and defend whatever side of it they wish, which destroys fairness because they divide ground such that have to argue against claims which cannot be contested such as 0the sky is blue1, which my interpretation solves because it binds them by the constraints of the ground allocated by the topic so that division of ground is fair and there are defensible arguments on both sides.
2% Ensures C$'s# J if the affirmative is not constrained to the topic, clash becomes impossible. $he affirmative could literally pick anything and the negative would find it impossible to generate offense, killing fairness and the educational value in the debate. +% To(ic 0oo* : $he process of researching a new topic which we didnt know before is where we gain most of the educational benefit from debate . attempting to side step it like the affirmative throws away all the knowledge and preparation the negative has brought into the round. $he whole point of debate is the debate the resolution to gain educational values out of it. -% Tourn',ent Contr'ct: #y entering a tournament, you must abide by the tournament rules and conduct. As part of the agreement, it is required that all debaters must debate topically. #y not respecting this rule, you not only break your contract with the tournament, but you also break your promise to all debaters participating in that tournament. #ecause of these violations, the offending team should be re2ected before any other voters.
%B
28/169
Re'son'1i$ity for to(ic'$ity

5auses race to the top $here will always be an interpretation thats slightly better, meaning that we will always run theory because its a gateway issue. $his will distract us from substance which is the educational part of debate that we can apply to other parts of life while theory cannot be applied to anything but high(school debate. St'sis: 4unning competing interpretation discourages debaters to think outside the bo8, forcing them to conform to only arguments that is the best rather than what is reasonable. t deters debaters from running creative arguments because they are slightly less good. Contr'*icts our notions of (unis#,ent( 4easonability is consistent with how we punish people. ;omeone is not culpable only because they didnt act in accordance with the highest standard of righteous action. 4ather, someone is only culpable if they did something wrong. ;imilarly, reasonability only punishes someone if they did something wrong.
T#ere is no suc# t#in0 's ' K1est *efinitionL so the notion of competing interpretations is conceptually flawed as we can never attain a 0best1 interpretation. $opicality should therefore be an issue of reasonability as that avoids the impossibility of finding a 0perfect1 interp. L f Gegating) #ecause the affirmative speaks last, they will always be able to win a slightly fairer interpretation in the %A4. $hat means that competing interpretations creates a #u0e structur'$ '*='nt'0e for t#e 'ffir,'ti=e *e1'ter% Co,(etin0 inter(ret'tions is ,ore re$e='nt to non:to(ic s(ecific *e1'te practice because other debate practice can continue to be theoretically illegitimate indefinitely whereas an affirmative can only be non(topical on a given resolution for two months. $he abuse from not having the most topical definition<position is not lasting, so reasonability makes more sense.
%C
29/169
E9tr':to(ic'$ity B'*
nterpretation" nterpretation" $he affirmative must garner offense only from topical links between their advocacy and the resolution Lmay not advocate e8tra(topical action in addition to the resolution) /iolation" $he aff is garnering impacts from non(topical actions<actors ;tandards
1. 7re*ict'1i$ity All have to prepare with before the round is the resolution. f the aff is allowed to not have to be completely topical, it is impossible for me to predict what they will advocate when entering the round. Kimiting aff advantages to the topic establishes predictability because then will have a general idea what my opponent will run. 7npredictable arguments are unfair because only have four minutes to think of responses while s<he has much more time to prepare his case and frontlines, placing me at a structural disadvantage. !redictable arguments foster education because we can prepare advocacies that distinctly clash, creating the best discussion and enabling us to access the educational benefits of debate. %. D5 0roun* &8tratopicality limits neg ,A ground because they can add any nonresolutional plank to their advocacy in order to take out ,A advantages and solve for uniqueness. $opical affs do not harm ,A ground because then people cannot add words to the resolution, enabling the neg. to run competitive ,As. ,A ground is key to fairness because they are the only way the neg can generate independent offense. t fosters education because ,As provide the best clash with aff advantages, creating discussion and therefore more educational benefits. '. I,('ct 0roun* &8tratopical positions e8plode the debaters impact ground because they get access to literally every impact if they are allowed to not have to be completely topical. solve for this because ensure that the aff is held to the te8t of the resolution, so s<he can only get the impacts defined by the resolution. &8plosion of impact ground is unfair because he will always be able to outweigh the G5 because he can 2ust pick the best impacts for the situation. $his also harms education because the round will devolve into whoever can pick the worst harm instead of actually discussing the various nuances of an issue. *. Rese'rc# Bur*ens #y running e8tra(topicality, the aff is able to bring infinite non(topical arguments into play. $his is unfair to the neg who now has to research an endless list of arguments that are non( topical. &8ploding the neg burden while lessening the aff. burden destroys fairness because the ballot is not equally accessible if one side is required to do infinitely more work than the other, while keeping research burdens balanced gives both debaters an equal chance to win. 4esearch burdens are key to education because having equal requirements to research the topic as a whole encourages detailed understanding of a topic area instead of requiring a negs superficially uneducational knowledge of all potential topics. +. Str'te0y sBeD $he e8tra(topical advocacy forces the neg to defend the equivalent of ! 5; without solvency advocates because of the e8tra( topical advantages claimed by the aff that can now not incorporate as part of my advocacy absent the use of a ! 5. $his destroys fairness because it forces me to advocate positions was not prepared to defend and which are more difficult to defend than traditional non(topical counter plans with solvency advocates, as well as forces me to be theoretically questionable if am to generate offense, which creates a structural disadvantage in favor of the aff.
E9tr':to(ic'$ity 0oo*
nterpretation" $he affirmative may advocate non(topical actions as long as the solvency advocate of the plan advocates both the e8tra(topical and topical action ;tandards
1. Bre'*t# Kimiting nonte8tual advantages decreases the breadth of the arguments discussed in the round, as they are constrained only to the %D
30/169
te8t of the resolution. Gonte8tual advantages increase breadth because they force debaters to consider more issues than those contained in the te8t. ncreasing breadth increases fairness because it enables debaters to make new types of arguments, therefore e8panding their ground and e8panding debaters abilities to prove their advocacies. #readth increases education because we debate many rounds on a topic over the course of two months and many positions are widely used, so it is more educational to discuss issues that, while related to the topic, are unique enough to provide new educational benefits. %. 7IC 0roun* Kimiting nonte8tual advantages decreases my ability to combat ! 5s because the neg can co(opt all of my te8tual advantages and will have no e8ternal advantages to weigh against them. Allowing me to garner e8tratopical advantages allows me to check neg ! 5s because can now capture the same benefits and weigh an e8ternal benefit against the neg counterplan. Kimiting ! 5 ground is key to fairness because ! 5s take away 1EE percent of my ground, placing me at a complete disadvantage in winning the round. Kimiting ! 5 ground also benefits education because ! 5s eliminate any clash in the round, killing discussion and therefore the educational benefits to be obtained from debating. *. Turn 0roun* Kimiting nonte8tual aff. advantages harms neg turn ground because s<he can only make turns that deal with the te8t of the resolution. $hese advantages e8pand negturn ground because s<he has more ground to make turns on. ?round is key to fairness because it determines the arguments that debaters are able to make, so restrictions on ground limit the debaters ability to prove his<her advocacy. ncreasing turn ground fosters education because debaters now have the ability to make a greater range of responses, therefore sparking more clash and more discussion on relevant issues. +. 5ff f$e9i1i$ity Kimiting nonte8tual advantages harms me because am already put at a disadvantage due to K,s time skew and do not have the ability to make the same number of detailed arguments as the neg Allowing me to claim nonte8tual advantages helps me combat this inherent disadvantage. Aff. fle8ibility is key to fairness because the aff. is already placed at an unfair position at the beginning of the debate round, so concessions should be made to allow me to place myself on an even playing field. Aff. fle8 aids education by allowing the aff. to choose a more obscure or involved advocacy, leading to debate over potentially new issues. L f reading the advocacy as passing a bill that includes other planks) a. :ost real world #ills arent simply one act or plank, they contain multiple actions. $hus, allowing the aff. to be e8tratopical would create debates that mirror reality, and thus, are the most educational. Why we need to be real(world $he scope of neg fiat and the logic of decision making. K. !aul Str'it ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,. It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% b. Kiterature basis :ost literature doesnt talk about whether one part of a policy is a good idea or not, it talks about whether the policy as a whole is a good idea. $hus, this non(uniques predictability impacts because it is how the literature frames the issue, and literature is where we conduct research and the is basis on which we create arguments.
'E
31/169
5ff f$e9i1i$ity 0oo*

1. n the status quo there is a huge ne0 1i's because of time skew . the neg gets B minutes to generate offense, which the aff has to cover in * minutes, then the %G4 has 9 minutes to close doors on the aff. $his means that there is an imbalance in fairness in the status quo that must be rectified. Kimiting neg ground in comparison to aff thus becomes necessary as if the neg has less strategic options they can do less damage in the G5 making the A4 easier and also have less good arguments to go for in the %G4.
%. ;tructurally the aff is at a disadvantage since *on;t BnoD D#'t t#e ne0 is 0oin0 to s'y in t#e NC, meaning the neg has B minutes to find some arguments which my A5 wont apply too, or use things like ! 5; and counterplans to mitigate the A5 offense and then outweigh with turns and disads. $his means we need to limit the neg-s strategic options since they shouldnt be able to screw over the A5, or d lose 9 minutes of speech time every round. '. $he aff strategic options and advocacies are already 'rtifici'$$y constr'ine* 1y to(ic'$ity, meaning the number of possible ways to derive offense as the aff is severely limited. n contrast, the neg does not have to be topical . so as long as they can find some net benefit, they can make an infinite number of arguments and can have an infinite number of advocacies which cant predict, meaning the aff needs fle8ibility in dealing with neg arguments and we need to impose some constraints on neg ground in comparison to aff ground. *. )le8ibility is needed for 1re'*t# of rese'rc#, otherwise the aff would have no incentive to research a broad range of possible advocacies. $his means that we would not learn about a variety of different stances in support of the topic, but only a limited number, constraining the education obtained from research.
'1
32/169
'ff f$e9i1i$ity B'*

1. Aff fle8ibility takes away neg ground by o=er:$i,itin0 t#e ne0'ti=e. $his is bad because it is unfair to arbitrarily take away neg ground while allowing the aff to choose any ground they wantI and, it is uneducational because it forces negatives to all go for the same argument rather than be creative and run for unique and creative positions. %. Aff fle8ibility is bad because it gives the aff too ,uc# 0roun*. $his occurs because when you underlimit the aff, it opens up a multitude of arguments that normally would not be allowed. $his gives the aff an unfair advantage because it undermines predictability for the negI so, to have a chance at winning, negatives must be prepared to refute almost anything which is an unfair prep e8pectation. '. $he fact that the aff sucks at affirming doesnt mean they should be put at an advantage. ?oing into the round we both have an e8actly equal amount of speech time meaning that we are at re$'ti=e eFu'$ity 't t#e st'rt of t#e roun*. $he fact that the allocation of time is different 2ust implies that aff and neg debaters need different skill sets, not that one is better than the other by definition. ;o, there is no reason to say one side is advantaged. $hus, we should not artificially limit one side-s ground. *. $he aff gets to s(e'B first 'n* $'st, meaning that the aff gets the last word on any argument. n order to check this back the neg needs access to a greater quantity of arguments than the aff, and of more varied kind, since that allows the neg to make it harder for the %A4 to simply put the best response on every response. Without being able to check back the aff-s structural advantage in speaking last, the aff would have the advantage on every argument. +. ;ince debaters want to win, fle8ibility encourages affirmatives to pick the best possible advocacy for their side rather than the 1est (ossi1$e to(ic for *iscussion. cant claim the same advantage because have the burden of re2oinder, so cannot weigh the best possible neg advocacy against the A5. $he only way to give both sides an equal opportunity is to tie the aff to a single concrete interpretation
'%
33/169
Fr',er;s Intent <oo*

1. )ramers intent makes the arguments in the round ,ore (re*ict'1$e. nterps based upon framers intent are predictable as topic papers or articles in debate forums published by either the wording committee or the author of the topic are often publicly available. $hus all debaters can analyAe the resolution in the same way, rather than forcing debaters be prepared to defend a huge range of arguments as a result of the varying ways in which the resolution is interpreted. $his creates fairness and adds educational value as debaters no longer have to waste time analyAing the resolution, and instead have more substance. %. $he topic committees who create the resolution attempt to make it one that ma8imiAes the e*uc'tion'$ ='$ue of the debate. $hey are educators elected specifically to research and decide which is the best topic and best way to debate these topics. Oigh(school debaters do not know more about how we ought to debate than a trained professional. ;imply put, the wording committee is more qualified to interpret the resolution than we are.
''
34/169
Fr',er;s Intent B'*

1. #ecause there is no requirement that articles on proposed topics be written in K,, it is often unclear as to what topic authors actually mean because there is no written point of reference for framers intent. $hus, framer-s intent is sub2ective and un=erifi'1$e, so instead of clarifying the debate, it only muddles it further. %. ;ince the wording committee alters the wording of the resolution, resolutions cannot always be debated in a way indicative of what the framer intended. $he c#'n0es in t#e Dor*in0 of the topic preclude framers intent from being a viable standard for $. '. )ramers intent is not st'ticI people who write topics change their mind about issues as they see them progress in a certain direction they did not anticipate. )urther, the way the topic relates to the real world changes as current events develop, and the framer-s intent can not forsee these changes. ;o, using framers intent as a $ standard is nonsensical as $ interpretations have to be applicable to all debates on the topic, and to the real world. *. 3riginalism is bad. Kawrence #. ;olum(%EEC, F6ohn &. 5ribbet !rofessor of Kaw, 7niversity of llinois 5ollege of Kaw,H J;emantic 3riginalism,J llinois !ublic Kaw and Kegal $heory 4esearch !apers ;eries Go. EB(%* http"<<plato.stanford.edu<entries<constitutionalism<T#:1E 05onstitutionalism1 )irst published Wed 6an 1E, %EE1I substantive revision $ue )eb %E, %EEB Ori0in'$is, f'ces ' nu,1er of *ifficu$ties3 so,e s#'re* Dit# Te9tu'$is,% For e9',($e3 ori0in'$ intentions 're often unc$e'r3 if not co,($ete$y in*eter,in'te3 $e'=in0 t#e inter(reter Dit# t#e nee* to '((e'$ to ot#er f'ctors% T#e ori0in'$ intentions of t#e 'ut#ors of ' constitution c'n ='ry fro, one (erson to t#e ne9t% So,eti,es t#e on$y t#in0s u(on D#ic# Coint 'ut#ors of ' te9t c'n '0ree 're t#e Dor*s c#osen% T#e intentions 1e#in* t#'t c#oice c'n3 #oDe=er3 ='ry si0nific'nt$y% T#ese c'n r'n0e3 for e9',($e3 fro, t#e =ery 0ener'$ to t#e #i0#$y s(ecific% 5t one en* of t#e s(ectru, 're t#e ='rious3 'n* so,eti,es conf$ictin0 0o'$s 'n* ='$ues t#e 'ut#ors of ' (ro=ision inten*e* t#eir cre'tion to 'c#ie=e% 5t t#e ot#er en* 're t#e =ery s(ecific '(($ic'tions t#e 'ut#ors ,i0#t #'=e #'* in ,in* D#en t#ey c#ose t#e ('rticu$'r Dor*s u(on D#ic# t#ey sett$e*% Di* t#e inten*e* '(($ic'tions of 'n eFu'$ity (ro=ision enco,('ss eFu'$ 'ccess to t#e $e0'$ syste, 1y '$$ 0rou(s Dit#in societyN Or on$y so,et#in0 ,ore s(ecific $iBe eFu'$ 'ccess to f'irness 't tri'$N Di* t#ey (er#'(s inc$u*e eFu'$ econo,ic 'n* soci'$ o((ortunities for '$$ 0rou(s Dit#in societyN Different 'ut#ors ,i0#t #'=e Ointen*e*O '$$3 none3 or so,e of t#ese '(($ic'tions D#en t#ey '0ree* u(on t#e eFu'$ity (ro=ision% 5n* 's Dit# t#e 0ener'$ 0o'$s 'n* ='$ues un*er$yin0 ' (ro=ision3 t#ere is roo, for inconsistency 'n* conf$ict% Constitution'$ 'ut#ors3 no $ess t#'n $e0is$'tors3 union 'cti=ists3 or t#e ,e,1ers of ' c#urc# syno*3 c'n #'=e *ifferent 0o'$s 'n* '(($ic'tions in ,in* 'n* yet sett$e on t#e s',e set of Dor*s% In $i0#t of t#is f'ct3 it is often un#e$(fu$ to re$y on ori0in'$ intentions D#en inter(retin0 ' constitution% +. $he framers are debate coaches, not e9(erts in t#e many fie$*s that resolutions cover, and so what they intended the te8t to mean may not be accurate to the topic.
'*
35/169
9. $he committee is (o$itic'$. $hey vote for other topics in order to get their own topics voted for. $hus, framers intent is bad, as the topics arent chosen for educational purposes but instead because of backhand dealing.
'+
36/169
Un*er:$i,itin0 1'*
7nder limiting e8plodes the number of topical affs, skewing negs- ability to prep so many possible positions. $his gives affs preferable research burdens since they only have to prep their one advocacy, while negs are forced to prep every remotely related issue on a broad topic. 7nder(limited e8plodes the neg research burden, forcing negatives to attempt to cut cards against a massive quantity of positions. $his means that negative research will be of poor quality and negs will never get to go in(depth on any issue. $hus, under(limiting harms education.
'9
37/169
O=er:$i,itin0 1'*
3ver(limiting creates str'te0y sBeD. :y strategy to win this round was to prove the entirety of the resolution untrue. #ecause of the affirmative advocacy, am forced to now change my strategy to prove a tiny part of the resolution untrue. $his means that my strategy has been completely changed because of the limits the affirmative advocacy places on the resolution. 3ver(limiting allows one debater to become a specialist in the particular argument that they advocateI this sBeD in *e(t# of rese'rc# on an issue chosen by the advocate determines who garners the ballot. $his is creates an unfair disadvantage for the aff as over limiting causes the aff to provide only few arguments under this standard. $his would undermine the value of fairness in that debating ought not have an unbalanced ratio on who wins the round.
'B
38/169
7recision <oo*
!recision is good" Reso$ution'$ inte0rity . the framers included each word for a reason, and their intent is critical to a predictable debate . the more precise we are, the more predictable and fair. L7se with reasons that framer-s intent is good) Re'$ Dor$* . n the real world proposals arent taken up if they employ words without meaning in the statement. &very word counts in the real world, so every word should count in debate. !recision is needed to determine whether an argument serves for the neg or aff. n order to distinguish this, a 1ri0#t $ine is reFuire*I precision provides that bright line. @ou can not make an evaluation of who wins the round if it is not clear whose side of the resolution certain arguments fall on.
'C
39/169
7recision B'*
Absolute precision is detrimental to education because it deters innovation. H'=in0 KDi00$e:roo,L 't t#e ,'r0ins 0i=es *e1'ters ' co,(etiti=e incenti=e to e9($ore neD issues that are related to the topic. $his is an educational benefit because debaters learn about new topics rather than remaining static while still preserving the depth of argumentation. Also, having a gray area forces debaters to defend the theoretical legitimacy of their own positions, rather than 2ust assuming if their position is topical via some defined boundary. A $ debate demands that debaters think on their feet and critically e8amine their own practices, which is arguably the most important skill that debaters can take from the activity. ;hutting this debate out by having a super precise definition denies this educational benefit. Word focus kills fairness first by making it impossible for the aff to win because the neg can bring up so many definitions of phrases and words that its impossible for me to meet all of them. )urthermore, by forcing me to define all terms in the A5, it forces me to spend all my time on definitions, making it impossible for the aff to generate offense. $hus, precision e9'cer1'tes ne0 Din sBeD. !recision doesnt e8ist for either 5ompetitive interpretation or reasonability. &ric Qupferbreg, 7niversity of Qentucky :ost articles on topicality devote their attention to the two dominant schools of topicality standards reasonability and best definition ,ebaters have dutifully compiled long lists of reasons in support of one or the other or both outlooks.. Oowever, such analysis inevitably suffers from two pitfalls. )irst, the shortcomings debaters invent usually are mutually applicable to either standard Le. g., both reasonability and best definition standards are highly sub2ective and prone to 2udge intervention). And, second, neither standard can be easily defined with precision. :ore often than not, debaters make impassioned pleas for what is -bestJ or reasonable without providing adequate guidelines to determine what completely constitutes either standard. Geither school offers any compelling criteria by which to 2udge whether the larger -standardJ has been met.
'D
40/169
Fie$* Conte9t <oo*

;pecific authors and groups in different field conte8ts will have ,ore ,erit than non(e8perts. !eople who are in certain field conte8ts will have studied the issueLs) for many years and have most likely written many papers on the sub2ect. $hey will have better credentials and thus more credibility in their area of e8pertise. $hus they will provide better definitions compared to people who try to create general definitions that may or may not represent the actual usage of the term )ield conte8t is the most relevant source because the sub2ect matter uses ter,s of 'rt that originate from the documentation of the said sub2ect matter. $hus, the we can look to individuals e8perts on the sub2ect to understand their particular usage and ensure that the most appropriate vocabulary is being used in correlation with the sub2ect matter described by the resolution. Adhering to the conte8t of certain words or phrases actually allows for a ,ore e*uc'tion'$ debate because it forces the debaters to become familiar with definitions in the field of study and allows debaters to study the sub2ect of the resolution and the substance of arguments. )ield specific definitions are ,ost (re*ict'1$e because they are the definitions we encounter while doing topic specific research. !redictable definitions are key to fairness because affirmatives and negatives can only be e8pected to write cases for predictable interpretations of the resolution otherwise debaters would be forced to write cases for every possible permutation of interpretations of words, which would be virtually impossible.
*E
41/169
Fie$* Conte9t B'*

Fie$* conte9t *efinitions 're *is(ute*. Got all authors believe in the same definitions for different concepts in the world of academia. $here are often many definitions that are given for various concepts sometimes even within the same conte8t. $hey are all disputed and affirmed by various scholars. )ield conte8t specific definitions often take on field specific meanings which rely on an e8tensive prior knowledge of the field to interpret correctly. $his means that *e1'ters ,'y not 1e Fu'$ifie* to inter(ret or understand field specific definitions and will 2ust misconstrue the meanings of the words in round. $hus, because debaters lack the ability to correctly present e8pert definitions, any advantage to using field definitions is mooted by the fact that it is not a direct representation of academia, but rather of some debaters FmisHinterpretation. 5onte8tual definitions derived from topic literature leave room for 1i's 'n* su1Cecti=ity since different authors have competing claims on what different terms mean. #ecause academics write papers with an end in mind, academia has an incentive to manipulate definitions in their favor to achieve that end. &ven if literature is peer reviewed, there is still no way to check back for the inherent partialities different authors have regarding the way phrases are defined in their field.
*1
42/169
F?:T B'*
5A Inter(ret'tion : The affirmative advocacy must be directly topical. BA Vio$'tion J $he A5 is only topical through its effects
5) ;tandards (
"A Li,its ( if the affirmative is not required to defend an advocacy that in and of itself affirms the
resolution, it becomes impossible for the neg to predict the countless potential affirmative advocacies that do not directly affirm resolution but whose solvency is the affirmation. #eing required to advocate a direct affirmation of the resolution narrows the scope of potential aff advocacies, giving the neg a general idea of what to e8pect when entering a round. !redictability is key to fairness because the aff has a greater chance of accessing the ballot than the neg who was severely ,isadvantaged with lack of previous knowledge of the arguments in the round. !redictability is also key to education because unpredictable advocacies decrease in depth argumentation and clash because one debater will not have appropriate preparation to develop well(warranted responses.
A Counter($'n 0roun* ( the affirmative denies crucial strategic counterplan ground by claiming a
way to solve for the harms of other affirmative advocacies while achieving an e8ternal net(benefit from the e8tra(topical advocacy. :y interpretation effectively prohibits affs usage of such ground and thus returns counterplan ground to the negative which is entitled to run alternative solvency mechanisms for the aff 5ounterplan ground is crucial negative ground because it is key to fairness in debate because it clearly defines which arguments debaters are and are not allowed to make, and so by taking the negatives ground, the aff is taking the negs capability to make arguments. $hus loss of such critical ground destroys fairness. 5ounterplan ground is also key to education because if the affirmative steals counter(plan ground, debate loses the educational clash over the plan v counterplan debate because the plan is altogether eliminated from the round if the aff defends the counterplan.
8A D/5 <roun* ( !ermitting the affirmative to gain topical impacts through non(topical advocacies
gives them the ability to access ,<A ground because they can link into neg specific impacts through advocacies that arent topical. #y disallowing this fairness is increased because the neg maintains ground that should only be theirs and is only gained by a non(topical advocacy. $his also increases education in the round because it causes the affirmative to come up with new advocacies that have new impacts which furthers their general knowledge.
2A Rese'rc# sBeD ( We do research in preparation for the topic if the affirmative advocacy has
nothing to do with the topic or only does the aff by effects it skews prep this is an internal link to fairness because the aff can do specific research on 2ust one advocacy while the negatives research is void because the affirmative doesnt affirm the resolution its also an internal link to education because if one side doesnt have any prep against an aff it destroys clash and topic specific education. ,) /oter (
*%
43/169
*'
44/169
F9 T <oo*
5% Inter(ret'tion ( $he Affirmative may garner te8tual impacts from the effects of their advocacy B) I 6eet, my plan is effects topical St'n*'r*s) Turn <roun*( $he effects topical component of the aff advocacy gives the neg impact and link turn
ground against this component, which is key to fairness because it is the only way for the neg to generate weighable offense against the aff absent an e8ternal link chain, giving the negative a greater chance of winning the debate and preserving competitive equity.
LinB <roun*) )U($ provides e8tra link ground because have to win 1EEM of the link to be topical.
$his provides the neg with more ground to make the most offensive arguments possible, plus if they get a risk of their link turns or defense, not only do not get access to my impacts but dont meet their interpretation and loose the round there. $his checks back any abuse from the original advocacy because it makes the A5 a hulking target for G5 offense. Lincrease in ground offset any advantages)
Bre'*t# of Discussion( :y interpretation promotes breadth of discussion as it allows debaters to

discuss arguments such as the way by which a given aff is effects topical, which is unique education because these arguments are otherwise unrelated to the topic. $his is key to education because it ensures that we learn new things about a variety of issues within debate rounds.
Bre'*t# of Rese'rc#( Allowing affirmatives to run effects topical positions promotes broader
research because our research is no longer limited to the scope of topic literature and plans that fall within the scope of the definition of words in the resolution, but rather anything that would result in a topical advocacy, which is educational because a" it incentiviAes debaters to take new and innovative approaches to researching the topic to find effects topical advocacies, promoting creative thinking and b" it forces debaters to read more about various sub2ects and learn more about those things overall 4eal World ,ecision :aking ,ebate is only a valuable activity if we use it as a means to making informed decisions. $he benefits we derive from debate are those which can apply outside of debate. $herefore, we ought to value arguments which correspond to real world decision making. :y opponents interpretation prevents real world decision making as when legislators propose policy decisions, they understand that doing so has tangentially related benefits. !olicy makers do not e8clude such benefits solely because doing so would go against the initial plan, as they realiAe that the tangentially related effects of their plan are beneficial in addition to the plan. :y interpretation better achieves real world decision making as the additional impacts gain mimic the additional benefits policy makers derive when they implement their plans. $his is better for fairness as it ensures that we take on the entire advocacy of our solvency advocates meaning
**
45/169
that discounting such benefits is disingenuous to the topic literature and debaters can only formulate answers to arguments that fall within the topic literature. Also, this is best for education as embracing the real world implications of our arguments ensures that we gain the out of round educational benefits from debating. Aff )le8ibility $he aff needs to be fle8ible in order to counteract the empirical truth the neg debaters win most frequently. $he neg debater doesnt have a topicality burden, so to increase fle8ibility, the aff must have multiple ways to access topicality. :y opponents interpretation hurts fle8ibility as it restricts my access to topicality whereas my interp allows me to access topicality in multiple different ways. $his increases fairness as it checks the massive negative win skew. t also increases education because it allows me to substantively engage the flow and spark topical discussions by preventing the neg from capitaliAing on their inherent advantages.
*+
46/169
Le0'$ Definitions B'*

"A Kooking toward legal definitions i0nores a huge necessary part of the to(ic $iter'ture. AnalyAing the opinions of people who actually live under the situation described in the resolution is valuable. f we start to talk about a previously ignored issue in topic literature we gain a lot. A V'ri'1i$ity ( $he legal definition of something changes from country to country, and even from
region to region within those countries. $hus, my opponent using legal definitions would be unpredictable and unfair because he<she could choose the laws of any place he<she chooses, and would require me to know the legal systems of every country.
8A No Re$e='nce ( Kegal definitions do not make sense in the conte8t of K, resolutions. K,

resolutions place a heavy emphasis on ethical standards . while they may include legal themes, the point of K, isn-t to interpret the law, it is to evaluate moral claims. *) Kegal definitions are generally from law reviews, which are not (eer re=ieDe*. $hus, legal definitions may not even truly reflect the law. ;o you can ignore legal definitions good impacts, and this is a reason that legal definitions are bad because it means that there is no standard or quality control. $hus, you should prefer
*9
47/169
Le0'$ Definitions <Oo*

A) #etter limits . legal definitions give the most limiting interpretations of words, they draw a clear standard of what is and is not under the law. $his creates predictable debate and neg ground because it is easier to identify compared to a vague dictionary definition.
BA Le0'$ *efinitions 're un1i'se*% $hey are based off the law, which is designed to be as unbias
as possible, and as a result, are the most fair form of a definition because they do not inherently favor one side. $his increases education because both debaters are able to engage in substantial clash and develop a depth of understanding.
DA Le0'$ inter(ret'tions *r'D t#e c$e'rest 1ri0#t $ine% ;omething is either within the law,
or not within the law. A legal definition is written in a way making it obvious whether or not something fits the definition. L$hen you read bright line good arguments)
EA Le0'$ *efinitions 're Bey to un*erst'n*in0 the meaning of legal terms of art Li.e. warrant
means a legal permission to search and seiAe, not a 2ustification) which is key to education because we do not learn anything about a topic if we dont know what the terms of art mean because we cannot comprehend the meaning of the resolution, precluding us from being educated by debating the topic.
Conte9tu'$ Definitions B'*

Conte9tu'$ *efinitions 're 1i'se*. #ecause of the fact that conte8tual definitions come from the topic literature, that literature can be biased towards a certain position or biased against a certain position. ,ictionary definitions are ob2ective and not sub2ective like many conte8tual definitions. ;imply put, authors conte8tually define terms to coincide with their advocacy. $his frames the debate in ones advantage, which is definitionally unfair. Circu$'r Lo0ic) $he notion of a conte8tual definition is flawed, because conte8t is also debatable. :y opponents reasoning is circular because they define a specific conte8t and say a definition meets that conte8t but they also define their conte8t based on their definitions. In'ccessi1$e ( #y defining terms in conte8t we limit predictability because 5onte8tual definitions are not always accessible. ,ictionary definitions are the most accessible definition. 5onte8tual definitions could be ambiguous or could hard to find. :any authors in the field do not even give you definitions while a dictionary if you open it gives you multiple definitions. #y limiting predictability were are inherently limiting fairness as it requires more research to be done by the opposition in order to adequately respond to the definition.
Conte9tu'$ Definitions <oo*

Te9tu'$ity) $he meaning of words in language only have relevance when considered in the conte8t of
the sentence or phrase they are used in. $he same words often have different meanings or implications
*B
48/169
when used in a different sentence, thus, we must consider the purpose of the sentence as a whole piece before we can determine the definitions of the individual words. $hus, conte8tual definitions provide debaters with a solid interpretation of the information being offered and create a clearer universal understanding of what is trying to be communicated. $his consistency is key to fairness because it is impossible to make arguments if the resolution makes no sense. t is also key to education, as we cannot research or effectively argue about gibberish.
Consistency) $his is the biggest internal link to any other standard as words are not isolated but mean
things as terms of art. All other sources depend on them defining the right thing, but defining self( isolated words perverts their definition. $opic lit can only define things if its in the conte8t of the resolution and not single words and grammatical rules change when multiple words are stung together. 5ommonly used things like hot dog on make sense in conte8t( it doesnt mean a warm canine. !redictability" 5onte8tual definitions are more predictable because they are derived from the topic literature. ;ince our understandings of a topic are based solely on the literature we read, terms which are defined outside of the topic literature are unpredictable. !redictability is key to fairness as debaters need to be able to predict an argument to formulate a coherent strategy to answer it. 7npredictable position creates an asymmetrical prep advantage for my opponent as they can block out my case but cant block out their arguments.
*C
49/169
Diction'ry *efinitions 0oo*

1. Diction'ry *efinitions 're cre*i1$e 'n* o1Cecti=e because they are provided by credible sources, which ensure that they have accurate, ob2ective definitions. 7nlike other sources, dictionary definitions carry no motive for their users to reach any conclusions on the provided definitions, so they serve as ob2ective compilations of definitions. %. 5 *iction'ry *eter,ines co,,on us'0e% With the determination of common usage the debater is able to use a definition that is within the norms of quotidian &nglish. $he dictionary ranks the definition in the order of what is most commonly used. $his allows for the debaters to select the most commonly used definition to avoid being biased and abusive. $he commonly used definition provides an ample amount of predictability. $herefore, the debaters are aware of the e8pectations of what definition would appear. '. 5 *iction'ry is 'ccessi1$e to e=eryone% $herefore its definitions are predictable to everyone. $hey arent elitist and e8clude peopleI though you cant find dictionaries anywhere, they are easily the most accessible unbiased resource for reference in comparison to an ob2ective but inaccessible elitist article.
*D
50/169
*iction'ry *efinitions 1'*

1. A definition is 2ust that of an isolated word that i0nores the larger conte9t provided by the synta8 of the resolution and of the words surrounding the one being defined. )urthermore, words are defined not phrases. As a result the conte8tual definition may be different than that provided by defining each word of the resolution in a dictionary. $hus, looking only to dictionary definitions provides a false interpretation of the resolution. %. ,ictionaries c'te0oriPe definitions by common usage, but oftentimes the most co,,on us'0e of ' Dor* is not the one that debaters want to look for. We require e8ternal knowledge or literature to define certain words, because resolutions have empirically used words varying from the common(usage definitions found in dictionaries.
+E
51/169
Bi*irection'$ity 0oo*
1. #i(directionality gives ,ore 0roun* to 1ot# si*es because they can derive offense from both sides of an issue, meaning that there is more possibility for offense. ;<he will say that this offense would force them to contradict themselves however, there same possibility for contradiction e8ists for both the aff and neg making this response irrelevant. %. #idirectionality opens the discussion to a wide range of potential interpretations, incre'sin0 o((ortunity for debaters to 1e e*uc'te* on the topic. Kimiting the debate to only center around one of the possibilities presented by the resolution unfairly limits the amount of education that debaters could receive during competition.
+1
52/169
Bi*irection'$ity 1'*
1. #idirectionality puts me in a double bind where any argument make against one 'r0u,ent c'n 1e $e=er'0e* 's ' contr'*iction or an argument for my opponent on the other side. $hus bi(directionality uniquely destroys my position by making it so that any argument make is a potential argument that can be used against me, destroying my ability to have a cohesive strategy in round and meaning that always lose. %. $reating the resolution as though it has bidirectional signals causes my o((onent;s (osition to become #i0#$y un(re*ict'1$e, as s<he could take very different approaches to ostensibly arguing the same side. $his is unfair because it prevents me from formulating a cohesive strategy to e8clude aff<neg argumentation, since my opponent could 2ust opt to argue at the other e8treme. must be given the opportunity to develop and e8ecute a strategy in the limited time provided, but my opponent makes this impossible and places me at an inherent disadvantage. '. #i(directionality *estroys a precise se('r'tion of 0roun* by making two sides of an issue possible neg or aff arguments, meaning that bi(directionality destroys a clear conception of whether an argument will warrant an aff or neg ballot. A clear division of ground is key to fairness because confused division of ground leads to confused strats and unclear rounds, and unclear round necessitate intervention to make a decision, which is the opposite of fairness. *. #idirectionality steers *e1'tes fro, c$'s#, as debaters will 2ust skirt the issue by arguing another approach that 0technically1 affirms<negates. t is strategic for my opponent to argue the position that my case does not directly clash with, so s<he has an incentive to do so and thus diminish the educational value obtained through clash and a dialectic approach to resolving the topic. +.$his means that debaters who use bi(directionality have literally no limitation on possible arguments, since they can even take both sides on one issue and claim both sides go both ways, meaning there is a literally infinite amount of advocacies. $his un*er:$i,it'tion of 0roun* should be re2ected as debaters cant prepare for every argument, and thus the debater utiliAing bi(directionality would always win. 9. #idirectionality has no re'$:Dor$* '(($ic'1i$ity because, in the real world, its impossible to be on both sides of an issue, either you advocate for taking troops out of raq or you advocate something else, policy makers and any real world decision maker could never logically hold both stances at once. 4eal world decision making is the most important impact realistic decision making is has the largest link to education. L% 7'u$ Str'it Drites%
K. !aul ;trait L?eorge :ason 7niversity) and #rett Wallace L?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$heM%E;copeM%EofM%EGegativeM%E)iatM%EandM%Ethe M%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf
T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sti$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision: ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s '$$ 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 $iBe K(o$icy e*uc'tionL 'n* KBritiB e*uc'tion3L it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% T#e i,($ic'tion for t#is 'n'$ysis is t#'t t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$: Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% W#i$e (o$icy co,('rison sBi$$s 're 0oin0 to 1e $e'rne* t#rou0# *e1'te in one D'y or
+%
53/169
'not#er3 t#ose sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions%
B. A 2udge has no Curis*iction over a bi(directional resolution because it cant be only good or bad because it must include its own opposite.
+'
54/169
Co,,on us'0e 0oo*

1. 5ommon usage is Bey to (re*ict'1i$ity because common usage implies that we actually use such terms in a certain way every day, and that most people understand such terms in this way. #ecause the resolution is written in order to appeal to a community of debaters as opposed to &nglish ma2ors, we must look to common usage in order to properly interpret the resolution. )urthermore, language is best defined by its common use, and if the &nglish language is most often used to communicate ideas conversationally or directionally, than we should look to the vocabulary of conversational &nglish to interpret the resolution. $hus assigning common definitions to words is the most predictable option. !redictability is key to fairness because debaters have to be able to predict arguments to ensure theres an ability to be responsive and thus win the round. %. 7tiliAing the common usage of words in the resolution allows debaters to e8ercise '(($ic'tion to t#e re'$:Dor$*. Without following commonly accepted standards we lose the main educational part of debate since most of debate is the ability to intelligibly e8press yourself to othersI the only method this can be done is through the use of conversational &nglish. $he purpose of debate is that people can articulate arguments in a relevant and coherent matter . debate is a speaking activity. $hus the main educational activity of debate is the ability to be articulate to many people and be convincing.
+*
55/169
Co,,on us'0e 1'*

!eople can use words in multiple different and historically inaccurate ways, creating i,(recise *efinitions of words. )or e8ample the word tight can mean angry or cool or taut in common usage or depending on where in the 7; you are, meaning that common usage encourages bad debate because of imprecise definitions. #ecause resolutions are written with enough obscurity provided to allow some variety in interpretation, we must remember that resolutions are not written in conversational &nglish. )urthermore, if the individual debater were to interpret the resolution based on their most accessible resource for common usage Ltheir own knowledge and usage of &nglish on a daily basis), they would sub2ectively decide the meaning of each word based on their own usage which is also determined on their location, preference, etc. #ecause common usage doesnt provide a consistent definition amongst individuals, and is thus un(re*ict'1$e it shouldnt be preferred as a resource for interpretation in debate. Kack of predictability in round fails to achieve fairness for both sides in the round. 5ommon usage provides ',1i0uity in round as well as inst'1i$ity in the constantly evolving definitions of words used in everyday speech.
Attig, 6ohn 0?eneral 4eflections on the 5oncept of 5ommon 7sage1 5ommittee on 5ataloging" ,escription and Access, 6uly %1, %EE'
ts Ambiguous" Ambiguities" 5ommon usage does not make clean distinctions and uses terms that overlap or have very fuAAy boundaries. n the case of sound recordings, the term 0disc1 is commonly applied to both analog and digital technologies. $he more common term for digital discs is 0compact disc1 or simply 05,1 but we also need a term for analog discsI at the moment, the preferred term seems to by 0vinyl disc1 V which brings us to the ne8t problem"
Attig, 6ohn 0?eneral 4eflections on the 5oncept of 5ommon 7sage1 5ommittee on 5ataloging" ,escription and Access, 6uly %1, %EE'
ts 7nstable" nstability" 5ommon usage keeps changing. $he case of analog sound discs is a perfect e8ample. $he terms 0record,1 0album,1 0K!,1 and 0vinyl disc1 have all been common usage at one time or another. $o apply the criterion of common usage retrospectively would lead to an endless succession of changing terms for the same things, all of them leaving their traces in our descriptions. AKA feels rather strongly that common usage should not be used to 2ustify such constant updating of established ;:, terms. 3nce a term has been established for a particular type of carrier, based Lamong other factors) on common usage at the time, that term should not be changed. $he fact that this term may not always be recogniAed by future users is perhaps an argument for applying the common usage criterion with e8treme care in the first place. Co,,on us'0e #'s no 1ri0#t $ine% :y opponent needs to be showing a clear metric for determining when a word has met the threshold for common usage and is not merely used frequently. &ven if a word is more commonly used, that doesnt 2ustify its preferenceI co,,on us'0e #'s no re'$ i,('ct in the debate round. $he resolution uses certain words and often we must pick a less common definition in order for the resolution to make grammatical sense. )or e8ample, a sanction is commonly referred to as an endorsement, but in terms of economic sanctions we must look to a less common usage of the word sanction, a prohibition.
++
56/169
<r',,'r 0oo*
While definitions, conte8tual or otherwise, can widely vary, the rules of grammar ensure that a purely grammatical sentence should e8press a s,'$$ nu,1er of (otenti'$ ,e'nin0s. $his means that evaluating the topic based on its synta8 provides the most probable way of arriving at the 0ideal1 way the resolution should be interpreted. &ven if my opponent claims that grammar is only a cultural construct created by power structures, we still use this construct in all communications, so the argument still applies. $he resolution has codified rules that we can see if the resolution meets or doesnt providing a clear bright line making the debate easily 2udicable and preventing 2udge intervention.
+9
57/169
<r',,'r 1'*
2% T#e st'tic notion t#'t 0r',,'r s#ou$* '*Cu*ic'te D#'t is to(ic'$ 'n* not to(ic'$ is t#e =ery root of *o,in'tion 'n* co$oniP'tion%
5athbin Ayoob( 1DDD F:a2ors in ;peech 5ommunications. ;he has been published previously in Oandguns 1DDC and 1DDDI ?unweekI Women and ?unsI and !olice :arksman. ;he hold-s a dean-s scholarship and is also a member of the #urnet !ark Soo, and AWA4&. Oer interests include photography, Aikido, writing, and teaching. ;he wrote her essay for /ivian 4ice-s W4$ ''1.H 0$he ;ystematic $eaching of ?rammar" A 5ritique1 http"<<wrt(interte8t.syr.edu</ <ayoob.html.
n studying grammar, it is important to look at its origins. Where was the world before standardiAed grammar= T#e ori0ins of 0r',,'r c'n $e'* one to reCect the tr'*ition'$ teaching of 0r',,'r% T#e first 1ooB of 0r',,'r, ?rammatica 5astellana Dritten 1y Q'R S('ni'r* &lio Antoine de Gebri2ia, was published QinR on August 1D, "2/ . $his book D's Dritten 1ec'use O t#e un1oun* 'n* un0o=erne* s(eec# in D#ic# (eo($e 'ctu'$$y $i=e 'n* ,'n'0e t#eir $i=es #'s 1eco,e ' c#'$$en0e to t#e CroDnO Lqtd. in &dlund D%). n essence 0r',,'tic'$$y st'n*'r* $'n0u'0e D's cre'te* so t#'t (eo($e Dou$* $e'rn t#e s',e $'n0u'0e 'n* 1e e'sier to 0o=ern% If (eo($e *o not un*erst'n* D#'t you 're s'yin03 t#en t#eir co,,unic'tion c'nnot 1e ru$e*% @It is interestin0 to note t#'t "2/ ,'rBs t#e 1e0innin0 of co$oniP'tion 's De BnoD it% Co$u,1us co$oniPe* N'ti=e 5,eric'ns 'n* 6e9ic'ns 's ot#er Euro(e'n e9($orers #e'*e* toD'r*s 5fric' 'n* 5si'%) $eaching traditional 0r',,'r ru$es 's t#e one 'n* on$y D'y to con=ey t#e En0$is# $'n0u'0e cre'tes o((ressi=e i*e'$s% If t#ese ru$es (ro(ose t#'t t#ere is one (erfect $'n0u'0e3 'n* $'n0u'0e cre'tes re'$ity3 t#en it c'n 1e un*erstoo* t#'t t#ese ru$es 'ssu,e one (erfect re'$ity% St'n*'r*iPe*3 unc#'n0in0 0r',,'r ru$es 'ssu,e t#'t t#ere is on$y one 'ccur'te for, of ' $'n0u'0e3 'n* t#ose D#o use 're in contro$ of t#e $'n0u'0e 're in contro$ of society% T#ese conce(tu'$ t#eories of t#e o((ressi=e n'ture of 0r',,'r c'n 1e seen e=eryD#ere% T#ose D#o s(e'B O(erfect En0$is#O 're 't t#e to( of our econo,ic c#'in3 i%e% (o$itici'ns3 1usiness oDners3 Q'n*R CEOs3 and professors L realiAe that educators are not at the top of the food chain, but they do shape the ideals of their students). T#ose D#o use slang, co,,on En0$is#, &bonics, what have you, 're not in (oDerfu$ (ositions in t#is society% T#erefore (ro(er3 0r',,'tic'$ En0$is# is ' #ier'rc#ic'$ *i=i*er% 6ames #aldwin writes" J !eople evolve a language in order to describe and thus control their circumstances, or in order not to be submerged by reality that they cannot articulate. t goes without saying, then, that $'n0u'0e is '$so ' (o$itic'$ instru,ent3 ,e'ns3 'n* (roof of (oDerJ L*E). T#ose D#o contro$ $'n0u'0e 'n* t#e for,'tion of $'n0u'0e s#'(e re'$ity% L'n0u'0e is e=er c#'n0in0% NeD *i'$ects e,er0e '$$ t#e ti,e% We 're ' country of ,'ny *ifferent ori0ins3 (er#'(s it is ti,e to #'=e ' $'n0u'0e ru$es t#'t incor(or'te '$$ of t#ese ori0ins% 4e2ect the debater here. We are humans before we are debaters, meaning if his act 2ustifies harm to humans you re2ect him before you look at the rest of the flow. $hese impacts also outweigh fairness and education as they only impact to some conception of the good which oppression and coloniAation is much worse and actually affects people unlike a round. And even if this doesnt affect anything outside of the round, link turns to fairness as endorsing grammar empirically and logically leads to mass inequalities( meaning his own standard is endorsing unfairness. $his is also un(educational, as we should only learn things that dont hurt people, or that undercuts the purpose of education. We could learn and be taught a lot of knowledge why racism is good but that would not be good education. Ge8t, re2ect complicity . this is not a micro political argument( youre ballot is a question of whos discourse to endorse so even if have Aero solvency you have an obligation to not endorse hurting humans. #ut voting him down creates a disincentive to run these arguments meaning we lessen oppressive ideas.
+B
58/169
<r',,'r c'n 1e *isconnecte* fro, t#e D'y De 'ctu'$$y s(e'B in t#e re'$ Dor$*% ;ome people are ignorant of grammatical rules while others recogniAe the cultural necessity of adapting a syntactical form for an uncommon purpose. $herefore, using grammar as the primary mechanism to comprehend all communication could potentially lead to misunderstandings or misinformed e8trapolations. 6ere$y un*erst'n*in0 0r',,'r is insufficient to e9($'in (#r'ses t#'t c'rry ,e'nin0 1eyon* t#'t of t#eir constituent ('rts. AnalyAing the resolutions grammar as the primary mechanism for comprehending it leads to an unsophisticated understanding of the topics nuances and does not adequately resolve the topicality debate. <r',,'tic'$ ru$es *o not intrinsic'$$y ,e'n 'nyt#in0I they are simply the result of the e8isting power structures at the time rules of language are created. While they may carry significance today, this significance does not necessarily reflect reason or rationality and may therefore be overridden by such concerns. ?rammatical rules serve to clarify writing to the point where it is comprehensible, but they f'i$ to set fort# e9($icit ru$es for conveying every possible type of information. $his is why there is a difference between a writer who is merely grammatical and a writer who is considered talentedI synta8 alone is insufficient to depict any relatively comple8 idea.
+.
9.
B.
C.
+C
59/169
&&&C#'(ter 8) Sco(e&&& ($'n focus . Res focus

A. nterpretation $he affirmative may limit their advocacy to a topical plan with a solvency advocate. #. ;tandards . 1. Re'$ Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 n the real world, policymakers and other rational agents cant implement general statements of value. nstead, they can only consider and implement specific plans of action that reflect these general statements. 4eal world decision(making has the strongest link to education because the ability to make decisions is the most important skill debaters gain from debate. !aul Str'it L?eorge :ason 7niversity) 'n* #rett W'$$'ce e9($'inL?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, discussions, argumentation or *e1'te, is the Bey still. It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s '$$ 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 $iBe K(o$icy e*uc'tionL 'n* KBritiB e*uc'tion3L it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% T#e i,($ic'tion for this analysis is t#'t t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% W#i$e (o$icy co,('rison sBi$$s 're 0oin0 to 1e $e'rne* t#rou0# *e1'te in one D'y or 'not#er3 t#ose sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% ;o, evaluate real world decision(making before any other claims to education. %. Reci(roc'$ 1ur*ens !lan focus uniquely creates reciprocal burdens for the aff. and the neg. 5omparing the relative advantages and disadvantages of a plan under the resolution gives aff. and neg. arguments equal weight. 7nder other interpretations, the aff. burden is significantly greater than the neg. burden and the neg. can use unequal strategies like counter(warrants to negate the res. 4eciprocal burdens are key for fairness because they ensure that both debaters need to do the same amount of work to win. 4eciprocal burdens are also key for education because they increase debate over substantive issues when one debater is more focused on trying to meet the burden than the other. '. 5ff f$e9% Allowing the aff. fle8ibility to choose different strategies is important because it helps to mitigate the negs automatic advantage, which is evidenced by time skew . the neg has more time to respond to the aff case and the aff has less time to cover both sides of the round, meaning that the aff is structurally at a disadvantage going into the round and therefore needs fle8ibility to compensate. Aff framework choice is necessary. 3,onnell e8plains" 0And the $wain ;hall :eet" Affirmative )ramework 5hoice and the )uture of ,ebate1. $imothy :. 3,onnell. ,irector of ,ebate. 7niversity of :ary Washington.
+D
60/169
$here are several reasons why the affirmative should get to choose the framework for the debate. )irst, 5FC (reser=es t#e ='$ue of t#e first 'ffir,'ti=e constructi=e s(eec#% T#is s(eec# is t#e st'rtin0 (oint for t#e *e1'te% It is ' function of necessity% T#e *e1'te ,ust 1e0in so,eD#ere if it is to 1e0in 't '$$% F'i$ure to 0r'nt 5FC is ' *eni'$ of t#e ser=ice ren*ere* 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e te',;s $'1or D#en t#ey cr'fte* t#is s(eec#% Furt#er3 if t#e 'ffir,'ti=e *oes not 0et to (icB t#e st'rtin0 (oint3 t#e o(enin0 s(eec# 'ct is essenti'$$y ren*ere* ,e'nin0$ess D#i$e t#e rest of t#e *e1'te 1eco,es ' *e1'te '1out D#'t De s#ou$* 1e *e1'tin0 '1out. $he aff deserves fle8ibility to establish the terms of debate because it would be more unfair to cost the aff si8 minutes of their speech time 2ust because they have the misfortune of speaking first. *. De(t# of rese'rc# . plan focus promotes depth of research by allowing affs to focus on specific policies, therefore giving them more opportunity to research and flesh out the implications of the plans they advocate. Advocating the entire resolution promotes shallow or generic research on many possible affirmative actions. ,epth of research is key to education because a thorough knowledge of significant topics has educational value while superficial knowledge of a broad range of topics acquired through a res focus is less useful in and out of the round. +. 5r0u,ent Fu'$ity ( specification of the implementation process of a particular affirmative plan gives the negative specific ground to attack. ?ranting access to specific ,A and turn ground increases the educational value of debate because direct clash arises by attacking the specific links of an affirmative plan rather than running entirely unrelated generic arguments. Argument quality is key to education as the arguments advanced in round determine what we learn from each debate. :oreover, we learn more from direct clash because it forces us to make strategic choices and weigh between different arguments.
9E
61/169
7$'n focus 0oo* front$ines

5 ) 7$'ns 0i=e 'ff 1etter 0roun* 1ec'use t#ey 0et to 'r1itr'ri$y n'rroD t#e *e1'te
f% To(ic'$ity C#ecBs this argument because if the aff advocacy is arbitrary and unpredictable then the negative can simply argue that the aff is non(topical, however, this is not a problem with plan focus as a whole 0% K GQ $urn" !lan focus 0i=es ne0'ti=es 1etter 0roun* because they can argue literally AG@ advocacy outside of the plan, even topical advocacies, which is ground negs would not have access to absent plan focus #% :!A5$ $urn" Allowing the aff to have fle8ibility is a good thing because this will incre'se 'ff Din (ercent'0e to co,(ens'te for ne0 ti,e 1i's and create a truly level playing field where affs win around fifty percent of the time. :y opponent will attempt to say that there is no reason fle8ibility uniquely checks time bias however this is empirically denied because it has checked back neg time bias in policy debate as win percentage is relatively equal.
91
62/169
5 ) 7$'n focus Bi$$s 1re'*t#

"% :y opponent makes breadth claims however they do not show why breadth of discussion is uniquely important to fairness, they need to understand the *ifference 1etDeen 1re'*t# of rese'rc# 'n* 1re'*t# of *iscussion% % Gon(unique" 4es focus discourages breadth of research because debaters only need to cut the generic c'r*s that every one runs in order to write a stock aff, encouraging only surface level research. '. $urn" t increases breadth of research because affs have an incentive to research several potential plans on the topic before writing one. $hus, because am controlling uniqueness, am straight turning breadth 2% :!A5$ $urn" #readth of discussion is uneducational because we on$y $e'rn ' s,'$$ ',ount '1out e'c# issue we discuss. ,epth of discussion is more educational because we can actually obtain useful knowledge and new insight from in(depth discussions. $his is similar to how it is more educational to read one five hundred page book than the first page of five hundred books +% K GQ $urn" !lan focus encourages negs to run a wide variety of arguments in response to the aff as they are granted topical counter plan ground and specific disadvantage ground which they would not have under res focus, so they are able to make neD ty(es of 'r0u,ents increasing breadth of discussion.
5T) 7$'n Focus un(re*ict'1$e

1. Aff. fle8ibility 5urrently, negs. empirically win more than affs. due to the fact that they have a time advantage and under a resolution focus, it is easier to prove the resolution false, than true. $hus, we must prefer operating under a 0unpredictable1 plan focus, because even if it advantages the aff., in the end, it merely balances out the win ratio in the end. %. $opicality checks As long as am within the bounds of the resolution the neg. should be able to prep it. f my plan is truly unpredictable AG, gives me significantly better ground than my opponent, then it would be untopical, and he<she should have run topicality. $hus, plan focus isnt actually unpredictable. 4ather, untopical positions are, and $ checks for that. '. L3nly if you disclose) ,isclosure checks disclosed my position to my opponent before the round meaning they could have prepped positions specific to my advocacy. $here is Aero abuse hereI if they knew it pre(round it cant be unpredictable. ;olvency advocate checks can only run plans that are under the resolution and endorsed by a solvency advocate. ;ince, solvency advocates are based in the literature, this means that all plans must have literature about them, and thus can be predicted, and argued against. #ecause have solvency advocate for my position, that only proves that my plan isnt actually unpredictable, and that there are arguments. !olitical relevance checks !olitical relevance checks for unpredictability &ither A. $heres no current events publications on an issue meaning there arent big impacts because
9%
63/169
significant issues are politically relevant and are reflected as such in the news or #. t is politically relevant, and thus in current events publications meaning they could have easily predicted it. $hus, it is not the aff. who is being unpredictable, but rather the neg. not doing enough research. Q checks Qs can link regardless of me running a plan or defending the whole resolution. $hus, no matter how unpredictable am, at the very least, the neg. can still run a Q. $his mitigates the impact of unpredictability as the neg. can still do research to substantively answer the plan. ,eontology Land other philosophy checks) . ?eneric philosophical arguments, especially deontology, which create categorical reasons to re2ect the resolution check predictability. ;o long as a philosophy creates a reason to re2ect the resolution in its entirety, it doesnt matter if the plan is unpredictable, as the G5 will still substantively answer it. $he inability to research an unpredictable position is mitigated by the ability to research categorically binding philosophies. ?eneric Kink ?round 5hecks $here are always generic arguments that will link to the resolution. #ecause plans will always fall under the resolution, there will always be arguments that can link to them. $his checks back the harms of predictability as the neg. can still research positions which will answer the A5 meaning that there is no advantage to the aff. having better prep for their arguments.
5T) Denies (#i$oso(#y/='$ue 0roun*

1. $urn !lan focus encourages values and philosophy debate as competitors are forced to research philosophically grounded positions. ;ince its impossible to research every plan, philosophy is crucial to taking out multiple different advocacies. 4es focus hurts values and philosophy ground as there is an incentive to run multiple counter(warrants instead of engaging in the philosophy debate, as it is impossible to answer B minutes of counter warrants in a * minute speech. $urn !lan focus actually makes philosophy more relevant because most of my aff is devoted to the plan instead of framework giving them a better ability to win the framework debate. And, philosophical frameworks are still very relevant with plan focus because impacts need always to be evaluated under some value structure. $hey get the same if not better philosophy ground. $urn !hilosophy and values are only important if they can apply to the real world. 3therwise, it wouldnt make sense to run philosophical arguments as the resolution asks us to evaluate a real world action. !lan )ocus therefore ensures better philosophy and values ground as plans reflect real world policy making. Gon(plan affs might have a link to the real world, but this is 2ust a possibility, whereas plan focus guarantees a link to the real world.
9'
64/169
RESOLUTION IS 5 TO7IC 5RE5

T#e reso$ution in*ic'tes ' 0ener'$ ,or'$ st'te,ent. $he resolution does not indicate a course of action, but instead states whether a decision is moral. $he fact that it does not specify an actor, action, and etc., inherently implies that it cannot be a plan, but rather serves as a general statement that encompasses over plans. Almost all to(ic $iter'ture discusses specific e8amples within a topicI very few, if any, discuss the resolution as a complete statement. $opic literature is the most important standard in terms of fairness because learning how to research is the foundation of participating in academic debate, learning good educational practices, reading the opinions of many different people, and developing critical reading<thinking skills. $herefore, we must allow debaters use the resolution as a starting point and the literature as a basis for positions because it is the only way debaters have a competitive incentive to do research. C#ecBs 1'cB Ne0 1i's. $he neg has an advantage over me because of the literally infinite number of ways they can attack the resolution. $o check this back, the aff should be able to treat the resolution as a topic area to preserve fairness. )urthermore, it allows for better education because we do what the topic literature asks, such that we actually can have a debate about the merits of the topic lit.
9*
65/169
Res Focus . 7$'n Focus

A) nterpretation" $he neg advocacy must be the whole resolution #) /iolation" $he neg specifies a plan that is a portion of the resolution rather than the whole resolution. 5) ;tandards" De(t# of issues . stock issues are complicated and can be delved into more than we have time for in a debate round. Oaving multiple rounds about the whole resolution and the same issues improves our understanding of those issues rounds at the last tournaments on a topic always go more in(depth than the beginning ones because the amount of rounds we have on a topic improves our depth of knowledge on that issue. $his is an internal link to education because the depth that we understand the issues is the same as the depth of education we are getting. V'$ues De1'te: K, resolutions are worded in a way that implies a value statement not a policy option. !lans take our focus away from the debate about the values and philosophy behind the resolution and focus it on the implementation or specific situations. $he focus of the debate as implied by the resolution is education on the philosophical side of the issue if the focus is shifted from that topic specific education is hindered. SDitc# si*e *e1'te( !lan focus permits topical cps this discourages switch sides debate because it virtually allows people to affirm every round. $his is bad for education because the critical thinking it takes to switch sides is key to the education we get from debate. LinB <roun* ( !lan focus destroys generic link ground because negatives must run specific arguments to contest the affirmative, which is unfair because the negative cannot utiliAe its prep whereas the aff can and uneducational because we do not learn about the fundamental questions of the resolution. F'ir *i=ision of 0roun* ( Affs can choose the best plans on the topic that are nearly uncontestable which is unfair because they get to pick the best ground and leave me with all the mediocre arguments on the topic. $hey may say that $ checks but $ does not say whether or not an aff can be strategic, rather it says whether or not we should prefer a given definition of a word so $ cant check back the division of ground argument.
9+
66/169
To(ic'$ counter($'ns 1'*

5% Inter(ret'tion . counterplans must e8ist partially or entirely outside the scope of the resolution B% Vio$'tion : $hey run a topical counterplan. C% St'n*'r*s J 1. SDitc#:si*es *e1'te J when the neg runs a topical counterplan, they can use affirmative arguments when negating. )orcing counterplans to cover some ground outside the resolution stops negs from 2ust using their affirmative cases for both sides. ;witch(sides debate fosters education because A. Kearning to debate on two sides of an issue is an act of ethical education that debate uniquely teaches. ,ay e8plains" ,ouglas ?. ,ay, Assistant !rofessor and ,irector of )orensics at the 7niversity of Wisconsin, 1D99 FJ$he &thics of ,emocratic ,ebate,J Central States Speech Journal, /olume 1B, )ebruary, p. // BATMANH To (resent (ersu'si=e$y 'r0u,ents for ' (osition Dit# D#ic# one *is'0rees is t#e #i0#est et#ic'$ 'ct in *e1'te 1ec'use it sets 'si*e (erson'$ interests for t#e 1enefit of t#e co,,on 0oo*% &ssentially, for t#e (erson D#o 'cce(ts *ecision 1y *e1'te3 t#e et#ics of t#e *ecision:,'Bin0 (rocess 're su(erior to t#e et#ics of (erson'$ con=iction on ('rticu$'r su1Cects for *e1'te. ,emocracy is a commitment to means, not ends. ,emocratic society accepts certain ends, i.e., decisions, because they have been arrived at by democratic means. We reco0niPe t#e ,or'$ (riority of *ecision 1y *e1'te D#en De '0ree to 1e 1oun* 1y t#'t *ecision re0'r*$ess of (erson'$ con=iction% Suc# 'n '0ree,ent is ,or'$$y 'cce(t'1$e 1ec'use t#e *ecision:,'Bin0 (rocess 0u'r'ntees our ,or'$ inte0rity 1y 0u'r'nteein0 t#e o((ortunity to *e1'te for ' re=ers'$ of t#e *ecision% $hus, personal conviction can have moral significance in social decision(making only so long as the integrity of debate is maintained. And t#e inte0rity of *e1'te is ,'int'ine* on$y D#en t#ere is ' fu$$ 'n* forcefu$ confront'tion of 'r0u,ents 'n* e=i*ence re$e='nt to *ecision% W#en 'n 'r0u,ent is not (resente* or is not (resente* 's (ersu'si=e$y 's (ossi1$e3 t#en *e1'te f'i$s% ;witch(side debate destroys clash and respect for decision(making processes, harming the educational benefits of debate. #. ;witch(sides debate simply teaches debaters more about the topic than they could learn by 2ust researching one side. When debaters must debate both sides, they must research a variety of arguments before formulating their case positions, which is a valuable skill taught by debate. % &ffective clash . topical counterplans destroy effective clash by narrowing the difference in advocacies between both sides. ,ebate would then become an issue of trivial differences between the two advocacies rather than the substantive discussion of two contradictory policy options that it would become with a non(topical counterplan. 5lash is key to education because it improves debaters abilities to generate arguments and delineate important distinctions between different schools of thought.
99
67/169
To(ic'$ counter($'ns 0oo*

nterpretation $he neg. may run topical counterplans. ;tandards a. 4eal world decision making $opical counterplans reflect how policy(makers go about choosing the plan to implement. 3nce policy( makers agree upon a common goal, they debate over which way is best to achieve the goal rather than present unrelated plans that do not forward the discussion of the achievement of the goal. 4eal world decision making has the strongest internal link to education. $he scope of negative fiat and the logic of decision making. K. !aul Str'it ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,. It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% $his is also key to fairness because arguments that arent grounded in the real world are unpredictable as they are fundamentally different, giving me a disadvantage by forcing me to run something that my everyday e8perience contradicts b. 5lash $opical counterplans increase clash of arguments regarding of the actual implementation of the affirmative plan because the aff. is forced to defend why their solvency better achieves a goal than a similar plan would. f the negative could only run non(topical counterplans, the affirmative no longer has to weigh the strength different solvency evidence because the negative is claiming to solve for an entirely different harm.
9B
68/169
7ics 1'*
Inter(ret'tion" 5ounter !lans must be entirely e8clusive of the affirmative advocacy Vio$'tion" :y opponent runs a plan inclusive counterplan which includes part of the affirmative advocacy. St'n*'r*s 1. Ti,e sBeD" ! 5s waste the 1A5 speech time, because they render substantive advantages non(unique by focusing on a slight distinction. f the neg can agree with DDM of the aff, only 1M of my 9 minutes matters in the 1A4. Also, it e8plodes the effectiveness of Gegative speech time because he can spend almost all of his time attacking the small portions of the A5 that he doesnt agree with. ;kewing time is unfair because the speech times are designed to give each debater an equal chance at winning the roundI thats why both sides add up to 1' minutes. f dont get an equal opportunity to speak, dont have a fair chance at winning. Also, this standard doesnt 2ust say he cant agree with any of my arguments, a ! 5 steals a huge portion of A)) ground and renders it useless. $hats different from him conceding an argument or saying that one contention is non(unique. %. Turn <roun*" ! 5s steal key A)) turn ground because there is only a tiny section of the debate that separates the A)) from the G&? and cant debate against my own advocacy. As such, there is only a miniscule piece of offense that the A)) can contest. $his is a severe rupture of competitive equity because the A)) cannot generate reciprocal offense. ,isads and plan e8clusive 5!s check opponents ground loss, if they find a problem with a part of a plan they can run a ,A or a plan e8clusive counter plan not a ! 5. ;ince ground is the only way to generate offense towards the ballot, destroying ground, prevents A)) ability to win the round. '. 7re*ict'1i$ity) $he ! 5 is unpredictable because they could ! 5 out of any part of the plan making it impossible to predict how my opponent will modify the aff advocacy. $here is no way for me to prepare before round against the infinite number of minute modifications to the aff advocacy, making the round unfair because the negative will always be more prepared to defend the ! 5 than will be to debate against it. $his also destroys in round clash making the round highly uneducational as we do not actually engage each others arguments. Additionally, focusing on only a portion of the plan destroys our learning because we never test the merits of the actual plan but a small portion, destroying education. I,('cts) )airness and education
9C
69/169
7ICs <oo*
nterpretation . the neg may run one ! 5 that e8cludes a word or phrase in the resolution and has a solvency advocate. meet . e8clude >>>>>>>>>> and my >>>>>>>> card advocates the ! 5 ;tandards Key to f'irness J ! 5s are a necessary part of a critical neg strategy against the vague resolution . otherwise it can be claimed that the resolution captures the 5!. )ailure to allow us this kills fairness by making it impossible for the neg to win and kills education by making clash on 5!s impossible Str'te0ic c#oice . ! 5s force the aff to affirm all parts of the resolution and defend all parts. $his is good for education by increasing the critical thinking and increases fairness by having the aff affirm all parts, and the neg negate it. Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'Bin0 (,ebate is only a valuable activity if we use it as a means to making informed decisions. $he benefits we derive from debate are those which can apply outside of debate, most notably
our ability to make informed choices. $herefore, we ought to value arguments which correspond to real world decision making. :y opponents interpretation prevents real world decision making as when legislators propose policy decisions, they evaluate such policies with the goal of achieving the best outcome. ! 5s do this by advocating for the best policy, even if this policy only slightly differs with the plan. 4eal world decision making is key to education as we our educational benefits are derived from how we use debate out of round. ;trait and Wallace e8plain why real world decision making has the strongest link to
education
W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when
making the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions
*eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,. It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions%
9D
70/169
&&&C#'(ter 2) St'tus&&& con*ition'$ity 1'*

5% Inter(ret'tion J counterplans must either be unconditional or dispositional. B% Vio$'tion J they run a conditional counterplan. C% St'n*'r*s J 1. Str't sBeD J if answer the counterplan sufficiently by generating good responses then they can 2ust kick it and generate offense in other ways, but if dont answer it sufficiently then they can go for it and no longer have a way to generate responses against it. cant develop a coherent strategy because cant predict what they will go for in his ne8t speech, and my strategy is premised upon what arguments think they will go for. $he ability to develop a strategy is key to fairness because strategy determines how we make arguments that will win us the round, and the neg strategy prevents me from doing this. t is also key to education because strategy generates good argumentation, forcing debaters to engage in better critical thinking and communication in order to win. %. Effecti=e c$'s# J the neg 2ustifies never engaging in G5 arguments because he can 2ust kick out of my responses in the G4. $his means that we can never have effective clash. 5lash involves comparative debate and contestation over arguments, so it promotes critical thinking and argumentation skills and therefore increases education. :oreover, clash promotes a more in(depth discussion that will increase our understanding of the topic, therefore generating topic(specific education. '. Reci(roc'$ risB 1'$'nce J conditionality creates a no(risk issue for the neg, since the neg can 2ust kick the counterplan as soon as generate any offense on it. ;ince cant kick out of affirming, generic neg disads and turns will always be effective and the risk balance in the round is skewed. A reciprocal risk balance is key to fairness because strategy is constrained by potential risks. f one side has more no(risk issues than the other, this places that side at an unfair advantage. *. 5r0u,ent Fu'$ity J conditionality 2ustifies irresponsible neg argumentation because negs can run multiple counterplans that contradict or bad arguments that they dont plan on going for in the G4. #ecause the neg can 2ust kick out of these arguments, they never receive the deterrent effect generated by good responses to bad arguments. 5onditionality harms education because debaters learn by seeing how others respond to their positions, but conditionality encourages negs to ignore those arguments because they have no impacts on individual rounds.
con*ition'$ity 0oo*
1. nterpretation $he neg. may run unconditional counterplans %. ;tandards a. 4eal world decision making !olicy makers arent bound to a plan if they see there are other better ones. 5onditional counter(plans are also key to testing the desirability of the aff( if cant kick a counter(plan am deterred from running
BE
71/169
it because of the opportunity cost, meaning we never get the education of finding the best policy option and the way that policy makers offer multiple plans but end up only voting for one of them. And real world decision making is key to education. $he scope of negative fiat and the logic of decision making. K. !aul Str'it ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% $his is also key to fairness because arguments that arent grounded in the real world are unpredictable as they are fundamentally different, giving me a disadvantage by forcing me to run something that my everyday e8perience contradicts.
b. 3ffsets the Affs. !lan 5hoice" #y giving the negative the ability to keep an argument at any time it offsets the unfairness created by the aff. choosing the plan ground. $his choice is unfair because the choice of plans severely limits the neg. counter(plan ground so by giving them the ability to drop arguments we are reopening some of the negs. counterplan ground that would otherwise be inaccessible. $his not only is key to fairness but also adds educational value to the debate because there are more counterplans being run meaning we learn more in any given debate.
c. 5ritical $hinking $his spurs critical thinking because the A)) has to create the optimal strategy to compensate for the conditional 5!. $his fulfills the role of debate, instructing people how to think, by challenging the A)) and not allowing them an easy road to the ballot. d. Geg. )le8 5onditional 5! are key to neg. fle8 because the aff. has an inherent advantage by not only framing the round by speaking first but by speaking last. &liminating a key component of the neg. strategy would create unfair debate by allowing the A)) access to structural advantages that the neg. cannot overcome. e. 4eciprocity $he aff. is allowed to have access to a policy option, therefore the neg. should be too. $he aff. can kick the A5 and go for offense elsewhere in the round, the neg. should have that same ability. $he aff. can make multiple perms as well, creating different advocacies and then only go for one of them. 5onditional 5! solve for this by allowing the neg. the same ability to test whether or not their advocacy
B1
72/169
functions as a net benefit. $o create un(reciprocal burdens would lead to a disadvantage for one side, destroying the competitive equity of debate. f. ,epth of discussion Allowing negs. to kick one or more of the counter plans allows an in depth discussion about the otherLs) or the status quo, which is a more educational discussion to have because it probably involves the best alternative policy option to the aff. advocacy. ,epth of discussion in general is key to education because the only way we learn in debate rounds themselves is by e8ploring the issues over which we debate with thorough discourse that gives us insight about new facets of a given issue on the topic. g. #readth of research Allowing negs. to run conditional counter plans encourages negs. to run more counter plans as they are no(risk. $his increases breadth of research because negs. must research more viable policy alternatives to common affirmatives if it is more strategic to run multiple counter plans, which gives us new insight and knowledge about different stances on the topic as well as alternatives in the topic literature, so it promotes education.
B%
73/169
*is(osition'$ity 1'*
nterp" All negative counter plans must be unconditional /iolation" $he negative counter plan is dispositional ;tandards" A" ;table Advocacy" #ecause dispositionality inevitably results in unspecified conditions for when one must advocate or is permitted to kick the counter plan this results in advocacy shifts in the %G4 during which negatives will be able to say that there was an unspecified condition or a condition related to something stated in cross(e8 such as saying that a straight turn is effectively a perm so the can kick the straight turned 5! which completely disadvantages the aff who had 2ust responded to the 5! in a way in which they assumed the neg must advocate it, which 1" takes away offense from the aff that the aff may have gone for in the %A4 and %" takes away aff time spent answering the 5!, giving the negative more time to make relevant arguments and win the round, offsetting fairness. #" ,ivision of ground" $he neg gets to literally choose when they can kick the 5!, there is no reason why they have to advocate it which means that they can choose the best possible status of the counter plan according to when it would be strategic to kick it or advocate it, destroying fairness because affs cannot pick and choose between their aff and other advocacies when it may be strategic to do so yet the negative has this strategic option, giving the negative a structural disadvantage over the aff.
C% Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'Bin0) n the real world, modern policy makers are not bound to the plan they are currently advocating and if they want to, they can drop it and go for a new plan. $his is key to fairness because it gives the negative the ability to make a counterplan without being forced to keep it. Also it gives educational value to the debate because if they were not able to drop it, they would most likely go for safer arguments which would prevent us from learning through these unique plans. D% Offsets t#e 5ff;s 7$'n C#oice) #y giving the negative the ability to keep an argument at any time it offsets the unfairness created by the aff choosing the plan ground. $his choice is unfair because the choice of plans severely limits the neg counter(plan ground so by giving them the ability to drop arguments we are reopening some of the negs counterplan ground that would otherwise be unaccesible. $his not only is key to fairness but also adds educational value to the debate because there are more counterplans being run meaning we learn more in any given debate.
B'
74/169
Dis(osition'$ity <oo*
Counter Inter(ret'tion : T#e ne0 ,'y run *is(osition'$ counter($'ns in D#ic# t#ey c'n BicB it if t#e 'ff ($'ces ' (iece of *efense on t#e net 1enefit3 'tte,(ts to (er,3 or ($'ce ' no so$=ency 'r0u,ent on t#e C7% I 6eet : 6y counter($'n is *is(osition'$ Dit# c$e'r $i,its 's to D#en it c'n 1e BicBe*% St'n*'r*s : 1. Str'te0y sBeD. 5onditional counterplans can be dropped at anytime throughout the debate while give you certain
conditions under which these counter planLs) can be kicked. $herefore am not skewing your strategy because you now know the conditions under which must be in, in order to kick the counter plan. $herefore you can try to make sure that will not go into one of the circumstances in which can kick the counter plan. $his is a good link to education because it tests how to deal with delicate issues that could become problematic when not handled well. $his is key to fairness because it gives the affirmative the terms under which the counter planLs) can be kicked instead of kicking the counter plan arbitrarily. %.
7re*ict'1$e : ,ispositionality sets limits for when the negative can and cannont kick the counterplan. $his means that
it is fair in the debate because the affirmative knows e8aclty when the neg will kick it.
'.
Re'son'1$e f$e9i1i$ity : $he negative is given fle8ibility within the round the round reasonably. $his means that
dispositionality is not going to be unfair to the affirmative because there will never be a situation in which the negative can unreasonably kick and argument. Also this is fair to the negative because the affirmative got to choose the ground Lwith the plan) and so it is only fair the negative has some fle8ibility within his<her counterplan.
B*
75/169
Li,ite* Con*ition'$ity B'*

5A Inter(ret'tion : if the neg runs a counterplan, then it must be either unconditional or dispositional. BA Vio$'tion : they are running a limited conditional counterplan. CA St'n*'r*s J 1) Str't sBeD . my opponent can kick the counterplan at virtually any time, thus rendering the arguments place on it
irrelevant. $his means that can never even gain some conception of the impacts my arguments will have upon the round, whereas if they run an unconditional<or dispositional counterplan then can gain a good idea of how my arguments will alter their strategic decisions. ,ebaters must have an equal ability to weigh the benefits of making arguments against the time spent making those arguments in order to have a fair shot at accessing the ballot
%) Reci(roc'$ i,('ct 0roun* . my opponent has access to the world of the counterplan and the world of the status quo, while only have access to the aff world. f the neg is forced to run an unconditional counterplan then we are both defending one potential world<, and if the neg runs a dispositional counterplan, can at least formulate a strategy that will tie the neg to one world or the other. 4eciprocal impact ground is key to fairness because impacts are how debaters generate offenseI if my opponent can generate offense from two worlds while can only generate offense from one, this puts me at a disadvantage. ') Reci(rocity . any reciprocity arguments are false, cant kick my advocacy in the face of straight turns, but the neg can.
$his kills fairness because it does not place the same standard of burdens on the neg as it does the aff.
*) Ki$$s c$'s# . this allows them to kick the 5! as soon as read answers on it . kills fairness because of a massive time skew
and kills education because it disables clash on the flow.
+) Dis(o so$=es '$$ offense ( !laces them in double bind, either the 5! is predictable, such that perms would not be required
and straight turns would check abuse, or the 5! is unpredictable which forces perms which are the only way can get back to ground Aero.
B+
76/169
$i,ite* con*ition'$ity 0oo*

5% nterpretation . the neg may run a limited conditional counterplan. B% /iolation . the aff says that must run an unconditional counterplan< a dispositional counterplan. C% ;tandards . 1. 4eal world decision(making . limited conditionality is most consistent with the way everyone makes decisions in the real world. 4oger ;olt writes"
L;olt, 4oger. 0$he ,isposition of 5ounterplans and !ermutations" $he case for Kogical, Kimited 5onditionality.1 :ental Oealth !olicies" &scape from #edlam= %EE')
t#e counter($'n is '$D'ys 't t#e ne0'ti=eIs *is(osition in t#'t t#ey c'n '$D'ys conce*e t#e counter($'n 'n* *efen* t#e st'tus Fuo, even if the affirmative has only attacked its desirability, that is, they have straight turned the counterplan. $he first argument in favor of this position is that it follows from the logic of real world decision(making. 5 r'tion'$ *ecision:,'Ber3 confronte* Dit# tDo (ro(os'$s for c#'n0e3 c'n '$,ost '$D'ys reCect 1ot# 'n* Bee( t#in0s 's t#ey 're3 'n* in*ee*3 s/#e s#ou$* *o so if 1ot# c#'n0es Dou$* 1e inferior to t#e (o$icy t#'t noD e9ists%
According to this approach,
)orcing me to run an unconditional counterplan is completely non(reflective of the way people actually make decisions, as no one is completely pinned to their advocacy in the light of the status quo. ,ispositionality is also not reflective of these processes, as my reason for preferring the status quo would not hinge upon the types of arguments my opponents made against it. 4eal world decision(making is key to education because one of the most important skills we get out of debate is how to use argumentation to arrive at decisions in general, not 2ust in the conte8t of rounds. %. 4eal(world advocacy . limited conditionality is most consistent with the way policy advocates make decisions in the real world. 4oger ;olt writes"
F'ce* Dit# one (ro(os'$ for c#'n0e3 o((onents of ' (o$icy freFuent$y offer ' counter:(ro(os'$% In res(onse to t#e Re(u1$ic'n t'9 cut (ro(os'$3 t#e De,ocr'ts Di$$ offer 'n '$tern'ti=e t'9 cut (ro(os'$ of t#eir oDn% But e=en if t#e De,ocr'tsI ($'n is reCecte*3 t#e Re(u1$ic'nsI nee* not 1e e,1r'ce*% De,ocr'ts c'n sti$$ =ote '0'inst t#e Re(u1$ic'n ($'n% ndeed, this posture of (ro(osin0 'n '$tern'ti=e3 1ut sti$$ *efen*in0 t#e st'tus Fuo 's su(erior to t#e (o$icy (ro(ose* 1y oneIs (o$itic'$ o((onents is so co,,on that it is essentially business as usual. T#us3 reCectin0 '$$ for,s of con*ition'$ 'r0u,ent is in fact $ess in 'ccor* Dit# t#e (r'ctice of re'$ Dor$* (u1$ic '*=oc'tes t#'n is t#e 'cce(t'nce of $i,ite* con*ition'$ity% ;ince we are discussing some kind of plan, we are trying to mimic the policymaking decisions e8pressed by real(world policymakers. )orcing me to be unconditional or dispositional does not respect the fact that neither of these options reflect how policymakers arrive at their decisions. :irroring real(world advocacy increases education by letting us better comprehend political processes and therefore make informed political decisions.
B9
77/169
'. 4eciprocal strategy . limited conditionality fosters negative strategy by mirroring the affirmative strategy to 0do both.1 4oger ;olt writes"
If ' r'tion'$ *ecision:,'Ber Dere confronte* Dit# tDo ,utu'$$y co,('ti1$e 'n* si,u$t'neous$y *esir'1$e (o$icies3 s/#e Dou$* (resu,'1$y e,1r'ce 1ot#% Kikewise, if the 2udge is modeling the behavior of a rational, real world decision(maker, s<he should be able to simultaneously endorse both plan and counterplan, if the two taken together constitute the best policy option. Si,i$'r$y3 s/#e s#ou$* 1e '1$e to en*orse t#e o(tion to O*o neit#er3O since t#is o(tion eFu'$$y De$$ fo$$oDs fro, t#e $o0ic of r'tion'$3 re'$ Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0% One cou$* e=en re0'r* t#e O*o neit#erO o(tion 's ' Bin* of ne0'ti=e (er,ut'tion of ($'n 'n* counter($'n% n the world of the violation, affs can still perm neg counterplans by removing neg uniqueness, so allowing negs to run limited conditional counterplans serves to create reciprocal strategy options for both sides. 4eciprocal strategy is key to fairness because if one side inherently has more opportunity to access the ballot then this puts the other side at a permanent disadvantage. *. ;hifting advocacy . limited conditionality is simply a response to the affs indictment of the status quo in the 1A5, therefore preventing the aff from shifting advocacies by claiming not to have to defend their stance later. 4oger ;olt writes"
T#e 'ffir,'ti=e #'s '$re'*y #'* t#e D#o$e "5C to in*ict t#e st'tus FuoH t#us3 t#e st'tus Fuo #'s '$re'*y 1een su1Cect to re'son'1$y in *e(t# *iscussion% ,isadvantages commonly establish their uniqueness relative to the status quo. $he affirmative-s initial advocacy is that the plan is superior to the status quo. Not reFuirin0 t#'t t#e 'ffir,'ti=e successfu$$y sust'in t#is c$'i, 't t#e en* of t#e roun* $ets t#e, s#ift t#eir fun*',ent'$ '*=oc'cy st'nce% Consistent '*=oc'cy on t#e ('rt of t#e 'ffir,'ti=e $o0ic'$$y reFuires t#e, to Din 1ot# t#'t t#eir ($'n is su(erior to t#e st'tus Fuo 'n* t#'t t#eir ($'n @or ' (er,ut'tionA is su(erior to t#e counter($'n% f the neg is not allowed to revert to defending the status quo at any point in the round, this is fundamentally unfair because debating the status quo was a parameter established by the aff. $he aff therefore will not have a consistent advocacy. ;hifting advocacies are unfair because they prevent me from formulating an in(round strategy that could enable me to win the round. +. 4eciprocal strategy . limited conditionality creates reciprocal strategies because it provides the neg with an equivalent strategic tool to the affs ability to perm counterplans, since can choose to do neither advocacy and accept the status quo. ?iving the aff the strategic option of doing both the plan and the counterplan is not reciprocal if do not have the option of doing neither the plan nor the counterplan, since this would negate the affs perm. 4eciprocal strategy is key to fairness since debaters use strategic options to shape their responses and research, so strategy constrains their abilities to generate offense. 4eciprocal strategy also generates clash since both sides still have different advocacies to argue over, improving the quality of argumentation and giving debaters more opportunity to practice communication skills.
BB
78/169
D%
&&&C#'(ter +) Counter($'ns 'n* fi't&&& Ne0'ti=e Fi't <oo*

5% Inter(ret'tion) $he Geg may fiat an action when it is competitive with affirming. #. meet. 5. ;tandardss" "% Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'Bin0) Geg fiat promotes real world decision(making because when making decisions, policymakers and people in general are never constrained to the status quo. ts ridiculous to say that we only consider one plan alone. We construct multiple potential plans or counterplans whenever we act because we search for the best policy option not the first that comes to mind. 4eal world decision(making is key to education because it is the most important skill we can gain from the activity. !aul Str'it L?eorge :ason 7niversity) 'n* #rett W'$$'ce e9($'inL?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. $he ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key still. t is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. ,ecision(making transcends all boundaries between categories of learning like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. $he implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real(world decision(making are comparatively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. t is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions. % Counter($'n <roun*) f the negative is not allowed to fiat an action, lose access to counterplan ground because the negative can no longer discuss the impacts of another action being taken. 5ounterplan ground is key to fairness because counterplans constitute a massive amount of negative ground because they consist of all possible actions taken by another international, foreign, private actor or by multiple actors, or the number of different course of actions the specified agent can take. 5ounterplan ground is key to fairness because it is impossible for the negative to show the benefits of negating if they are forced to defend the status quo alone. $he entire purpose of the affirmative is to prove that a plan that improves the status quo, so advocating the squo itself will never be net advantageous because the problems the aff claims solvency for will remain unresolved in the neg world. 5ounterplan ground also fosters education because it allows us to determine the opportunity cost of the resolution by setting forth a ne8t(best alternative. ,etermining opportunity costs is an important way to generate discussion and strategic thinking.
BC
79/169
8% Reci(rocity) #ecause the affirmative may fiat an action, the negative must be allowed to do the same. $he ability to fiat allows the aff to assume their actions have 1EEM probability of coming true. Without fiat, there would be practically no chance that the negative would win because they have to prove both the solvency of their counterplan and the likelihood the counterplan would be implemented in the real world. 4eciprocal burdens are key to fairness because without them both debaters dont have the same abilities to win the round. 4eciprocity of both sides being allowed to fiat is key to education because both sides being able to assume fiat would increase the educational clash about the benefits of the plans themselves rather than require quibbling over the probability of the neg counterplan occurring.
BD
80/169
5LTERN5TIVE 5<ENT FI5T B5D

A. nterpretation" $he negative can only fiat actors in the affirmative advocacy. #. /iolation" $heir counterplan is e8ecuted by >>>>>>>. 5. ;tandards"
1. 4eal World decision making a. When deciding between different policies, the ma2or consideration policy(makers must have in mind is which actor is taking the action. $he realm of possible choices is limited by which actor is taking the action and thus what they are capable of doing. K. !aul Str'it L?eorge :ason 7niversity) 'n* #rett W'$$'ce L?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$heM%E;copeM%EofM%EGegativeM%E)iat M%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf T#e D'y in D#ic# *ecisions 're ,'*e in t#e re'$ Dor$* '$D'ys t'Bes into 'ccount t#e consi*er'tion of D#o is ,'Bin0 t#e *ecision% Decision:,'Bers c'n on$y c#oose fro, t#e '='i$'1$e o(tions o(en to t#e,3 'n* not fro, '$$ (ossi1$e o(tions t#ey c'n t#inB of% W#i$e *ecision:,'Bin0 Dou$* 1e ' $ot e'sier if De cou$* 'ssu,e t#e (osition of ' uni=ers'$ *ecision ,'Bers3 i%e so,eone D#o is all powerful and c'n ,'0ic'$$y '$ter t#e course of 'ction of 'nyone in t#e Dor$* t#ey D'nte*3 re'$ity *oesn;t offer t#is o(tion% T#ere is no 0',e 0enie for *ecision:,'Bin03 no c#e't co*e3 'n* no '1i$ity to ($'y 0o*% On$y once De re'$iPe t#e $i,ite* (oDer t#'t #u,'ns (ossess c'n De *e=e$o( ' co0ent 1'sis for *ecision:,'Bin0% $hus both debaters must be required to defend the same actor so the debate will be specific to the possibilities of actions taken by one actor, which is how decisions are actually made.
!. %e"l worl e$ision )"+ers )ust t"+e into "$$ount the pro!"!ility of the "$tion !eing t"+en in or er to e$i e if th"t is the !est poli$y to pursue. ,e$"use "n "$tor h"s no full $ontrol over "ny "$tor other th"n itself, it $"n never h"ve " gu"r"ntee th"t "nother "gent will "$t "$$or ingly. -he neg f"ils to t"+e into "$$ount the ev"lu"tion of the pro!"!ility of poli$ies !eing i)ple)ente , " +ey "spe$t ne$ess"ry in e$ision.)"+ing is lost. Strait "n Wallace Two $ontinue:
K. !aul Str'it L?eorge :ason 7niversity) 'n* #rett W'$$'ce L?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB.
CE
81/169
http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$heM%E;copeM%EofM%EGegativeM%E)iat M%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf Since t#e entire (oint of fi't is to 1r'cBet off Fuestions of KDou$*L in or*er to focus co,($ete$y on Fuestions of Ks#ou$*3L Fuestions of (ro1'1i$ity ne=er 0et *iscusse*% Fro, t#e (ers(ecti=e of t#e '0ent i*entifie* in t#e ($'n3 t#e (ro1'1i$ity is "!!S3 since if t#ey *eci*e to '*o(t t#e ,'n*'tes of t#e ($'n3 t#ere is 'n '1so$ute 0u'r'ntee t#'t t#ey Di$$ in f'ct *o so% Yet if t#e ($'n is co,('re* to ' counter($'n in D#ic# E'('n c'rries out (u1$ic #e'$t# 'ssist'nce r't#er t#'n t#e Unite* St'tes3 t#ere is ne=er ' situ'tion D#ere t#e Unite* St'tes cou$* ,'Be ' *ecision 1'se* on ' "!!S (ro1'1i$ity t#'t E'('n Dou$* t'Be 'ction if t#e Unite* St'tes *i* not% T#us3 if t#e Con0ress #'* to consi*er if t#ey s#ou$* t'Be 'ction or so,e ot#er *ecision:,'Bin0 1o*y s#ou$* t'Be 'ction3 if t#ey f'i$e* to consi*er t#e c#'nce t#'t t#'t ot#er *ecision:,'Bin0 1o*y Dou$* not in f'ct t'Be t#e *esire* 'ction3 t#ey Dou$* not #'=e 0one t#rou0# 'ny sort of $o0ic'$ *e$i1er'tion (rocess% c. 4ealistic decision making has the largest link to education K. !aul Str'it L?eorge :ason 7niversity) 'n* #rett W'$$'ce L?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$heM%E;copeM%EofM%EGegativeM%E)iat M%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, discussions, argumentation or *e1'te, is the Bey still. It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision: ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s '$$ 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 $iBe K(o$icy e*uc'tionL 'n* KBritiB e*uc'tion3L it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% T#e i,($ic'tion for this analysis is t#'t t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% W#i$e (o$icy co,('rison sBi$$s 're 0oin0 to 1e $e'rne* t#rou0# *e1'te in one D'y or 'not#er3 t#ose sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions%
% Fi't 51use J Alternative agent fiat is unfair as it allows the negative to wish away all harms and ad2ust its world to perfection. $he negative no longer has a burden of solvency, and thus the affirmative can never win offense off solving a problem because the negative can effectively argue that those problems do not even e8ist in the first place in the neg world. Str'i0#t 'n* W'$$'ce Drite3
!aul ;trait F?:7H and #rett Wallace F?W7H. 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$heM%E;copeM%EofM%EGegativeM%E)iatM%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf An e8amination of the question offiating J-the ob2ectJ makes our position even more clear. &8cept for those who believe in -negative fle8ibility- as a cult(like religion, everyone
t#e ne0'ti=e s#ou$* not 1e '1$e to fi't t#e o1Cect of t#e ($'nH ot#erDise t#eir Din (ercent'0e Dou$* sByrocBet 't t#e e9(ense of t#e 'ffir,'ti=e% magine you are running an affirmative which gives condoms and educational
agrees that assistance in order to solve an O /<A ,; advantage. What substantive answer would you have to a counterplan that had all people infected with O / become celibate= 3r
su((ose your ($'n D's *esi0ne* to so$=e ' 0enoci*e% T#e counter($'n to #'=e t#e cu$('1$e 0o=ern,ent ce'se Bi$$in0 (eo($e (ro1'1$y so$=es your 'ffir,'ti=e 1etter t#'n you cou$* e=er #o(e to Dit# t#e ($'n% T#ese 're intuiti=e$y unf'ir3 ,'Bin0 it i,(ossi1$e for t#e 'ffir,'ti=e to 0ener'te
C1
82/169
offense% #ut what 111lewould we udopt to preclude their discussion= !erhaps the negative should not be able to fiat a decision(maker who is affected by the plan. &ven if
thcre was some non(arbirnuy way 1E decide what and who the plan affects. it is unclear if even that nile would be sufficient. 5onsider affirmatives which ufW""l"ue that the World Oealth 3ft,*mliAation is making somcthing worse. perhaps by offering defective medicine or equipl11cnt, and so the plan has the 7nited ;tates increase public health assistance in order to offset the poor assistance in rhe status quo. $he c3l6llterplao to have the WO3 change its policy solves the whole case, and the plan does not actually affect the WO3 Lthe ob2ect oflhe plan is still some( where in sub(;aharan Africa), so our previously identified mle is insuf( ficient fore8duding this cownerplan, yec it is abo intuitively wl,air.
W#en '$tern'ti=e '0ent fi't is '$$oDe*3 t#ere re'$$y is no non:'r1itr'ry ,et#o* of (re=entin0 o1Cect fi't% Since e=ery #'r, 're' is ' conseFuence of oneIs not so$=in0 it3 e=ery '$tern'ti=e '0ent counter($'n is 't $e'st ' $itt$e 1it o1Cect fi't% W#i$e so,e counter($'ns 're c$e'r$y IO,ore unf'irO t#'n ot#ers3 if De c'n '0ree Dit# t#e 0ener'$ (rinci($e t#'t o1Cect fi't #'r,s co,(etiti=e eFuity3 t#e on$y true so$ution is to (re=ent '$$ '$tern'ti=e '0ent fi't% '. Fonly read when 4es specifies the actorH Reci(roc'$ rese'rc# 1ur*ens . alternative agent fiat e8plodes the aff research burden since the aff must now research all agents who could potentially take the resolutional action. #ecause the neg knows the aff is constrained to the resolutional actor, they 2ust have to research action by one agent, creating a significantly smaller research burden. 4eciprocal research burdens are key to fairness because research is how we generate argumentation to win roundsI thus, if one side automatically has an easier research 2ob, then that side is placed at an unfair advantage. *. Fonly read when 4es specifies the actorH Reci(roc'$ i,('ct 0roun* . the aff is constrained to the benefits gained by the resolutional actor enacting the resolution, while the neg could pick any actor that could garner them greater benefits than the resolutional actor. $his is fundamentally unfair because the aff has to advocate policy by the resolutional actor. As a result, the neg is placed at an advantage by being able to choose an actor who always generates advantages compared to the affs actor. Oolding the neg to counterplans e8ecuted by the resolutional actor, eliminates that advantage. 4eciprocal impact ground is key to fairness because impacts are offense that ultimately determine who won or lost, so if one side can selectively pick better impact ground then that side is given an unfair advantage.
C%
83/169
5$tern'ti=e 50ent Fi't <OOD

A. 5ounterinterpretation" the negative may fiat a different actor than the affirmative advocacy with a solvency advocate # . meet 5. ;tandards" "% Ne0 f$e9i1i$ity . $he affirmative has the advantage of picking the plan for the debate and thus establishing the basis for the central argumentation of the round. $hus the affirmative has a substantial advantage going into the round because they get to introduce an interpretation of the resolution that uniquely advantages them alone. $hus the negative needs to check back the affirmatives ability to skew the affirmative advantage by having the ability to ad2ust to and beat back any of the countless possible affirmatives. Geg fle8ibility is thus key to fairness because it balances the offset of competitive equity created by the affirmatives ability to establish the grounds of the debate. % Dis'* 0roun*. $he aff gets more disad ground when run an alt agent counterplan since they can indict the specific actor, thus running ,As regarding the politics, implementation, backlash etc. $his means the aff gets more ability to leverage offense against a counterplan which is necessary since the counterplan is probably solving back a portion of the A5 offense. &quitable ground is key to fairness because ground is the basis for making arguments that win the round. ,A ground is also key to education because it forces debaters to address eachothers warrants because ,As can G3$ be ignored for the counterplan to still have significance in the round because e8tension of the counterplan e8tends the ,A as well. )urthermore critical thinking and argument comparison is required to weigh the benefits of a plan against its potential disadvantages, a key educational skill encouraged by debate. '. C#ecB on 'ff fi't J alternative agent fiat checks aff fiat because it prevents the aff from " A. making generic arguments that arent specific to the resolutional actor #. making arguments that the resolutional actor is capable of much more than it actually is. Alternative agent fiat presents a well(researched alternative that can demonstrate e8cessive or logically flawed aff fiat. 5hecking aff fiat is key to fairness because when the aff is allowed to invest its actor with the power to solve disadvantages to affirming, this places the neg at an unfair disadvantage because their ability to generate offense off the affirmative is destroyed. 5hecking aff fiat is also key to education because it grounds the debate in the real world, so the discussions generated by rounds are important to our life knowledge and not 2ust to individual debate topics. *. O=er$i,itin0" )orcing the negative to defend a particular agent overlimits the ground available to the negative because lose access to counterplans fiating actions taken by foreign governments, foreign organiAations, international organiAations, private organiAations, individuals, more specific subsets of the actor defended by the aff Li.e. the use of the 7; supreme court rather than congress), etc. $he negative is entitled to this ground because the negatives burden is to prove the affirmative advocacy undesirable through e8plicit or opportunity costs. ;evering negative access to key counterplan ground is unfair because the negative loses at least half of its ground because it no longer can effectively e8plain an opportunity cost of the plan because it can no longer defend these counterplans. Alt agent counterplan ground is key to education because they allow us to discuss a variety of different actors and develop an understanding of capacity of another agents action which thereby gives rise to knowledge about how other agents function in the real world. +. Re'$ Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0" When policy makers decide how to resolve a particular problem, they decide on the option that solves most effectively. f an alternative agent has the capacity to e8ecute the same policy in a far more effective manner, the agents policy makers would not take the action because it would prevent an
C'
84/169
alternative agent from taking better measures to solve. &ven if there is not a 1EEM probability that the other actor will take the action, an agent would not decide to implement their less effective version of a policy because then there is a 1EEM probability that a better option will never be implemented, while awaiting another actors policy still leaves a high probability of the enactment of the significantly better policy. $hus considering alternative agents action resembles real world(decision making while evaluating policies solely in terms of the available options of a single agent is unrealistically myopic. 4eal world decision making has the strongest link to education. Str'it and W'$$'cee8plain" W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decisions to 2oin the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern is finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in. $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es. While policy comparison sBi$$s are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bi* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions.
C*
85/169
6u$ti:'ctor fi't 1'*

5) Inter(ret'tion( $he affirmative must defend an action taken by a single sovereign nation state B) Vio$'tion( my opponents advocacy requires multiple actors to take an action C) St'n*'r*s
1. 4eal world decision making" :ultiple actor fiat allows the negative to assume the implementation of a policy that in reality has an incredibly low chance of ever being passed. $his is unique to multiple actor fiat because" 1. $heir difference in priorities and ideologies prevent them from coming to a consensus of the ultimate goal in pursuit. %. $heir fundamental differences also prevent them from agreeing how to implement a plan. '. Oaving multiple actors increases the likelihood of failure of the plan because miscommunication and disagreements render the plan infeasible. $he aff fails to take into account the evaluation of the probability of policies being implemented. $hus a key aspect necessary in decision(making is lost because when deciding whether there is a significant opportunity cost to an action the probability of the ne8t best option must be taken into consideration. Str'it and W'$$'ce) 5onsider what it means D#en ' Cu*0e =otes 'ffir,'ti=e or ne0'ti=e. ;upposing the affirmative has presented a topical plan, the
2udge votes affirmative when the plan is shown to be net(advantageous when compared to the status quo or a competitive alternativeI and the 2udge votes negative when the plan is shown to be less desirable than the status quo or a competitive alternative. f giving testimony to the 5ongress, the 2udge
Qt#eyR cou$* reasonably s'y" K1'se* on t#e 'r0u,ents I #'=e #e'r* over the last hour and a half, it Dou$* 1e 1etter for you to *o ? t#'n Y%1 n other words, after the debate is concluded, one entity could make a decision based on the information
presented. $his is not to say that 5ongress Lor anyone else) should make decisions based on the outcomes of scholastic debate roundsVwhat is important
t#e *e1'ters Di$$ #'=e 0one t#rou0# t#e (rocess of ,'Bin0 'n infor,e* *ecision% T#is is utterly i,(ossi1$e if t#e ne0'ti=e su((orts 'ction fro, so,e ot#er '0ent besides the one identified in the plan. ;ince the
is that entire point of fiat is to bracket off questions of 0would1 in order to focus completely on questions of 0should,1 questions of probability never get discussed. Fro,
t#e (ers(ecti=e of t#e '0ent identified in t#e ($'n3 the probability is 1EEM, since if t#ey *eci*e to '*o(t t#e mandates of the ($'n3 t#ere is 'n '1so$ute 0u'r'ntee t#'t t#ey Di$$ in fact *o so% @et if the plan is co,('re* to ' counter($'n in D#ic# E'('n Qis t#e 'ctorR carries out public health assistance r't#er t#'n t#e Unite* St'tes3 t#ere is ne=er ' situ'tion D#ere t#e Unite* St'tes cou$* ,'Be ' *ecision 1'se* on "!!S (ro1'1i$ity t#'t E'('n Dou$* t'Be 'ction if t#e Unite* St'tes *i* not% $hus3 QIRf the Con0ress had to consider if they should take action or some other decision(making body should take action, if they f'i$e* to consi*er the chance t#'t t#e ot#er *ecision:,'Bin0 1o*y Dou$* not in fact t'Be t#e desired 'ction3 t#ey Dou$* not #'=e 0one t#rou0# 'ny sort of $o0ic'$ *e$i1er'tion process. @et this is e8actly the way proponents of alternative agent fiat encourage debaters to
think.
$hus policy makers do not rely upon the implementation of another plan without taking into consideration the probability of that other plan being passed.
C+
86/169
4eal(world decision(making is the only standard that matters in the conte8t of debate. Str'it and W'$$'ce T#ree e8plain" Why debate= ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decisions to 2oin the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of out concern. 3ur concern is finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in . $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision: ,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es . While policy comparison sBi$$s are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bi* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions. %. )iat abuse" Assuming that multiple actors will agree to a policy allows for the negative to wish away problems of e8isting tensions between different actors that would prevent them from agreeing upon a policy in the real world. $his form of fiat is abusive because it eliminates tensions that prevent the status quo from solving the problem by itself, thus constituting as a form of ob2ect fiat because the neg is willing away the problem of the resolution rather than proposing a way to solve it. ;trait and Wallace"
An e8amination of the question of fiating 0the ob2ect1 makes our position even more clear. &8cept for those who believe in Rnegative fle8ibility as a cult( like religion, everyone agrees that t#e
ne0'ti=e s#ou$* not 1e '1$e to fi't t#e o1Cect of t#e ($'nH otherwise their win percentage would skyrocket at the e8pense of the affirmative. I,'0ine you 're runnin0 'n 'ffir,'ti=e which gives condoms and educational assistance in order to so$=e 'n HIV/5IDS '*='nt'0e% W#'t substantive 'nsDer Dou$* you #'=e to ' counter($'n t#'t #'* '$$ (eo($e infecte* Dit# HIV 1eco,e ce$e1'teN 3r su((ose your ($'n D's designed to so$=e ' 0enoci*e% T#e counter($'n to #'=e t#e culpable 0o=ern,ent ce'se Bi$$in0 (eo($e probably so$=es your 'ffir,'ti=e 1etter t#'n you cou$* e=er #o(e to with the plan. T#ese counter($'ns 're intuitively unf'ir3 ,'Bin0 it i,(ossi1$e for t#e 'ffir,'ti=e to 0ener'te offense . #ut what rule would we adopt to
preclude their discussion= !erhapse the negative should not be able to fiat a decision(maker who is affected by the plan. &ven if there was some non( arbitrary way to decide what and who the plan affects, it is unclear if even that rule would be sufficient. 5onsider affirmatives which argue that the World Oealth 3rganiAation is making something worse, perhaps by offering defective medicine or equipment and so the plan has the 7nited ;tates increase public health assistance in order to offset the poor assistance in the status quo. $he counterplan to have the WO3 Lthe ob2ect of the plan is still somewhere in sub(;aharan Africa), so our previously identified rule is insufficient for e8cluding this counterplan, yet it is also intuitively unfair. When alternative
Since e=ery #'r, 're' is ' conseFuence of no one;s so$=in0 it3 e=ery '$tern'ti=e '0ent counter($'n is 't $e'st ' $itt$e 1it o1Cect fi't% While some counterplans are clearly 0more unfair1 than others, if we can agree with the general principle that o1Cect fi't #'r,s co,(etiti=e eFuity3 t#e on$y true so$ution is to (re=ent '$$ '$tern'ti=e '0ent fi't%
agent fiat is allowed, there really is no non(arbitrary method of preventing ob2ect fiat .
8% un*er $i,itin0) <i=in0 the negative the ability to defend an action taken by multiple actors fiat gives
them almost infinite amount of ground. $here are so many actors that there are so many advocacies the negative can choose from to attack the affirmative. $he fact that the negative is also not bound by topicality e8acerbates the problem. Kimiting ground is key to fairness because the negative has so much more ground to base their
C9
87/169
arguments that they can have many advocacies on file and simply read the one that the opponent will not be able to answer. Kimits on ground is to education because running an advocacy that the opponent did not refer to would lower the amount of clash which is key to education.
CB
88/169
6u$ti:'ctor fi't 0oo*

5) Inter(ret'tion( the neg may advocate actions enacted by multiple agents. B) Vio$'tion( meet C) St'n*'r*s( "% Re'$ Dor$* '(($ic'1i$ity" With the dramatically increased interdependency of the
globaliAed community today, unilateral action is less common because all nations share similar concerns. Nuss1'u, warrants" !atriotism and 5osmopolitanism. :artha Gussbaum. http"<<faculty.capebretonu.ca<philosophy<'E1<pdfs<1M%E!atriotism.pdf T#e 'ir *oes not o1ey n'tion'$ 1oun*'ries% T#is si,($e f'ct c'n 1e3 for c#i$*ren3 t#e 1e0innin0 of t#e reco0nition t#'t3 $iBe it or not3 De $i=e in ' Dor$* in D#ic# t#e *estinies of n'tions 're c$ose$y intertDine* Dit# res(ect to 1'sic 0oo*s 'n* sur=i='$ itse$f% T#e (o$$ution of t#ir*:Dor$* n'tions D#o 're 'tte,(tin0 to 'tt'in our #i0# st'n*'r* of $i=in0 Di$$3 in so,e c'ses3 en* u( in our 'ir% No ,'tter D#'t 'ccount of t#ese ,'tters De Di$$ fin'$$y '*o(t3 'ny inte$$i0ent *e$i1er'tion '1out eco$o0y :: 's3 '$so3 '1out t#e foo* su(($y 'n* (o(u$'tion :: reFuires 0$o1'$ ($'nnin03 0$o1'$ BnoD$e*0e3 'n* t#e reco0nition of ' s#'re* future% $hus unified actions taken by multiple actors are most reflective of the real world because nations work together to achieve their shared goals. $he interdependency of nations limits the efficacy and frequency of unilateral action. 4eal world applicability is key to fairness because it provides the most predictable basis of pre(round knowledge. We can only use knowledge of circumstances we know e8ist in the real world in round. $hus acting in accordance to how the world functions is the most predictable. !redictability is key to fairness because one debater is unfairly advantaged if they have knowledge about the round that the other debater does not.
% To(ic Liter'ture" ;evering neg access to arguments referring to multiple actors severs me from
critical and prevalent topic literature. :y opponents interpretation renders topic literature about treaties, decisions established at international conferences, alliances etc. that discuss such action useless. $his particular topic literature is key to education because it develops debaters understanding of international relations, substantive education that will be critical and applicable in the real world because the internal arena has a direct impact on the lives of all debaters and non(debaters. $his is also key to fairness because denying me from key topic literature severs access to good argumentation and thus hinders my ability to win the round.
8% Turn 'n* D5 <roun*) ,efending multiple actors grants the affirmative access to massive
amounts of turn and ,A ground as they can indict any of the actors involved in the plan. ;ingle actor fiat only gives the aff access to offensive arguments related to that particular actor. $his ground is key to education because it increases debaters knowledge of different actors, and increases depth of research
CC
89/169
that the negative will be able to use to win the round. $his ground is also key to fairness because giving access to a sufficient quantity of offensive aff argumentation is necessary for the aff to have a fair chance to win the ballot.
CD
90/169
Intern'tion'$ Fi't 1'*

5% Inter(ret'tion) the negative must defend the actor indicated by the resolution or specified by the affirmative. B% Vio$'tion) :y opponent fiats an international body. C% St'n*'r*s) "% Re'$ Wor$*) n the real world you cannot 2ust fiat international actors such as the 55 and 7G for two reasons. '% $here are multiple steps to getting a plan or resolution passed through these agencies. 3ne cannot simply fiat the end result without 2ustifying and proving the steps taken to get there. $his is unfair because it allows my opponent to skip ma2or steps and is not educational because these important and key steps arent discussed. 1% nternational actor fiat allows the negative to assume the implementation of a policy that in reality has an incredibly low chance of ever being passed. $his is unique to international actor fiat because" i. $heir difference in priorities and ideologies prevent them from coming to a consensus of the ultimate goal in pursuit. ii. $heir fundamental differences also prevent them from agreeing how to implement a plan. iii. Oaving multiple actors increases the likelihood of failure of the plan because miscommunication and disagreements render the plan infeasible. $he neg fails to take into account the evaluation of the probability of policies being implemented. $hus a key aspect necessary in decision(making is lost because when deciding whether there is a significant opportunity cost to an action the probability of the ne8t best option must be taken into consideration. Str'it and W'$$'ce) 5onsider what it means D#en ' Cu*0e =otes 'ffir,'ti=e or ne0'ti=e. ;upposing the affirmative has presented a topical plan, the 2udge votes affirmative when the plan is shown to be net(advantageous when compared to the status quo or a competitive alternativeI and the 2udge votes negative when the plan is shown to be less desirable than the status quo or a competitive alternative. f giving testimony to the 5ongress, the 2udge Qt#eyR cou$* reasonably s'y" K1'se* on t#e 'r0u,ents I #'=e #e'r* over the last hour and a half, it Dou$* 1e 1etter for you to *o ? t#'n Y%1 n other words, after the debate is concluded, one entity could make a decision based on the information presented. $his is not to say that 5ongress Lor anyone else) should make decisions based on the outcomes of scholastic debate roundsVwhat is important is that t#e *e1'ters Di$$ #'=e 0one t#rou0# t#e (rocess of ,'Bin0 'n infor,e* *ecision% T#is is utterly i,(ossi1$e if t#e ne0'ti=e su((orts 'ction fro, so,e ot#er '0ent besides the one identified in the plan. ;ince the entire point of fiat is to bracket off questions of 0would1 in order to focus completely on questions of 0should,1 questions of probability never get discussed. Fro, t#e (ers(ecti=e of t#e '0ent identified in t#e ($'n3 the probability is 1EEM, since if t#ey *eci*e to '*o(t t#e mandates of the ($'n3 t#ere is 'n '1so$ute 0u'r'ntee t#'t t#ey Di$$ in fact *o so% @et if the plan is co,('re* to ' counter($'n in D#ic# E'('n Qis t#e 'ctorR carries out public health assistance r't#er t#'n t#e Unite* St'tes3 t#ere is ne=er ' situ'tion D#ere t#e Unite* St'tes cou$* ,'Be ' *ecision 1'se* on "!!S (ro1'1i$ity t#'t E'('n Dou$* t'Be 'ction if t#e Unite* St'tes *i* not% $hus3 if the Con0ress had to consider
DE
91/169
if they should take action or some other decision(making body should take action, if they f'i$e* to consi*er the chance t#'t t#e ot#er *ecision:,'Bin0 1o*y Dou$* not in fact t'Be t#e desired 'ction3 t#ey Dou$* not #'=e 0one t#rou0# 'ny sort of $o0ic'$ *e$i1er'tion process. @et this is e8actly the way proponents of alternative agent fiat encourage debaters to think. $hus policy makers do not rely upon the implementation of another plan without taking into consideration the probability of that other plan being passed. 4eal(world decision(making is the only standard that matters in the conte8t of debate. Str'it and W'$$'ce T#ree e8plain" Why debate= ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decisions to 2oin the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of out concern. 3ur concern is finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in. $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es. While policy comparison sBi$$s are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bi* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions. '. Un*er:$i,its 0roun*" f the negative may defend an international actor, the negative ground e8plodes because a. the negative has multiple different potential international actors they could possible defend. b. the negative can defend countless possible different policy options for each of the multiple international actors )ailing to limit ground destroys competitive equity because then the negative is tremendously advantaged because they have access to more arguments to win them the ballot.
D1
92/169
Intern'tion'$ fi't <oo*

5% Inter(ret'tion) T#e 'ffir,'ti=e/ne0'ti=e ,'y fi't 'n intern'tion'$ '0ent B% St'n*'r*s) '% 7o$itic'$ Re$e='nce) n the world today, the most politically relevant actor is an international body such as the 7G or the 55. $his is because they have the ability to affect the most countries as they are not only a coalition of countries but also have the ability to transcend international boundaries. $herefore, we ought to allow international fiat because it models the most politically relevant body, which is key to education. t is key to education because in the debate and through research we are learning how the real world process works. 1% Fie$* conte9t @,'Be sure t#is *oes '(($y to reso$utionA) 7nder the given resolution, an international actor fits into the field conte8t of the resolution. $herefore if the field from which we evaluate the resolution has an international actor, it is only fair that am allowed to fiat an international actor. c% Turn 'n* D5 <roun*" ,efending multiple actors grants the affirmative access to massive amounts of turn and ,A ground as they can indict the international actor specified by the counterplan. ?round indicting international actors is crucial for the affirmative because international actors involve multiple agents. $hus the aff. has the opportunity to generate offense from the multiple different actors involvement in the international community as well as from the interaction with the nations within the international institution. $his ground is key to education because it increases debaters knowledge of the details of different actors, and increases depth of research that the negative will be able to use to win the round. $his ground is also key to fairness because giving access to a sufficient quantity of offensive aff. argumentation is necessary for the aff. to win the ballot.
*% To(ic Liter'ture" ;evering neg. access to arguments referring to international actors severs me from critical and prevalent topic literature. $his interpretation renders useless topic literature about the 7G, GA$3, the &7, international criminal courts, etc. that discuss such action. $his particular topic literature is key to education because it develops debaters understanding of international relations, allowing for a substantive education that will be critical and applicable in the real world because the internal arena has a direct impact on the lives of all debaters and non( debaters.
D%
93/169
7ri='te 'ctor fi't 1'*

5% Inter(ret'tion) $he W X may only fiat the actor of a sovereign nation state, international body, or multi( actor. B% Vio$'tion) :y opponent fiats a private actor. 5. ;tandards" 1. 7nlimits negative ground" f the negative may defend an private actor, the negative ground e8plodes because" a. the negative has infinite potential private actors they could possible defend. b. the negative can defend countless possible different policy options for each of the countless private actors. )ailing to limit ground destroys competitive equity because then the negative is tremendously advantaged because they have access to more arguments to win them the ballot. 3verlimiting ground also destroys education because it then becomes impossible for the other debater to predict and prepare answers to all of the potential positions they may hit. $his loss of predictability prevents debaters from engaging in each others arguments and thus decreases clash, thereby eliminating the critical thinking and argument comparison that constitutes the educational aspect of debate. %. 4eal World decision making" 4eal world decision makers must take into account the probability of the action being taken in order to decide if that is the best policy to pursue. #ecause an actor has no full control over any actor other than itself, it can never have a guarantee that another agent will act accordingly. $he neg fails to take into account the evaluation of the probability of policies being implemented, a key aspect necessary in decision(making is lost. ;trait and Wallace continue" 5onsider what it means D#en ' Cu*0e =otes 'ffir,'ti=e or ne0'ti=e. ;upposing the affirmative has presented a topical plan, the 2udge votes affirmative when the plan is shown to be net(advantageous when compared to the status quo or a competitive alternativeI and the 2udge votes negative when the plan is shown to be less desirable than the status quo or a competitive alternative. f giving testimony to the 5ongress, the 2udge Qt#eyR cou$* reasonably s'y" K1'se* on t#e 'r0u,ents I #'=e #e'r* over the last hour and a half, it Dou$* 1e 1etter for you to *o ? t#'n Y%1 n other words, after the debate is concluded, one entity could make a decision based on the information presented. $his is not to say that 5ongress Lor anyone else) should make decisions based on the outcomes of scholastic debate roundsVwhat is important is that t#e *e1'ters Di$$ #'=e 0one t#rou0# t#e (rocess of ,'Bin0 'n infor,e* *ecision% T#is is utterly i,(ossi1$e if t#e ne0'ti=e su((orts 'ction fro, so,e ot#er '0ent besides the one identified in the plan. ;ince the entire point of fiat is to bracket off questions of 0would1 in order to focus completely on questions of 0should,1 questions of probability never get discussed. Fro, t#e (ers(ecti=e of t#e '0ent identified in t#e ($'n3 the probability is 1EEM, since if t#ey *eci*e to '*o(t t#e mandates of the ($'n3 t#ere is 'n '1so$ute 0u'r'ntee t#'t t#ey Di$$ in fact *o so% @et if the plan is co,('re* to ' counter($'n in D#ic# E'('n Qis t#e 'ctorR carries out public health assistance r't#er t#'n t#e Unite* St'tes3 t#ere is ne=er ' situ'tion D#ere t#e Unite* St'tes cou$* ,'Be ' *ecision 1'se* on "!!S (ro1'1i$ity t#'t E'('n Dou$* t'Be 'ction if t#e Unite* St'tes *i* not% $hus3 if the Con0ress had to consider if they should take action or some other decision(making body should take action, if they f'i$e* to consi*er the chance t#'t t#e ot#er *ecision:,'Bin0 1o*y Dou$* not in fact t'Be t#e desired 'ction3 t#ey Dou$* not #'=e 0one t#rou0# 'ny sort of $o0ic'$ *e$i1er'tion process. @et this is e8actly the way proponents of alternative agent fiat encourage debaters to think.
D'
94/169
!rivate actors are especially hard to predict because they are each driven by individual concerns and do not have obligations to anyone but themselves. $hus private actor action is impossible to predict and cannot be a potential option when making real world decisions. 4eal(world decision(making is the only standard that matters in the conte8t of debate. Str'it and W'$$'ce T#ree e8plain" Why debate= ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decisions to 2oin the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of out concern. 3ur concern is finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in. $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es. While policy comparison sBi$$s are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bi* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions.
D*
95/169
7ri='te 'ctor Fi't 0oo*

A . 5ounterinterpretation" the negative may fiat an action taken by a private actor # . meet 5 . ;tandards 1. ,epth of discussion" )orcing the affirmative to compare their plan to a specific advocacy implemented by a private actor increases the depth of discussion because debaters are forced to defend and compare between different solvency evidence and strength of internal links. ;pecifying a very particular actor as opposed to a governmental or prominent figure gives rise to more in depth discussion of the affirmative advocacy because the affirmative is forced to think critically about how their evidence compares to the less prevalent alternative agents rather than make a general comparison to a predicable alt agent. %. #readth of research" #ecause there are multiple potential private actors, both debaters are incentiviAed to research more in order to prepare blocks to potential positions and to find the best private actors to advocate in their counterplan. #readth of research of private actors is key to education because an understanding of the crucial actors of the international arena will be the most relative substantive knowledge to be carried outside of rounds because the actions of such actors will have a direct impact on us daily and thus will constantly be discussed. 8% Ne0 f$e9i1i$ity . $he affirmative has the advantage of picking the plan for the debate and thus establishing the basis for the central argumentation of the round. $hus the affirmative has the substantive advantage going into the round because the aff gets to introduce an interpretation of the resolution that uniquely advantages them alone. $hus the negative needs to check back the affirmatives ability to skew the affirmative advantage by having the ability to ad2ust to and beat back any of the countless possible affirmatives. $hus neg ability to fiat the action of a private actor allows the neg to balance this aff advantage because since the affirmative has multiple options to choose from before the round, the negative must be able to have different potential counterplans to compete. Geg fle8ibility is thus key to fairness because it balances the offset of competitive equity created by the affirmatives ability to establish the grounds of the debate. ,. /ote"
D+
96/169
7CCS B'* @Consu$tA

5% Inter(ret'tion) $he neg may only run !55s that are not dependent on e8ternal agents. B% Vio$'tion) $he neg has runs a !55 in which they consult an e8ternal agent. 5. ;tandards" "% 7re*ict'1i$ity) $here are an infinite amount of agents the neg. can choose for his<her consult !55. #ecause there are essentially an infinite amount of agents, can never truly know which one my opponent will choose, and thus, consult !55s are unpredictable. !redictability is key to fairness, because if dont know neg. advocacy, have no way to prepare for it, whereas my opponent will be super prepped out for it, creating an unfair situation % I,('ct <roun*) #y running a !55, the negative co(opts all my impacts. &ssentially, my opponent forces me to debate against my own plan. $he entire 5! is 2ust do the affirmative plan A)$&4 a certain agent is consulted, meaning that am forced to either, A. Attack my own plan, only to have my opponent kick the !55 and turn my case in the ne8t speech 34 #. gnore the !55 8% C$'s#) :y opponent running a !55 allows him to avoid having to respond and clash with my advocacy. $his is uneducational, because it stops us from having a substantive debate. A substantive debate is important because it is where most the education in the round comes from. Also without clash the debate looses educational value in the sense of learning argumentation skills. 2% 7$'n <roun*) $he negative fails to be te8tually competitive with the affirmative. What this means is that the negative is not only doing the affirmative plan and more, but that more could potentially be part of the affs original plan as it is te8tually competitive. $his means that the negative is taking the affs plan ground. !lan ground is key to fairness because it is one of the few ways that the affirmative can solve the resolution.
D9
97/169
7CCS B'* @De$'yA

5% Inter(ret'tion) $he neg may only run counter(plans that are enacted in the present. B% Vio$'tion) $he neg has run a counter(plan that is in the future. 5. ;tandards" "% 7re*ict'1i$ity) f it is impossible to predict any time in the future when they will pass the 5!. t could be from a second after the plan passes or go on infinitely. #ecause there is no conte8t of the 5! when it is, can never generate any offense against it. $his destroys fairness in any given debate because it allows one debater to never actually 2ust engage in clash but force one to prove the impossible. Also, $his hurts education because we can never predict what we are learning about then we wont be able to learn it. % Rese'rc# Bur*ens) Got only is the A)) burdened to research the impacts of the plan in the statusquo but is now burdened with researching impacts into the distant future which is impossible because the future is uncertain and has not been fully constructed. $he neg however, has a much easier research burden because merely have to have to research for their !55. . $his is inherently unfair, because one side should not have to do a substantially more amount of research, and uneducational because if am forced to research every single !55, cannot actually go in depth with my research. 8% Tu'$ity of <roun*) #y waiting until later to implement the !55 the neg unfairly skews the quality of the ground in their favor. $hey do this by waiting until the quality of the ground each side is debating on has changed in their favor and then and only then, implementing the !55. $he quality of ground is key to fairness because ground is our ability to generate offense and so if they wait until they can generate higher quality offense they are being a distinct advantage which is unfair. Also delaying harms education in a debate round because then there is no necessity for clash about whether or not it would work in modern because either side could say wait %E years for when it is favorable and so 2% C$'s#) :y opponent running a !55 allows him to avoid having to respond and clash with my advocacy. $his is uneducational, because it stops us from debating the substantive debate, which is the most educational part of the round, whereas forcing my opponent to actually clash with my advocacy forces him to make substantive arguments. ,.
DB
98/169
7CCS B'* @Con*itionA

5% Inter(ret'tion) $he neg may only run a !55 that has no additional conditions. B% Vio$'tion) $he neg has added a condition to their !55. 5. ;tandards" 1. !redictability" $here are an infinite number of antecedents that could be added on to a plan which makes prep impossible for the A)) because can never truly know which one my opponent will choose, and thus, condition !55s are unpredictable. $his destroys fair debate because it grants one side a much larger advantage for winning before coming in the round. %. 7nderlimiting" Allowing the neg to put any conditions on their !55 is under limiting the neg. $his is bad as it gives them access to an absurd number of ways to avoid any potential harms that come as a result of running the !55 without conditions. n order to be fair in this any given debate round we must not under limit the neg because it only gives them access to aff arguments, which is unfair. '. ?round ;kew" his skews the ground to the G&?s favor because they can generate any offense off of the smallest disadvantage and 2ustify it for the 5!. $his renders any A)) impact, regardless of the siAe, meaningless because if the G&? gets a risk of offense then the 5! is beneficial. $he A5 is irrelevant and guarantees that debate will only occur on the G&? side. $his means that the A)) can never win because their ground is irrelevant in the G&? world which hurts fairness because competitive equity is violated. !lus this hurts education because we only engage in irrelevant debate on one side but ignore half of the resolution which means we can never ma8imiAe our education. ,.
DC
99/169
7CCS <oo* @<ener'$A

5% Inter(ret'tion) $he neg may run !55. B% I ,eet) run a !55. C% St'n*'r*s) "% Re'$ Wor$* 5(($ic'1i$ty) Allowing for time frame permutations allows the debate to reflect the real world as much as possible. !olicy makers always have to consider the e8ternal, when making decisions. 4eal world decision making has the strongest internal link to education. $he scope of negative fiat and the logic of decision making. K. !aul Str'it ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,. It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% Also, this is key to fairness because arguments that arent grounded in the real world are unpredictable as they are fundamentally different, giving me a disadvantage by forcing me to run something that my everyday e8perience contradicts % Best 7o$icy O(tion" We test the A5 to find the best policy option, this increases education by testing the validity of the A5. $his is real world because policy makers do this all the time to see what the best course of action is and ad2ust policy based on the finding. 8% C7 <roun*) #y allowing for !55s, we are preserving an important type of 5! ground for the negative. $his is important for the debate because without this ground, the debate becomes unfairly skewed.
D%
DD
100/169
Wor* (ics 1'*

nterpretation . $he negative may not use a word pic. /iolation . $he negative used a word pic. ;tandards . "% Ste'$in0 <roun* . word ! 5s steal the ma2ority of offense of the affirmative . drawing down the debate to the functionality of the word 0the1 or some other insignificant difference. $his kills education by allowing the neg to steal all of the affirmatives offense, killing clash and kills fairness by making it so that the aff can never win. % Str'te0y SBeD ($he negative cannot be allowed to create a counter(plan that includes the affirmatives entire plan with only an insignificant addition because the negative is then immediately allowed to solve for everything in the affirmative world. n addition, the G&? is allowed to gain net benefits off of the counter(plan as well. $his is e8tremely unfair because the affirmatives plan then becomes insignificant if the negative is consistently able to add resolutional advocacies to their counter( plan. n reality they are 2ust advocating affirmative ground. $he negative then has a much greater opportunity to win the round because they simply took the affirmatives plan and incorporated it into their own, making the debate e8tremely un(educational as it doesnt force negative to come up with creative strategies that e8plore other facets of the debate. 8% C$'s#( #y using a plan inclusive counter(plan, the negative is eliminating any te8tual competition between the affirmatives plan which removes a relatively large amount of clash from the debate round. $his occurs due to the fact that the entire affirmative plan is being used in the negative regardless. $here can be no arguments about why the affirmative plan is bad, but only why we should prefer the counter( plan, which allows for much less clash in the round. #ecause clash is where we apply the most of our critical thinking and argumentation skills, eliminating clash in round allows for an e8tremely un( educational debate.
1EE
101/169
Wor* (ics 0oo*

nterpretation" $he negative may run word ! 5s ;tandards Re'$ Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0: Word(! 5s best reflect how decision makers choose options. f a policy has a racial slur, they take it out so to not cause bad impacts. As policy makers try to find the best policy option, words are added or removed in this pursuit. 4eal world decision making is the most important impact to education. K. !aul ;trait L?eorge :ason 7niversity) and #rett Wallace %L?eorge Washington 7niversity) 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide %EEB,http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$heM%E;copeM%EofM%EGegative M%E)iatM%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf $he ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key still. t is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. ,ecision(making transcends all boundaries between categories of learning like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. $he implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real(world decision(making are comparatively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. t is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions. Better 5C Dritin0: word pics force affs to actually know their plans and write good acs. $hey must know why every word in their te8t is important and not 2ust randomly throw together a sentence as their plan te8t. With better plan te8ts come better and more nuanced debate that encourages critical thinking instead of generic responses to advantages. And, we learn how to make better A5s meaning we encourage how to find the best policy option which is what real world decision makers try to do, linking to straight and Wallace. )inally, this isnt unreasonable as they only have to 2ustify one sentence. f they say this burden is too high, they are 2ust being too laAy to defend the entirety of one sentence that they wrote. De(t# of rese'rc#( by ! 5ing out of one word, we go deep into the literature and find specific evidence for why one issue, a single word, is good or bad. Gothing can be more in(depth than a single word as all evidence concerning it revolves around this singular argument. ,epth of research is key to education because we only learn arguments when we have a deep enough understanding of it to apply in other fields. Bre't# of rese'rc#( there are many words in the resolution<A5 plan te8ts that could be used. $his encourages us to research many issues regarding the implications of using words. $he negs must research across many critical fields to find the best word ! 5 and affs have to research all of their plan te8t to be prepared for pics. We research a breath of words across the lit, meaning we learn more rather than less, thus clearly increasing our education. De(t# of 'r0u,ent'tion" we go deep into one issue for the debate( a single word. $his is the most depth we can have in round as we deeply e8plore the nuances of a single issue. We get the education of deep thinking and clash instead of responding at the tagline level. Word ! 5; force us to have a specific understanding of what we debate.
1E1
102/169
Bre't# of 'r0u,ent'tion: as e8plained that there are many different word ! 5;, people ! 5 out of different words meaning over the course of the year we debate many different pics instead of stale debates over utilitarianism<deontology and generic topic stuff every round. Fin'$$y3 no other type of education applies more directly to our lives than education about specific words. We use thousands of them all the time in our every day discourse, meaning what we learn from them is systemic and encompassing of almost everything we do. And, the words we use affect our action, meaning it affects us the most.
Lakoff writes:
Kakoff, ?eorge. F!rofessor of Kinguistics at 75 #erkeley, co(founder and ;enior )ellow of the 4ockridge nstituteH. J:etaphorical $hought in )oreign !olicy,J ,ecember 1DDD. Wwww.frameworkinstitute.org<products<metaphoricalthought.pdfX. 5ognitive linguistics is the field that studies this crucial part of what ? needs. t is a systematic, scientific approach within the cognitive sciences to the study of how we understand.
HoD De 'ct in ' situ'tion *e(en*s on #oD De un*erst'n* it% Our ,ec#'nis,s of un*erst'n*in0 're ,ost$y unconsciousI we have no direct conscious access to how we understand. Co0niti=e science, the interdisciplinary study of the mind, has made some deep and important *isco=erQe*]ies about the mechanisms of understanding. 3ne is t#'t De #'=e systems of conceptual structures Lcalled Jfr',esJ and JscriptsJ) t#'t De use to un*erst'n* situ'tions in t#e Dor$* . Another is that our understanding is, to a large e8tent, not straightforward or
Jliteral,J but rather makes use of a system of conceptual metaphors V ways to understand concepts in terms of other concepts, as when we understand affection in terms of warmth or purposes in terms of reaching destinations. Another important finding is that language is directly connected to such unconscious conceptual systems and metaphors. Oow we talk mattersI
t#e $'n0u'0e again and again ($'nts in t#e ,in* ' ,o*e of un*erst'n*in0% 5n* if you c'n 'ffect #oD ot#ers un*erst'n* situ'tions3 you c'n 'ffect D#'t t#ey *o in t#ose situ'tions% n short, t#ere is ' $inB from language to conceptual framing to 'ction. And in many cases, t#e $inB is fro, metaphorical $'n0u'0e to metaphorical framing to action.
one can learn a lot about how people frame situations from how they talk. 5onversely, having effective language to e8press ideas is e8tremely powerful. :erely hearing
1E%
103/169
Te9tu'$ . 6ec#'nic'$ Co,(etition

<roun*e* in te9t . the te8t is the only stable basis for how the plan works. $hus the te8t is the only
basis for how we evaluate competition. $opic lit is biased by their authors, killing fairness and education because the bias causes them to ignore alternative arguments and the like. S$o((y 5ffs . te8tual competition emphasiAes the importance of each word in the advocacy and the difference between the two. )ailure to do so fails to hold the aff to their advocacy and incentiviAes vague and incoherent aff writing so that they can capture as much neg offense as possible, killing fairness because of the possible advocacy shift and killing education by preventing clash. De(t# 0oo* . in(depth understanding of the effects of advocacies can only be evaluated after understanding the effects of the te8t. $his creates a more educational debate and a more fair, because we can ob2ectively understand all the effects of the advocacies
1E'
104/169
6ec#'nic'$ . Te9tu'$ Co,(etition

5A B'* (er,s . te8tual competition causes arbitrary permutations not based on the effects. $hese
perm are uniquely bad from debate because it separates the debate from educations and real world impacts . uniquely skewing ground away from the neg.
BA SDitc# Si*e *e1'te . te8tual competition kills switch side debating because both sides advocate
the same thing but differently worded. $his kills fairness because the neg can co(opt all aff offense and kills education by preventing clash. :echanical competition solves because the sides focus on the effects of the advocacies, not how they are worded.
1E*
105/169
&&&C#'(ter -) KritiB 5$tern'ti=es&&& Non:e9istent 5$ts B'*

Inter(ret'tion: Qs must have an alternative Vio$'tion: my opponent is running a Q without an alternative C% St'n*'r*s "% D5 <roun*: 4unning Qs with no alt skews my ground by denying me the ability to run ,As to the alternative or link them into their own Q. $hey can never show tangible solvency, which makes me lose my ability to indict the effectiveness of this alternative, which means lose more ground to answer the Q. $urn ground is key to fairness because when have less ways to affirm<negate the resolution and my opponent has an easier 2ob of winning then they are put at a structural advantage which makes this unfair. 6'0ic D'n* . Got having a Q alt means that either @ou vote for me because they can never solve for any of the impacts, or $hey have to use utopian fiat to solve their impacts which is going to outweigh any other argument to fairness because it allows them to wish away any and all harms, and education because we dont learn anything by 2ust hoping that everything we want will come true. 1. Reci(rocity) am forced to advocate an alternative to the squo, the Q has to have the same burden of providing an alternative to the world they are criticiAing. f the Q didnt have this, this would destroy reciprocal burdens because in order to win all the neg has to do is 2ust prove that there is something wrong that may happen but not that is solvable. St'1$e '*=oc'cy) When there is no alt in the Q, all my offense becomes meaningless because in my opponents ne8t speech, they can articulate an alternative and get rid of all my offense. $his avoids clash which is key to fairness and education and 2ustifies new plans in the %A4. D% Voters
1E+
106/169
ReCection is not 'n '$tern'ti=e

Inter(ret'tion( Qs must have an alternative Vio$'tion: my opponent is running a Q without an alternative. $hey claim that their alt is 2ust rethinking the problem but thats not an alternative because it doesnt promote another course of action and we cant quantify what it actually means. ;tandards $urn ?round( 4unning Qs with no alt skews my ground by denying me the ability to turn the alternative or link them into their own Q. $hey can never show tangible solvency, which makes me lose my ability to indict the effectiveness of this alternative. $hus lose key arguments that answer the Q. $urn ground is key to fairness because when have less ways to affirm<negate the resolution and my opponent has an easier 2ob of winning then they are put at a structural advantage which makes this unfair. Advocacy shift( Any turns or disads make to the alternative can 2ust be shifted out of in the ne8t speech because there is no specific advocacy that they are held to. ,isads and turns are to key negative ground because it is one of the main ways we can generate offense. f -m denied my main route to generating offense then am put at a structural disadvantage in picking up the ballot which makes this unfair. $his also destroys clash because it allows them to not answer my augments and shift out of them instead, decreasing educational comparative debate. Advocacy shift links to in(round predictability because if they have the ability to change their advocacy in the middle of the round, theres no way can predict what theyre going to go for. n(round predictability is key to fairness because if dont know what their advocacy will be, can never challenge it which means they always win. 6'0ic D'n* . Got having a Q alt means that either @ou vote for me because they can never solve for any of the impacts, or $hey have to use utopian fiat to solve their impacts which is going to outweigh any other argument to fairness because it allows them to wish away any and all harms, and education because we dont learn anything by 2ust hoping that everything we want will come true. Ti,e sBeD( in order to answer back this vague attempt at an alternative need to spend more time answering all the possible ways it could be construed in the ne8t speech. $his means my opponent gets a time advantage. :y opponent doing less work on the Alt conversely makes me do more work on the alternative which gives them a structural advantage which links to fairness.
+. real world decision making. 4e2ection is not consistent with real world decision making as one cannot simply abstain from making a decision in the event that one of the options has negative effects,I plans of action must be evaluated in relation to alternative courses of action, not abstention to truly promote real world decision making. ;trait and Wallace e8plain why learning how to make decisions is the only aspect of debate applicable to our every day lives. they write T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es besides breathing% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories QofR $e'rnin0 $iBe Jpolicy educationJ- and Jkririk education,J it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$
1E9
107/169
t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 'rc con*ucti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es%A D) Voter
1EB
108/169
7o$icy,'Bin0 . BritiB fr',eDorB

A. nterpretation" $he negative may only defend a policy making framework for evaluation of impacts #. violation" $he negative defends the kritik framework for evaluation of impacts 1" 4eal world decision(making. A" $he kritik framework is not consistent with real world decision making because real world decision makers do not attempt to uproot the entirety of pree8isting systems simply because they think that those systems are bad i.e. capitalism but merely do the best that they possibly can under a current system. #" We do not say that a decision is bad because of the way it is worded which marginaliAes others or 2ustifies bad things, but merely because of the implications of making that decision. ;trait and Wallace e8plain why learning how to make decisions is the only aspect of debate applicable to our every day lives. they write T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es besides breathing% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories QofR $e'rnin0 $iBe Jpolicy educationJ- and Jkririk education,J it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 'rc con*ucti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es%A 5. $he Q prevents us from looking to real world policies, thus preventing our rethinking of thinking in order to craft meaningful theory about the world E'r=is3 senior lecturer Y 7niversity of Australia, K L,.;.K. nternational 4elations and the 5hallenge of !ostmodernism ) T#ere 're, of course, (ro1$e,s Dit# onto$o0ic'$$y *eri=e* for,s of t#e ory. !ostmodemists naturally dismiss this conception of theory and are not entirely wrong for doing so. 4ealism is not above criticism, and structural(realism even more so.+C #ut then again, neither is postmodernismZ #ut this is not the point. am not here attempting to defend realism against postmodcrnism or to dismiss postmodernism entirely from the purview of nter national 4elations. 4ather, D#'t I ', 'tte,(tin0 to do is *efen* the institution of theory against postmodemism which, in its more virulent forms, aims at its deconstruction and obliteration. ;o too am attempting to defend t#e onto$o0ic'$ 's(ect of t#eory '0'inst t#ose D#o Dou$* en0'0e e9c$usi=e$y in e(iste,o$o0ic'$ *e1'te . For t#ere to 1e t#eory in Intern'tion'$ Re$'tions3 onto$o0ic'$ *escri(tion ,ust 1e t#e first or*er of t#in0sH Dit#out first *efinin0 t#e *o,'in of intern'tion'$ (o$itics3 i*entifyin0 t#ose entities 'n* t#in0s De Dis# to e9($'in 'n* un*erst'n*3 e(iste,o$o0ic'$ *e1'te Dou$* 1e '$to0et#er (oint$ess% ;ave for this, t#e *isci($ine t#re'tens to tr'ns(ose itse$f into (#i$oso(#y 'n* not Intern'tion'$ Re$'tions3 to 1e con*e,ne* to (er(etu'$ ,et'(#ysic'$ ref$ection 1ut Dit#out reference to t#e soci'$ Dor$* De 're 'tte,(tin0 to un*erst'n*% 3f course, t#is *oes not e9oner'te us fro, (re=ious ,ist'Bes . nternational 4elations, largely because of the dominance of positivism in the discipline, has, in the past, been apt to ontological description in the absence of epistemological reflection. !ractitioners in the discipline have rarely seen a need to question the epistemological basis of their scholarship as $homas #iersteker forcefully acknowledged. +D @et, as he also reminds us, *e=e$o(in0 t#eory 'n*
1EC
109/169
0ener'tin0 BnoD$e*0e reFuires Cu*icious use of 1ot# onto$o0ic'$ *escri(tion 'n* e(iste,o$o0ic'$ e9($'n'tion . T#ese 're not ,utu'$$y e9c$usi=e *i,ensions of t#eoretic'$ *iscourse3 1ut t#e e$e,ent'$ in0re*ients necess'ry to t#e construction of *iscourse itse$f% T#e e9c$usi=e focus u(on one *i,ension to t#e *etri,ent of t#e ot#er (ro1'1$y e9($'ins D#y, according to William Qreml and 5harles Qegley, KIntern'tion'$ re$'tions rese'rc# to*'y% % % #'s f'i$e* to re'c# '0ree,ent '1out several fun*',ent'$ issues. . . L1) the central questions to be asked, L%) the basic units of analysis Le.g., states or nonstate actors), L') the levels of analysis at which various questions should be e8plored, L*) the methods by which hypotheses should be tested and unwarranted inferences prevented, !" the criteria by which theoretical progress is to be 2udged, and L9) how inquiry should be organiAed in order to generate the knowledge that will lead to international peace, prosperity, and 2ustice.1 T#e critiFue i0nores t#e (r'ctic'$ si*e of $ife% We ,ust 1e '1$e to use $o0ic 'n* r'tion'$ity in or*er to so$=e t#e 1'sic (ro1$e,s of our society% E'r=is3 senior lecturer Y 7niversity of Australia, K L,.;.K. nternational 4elations and the 5hallenge of !ostmodernism ) $o what end these approaches will prove beneficial, however, to what end their concerns and depictions of current realities prove accurate remains problematic. What does seem obvious, though, is the continuing desire for understanding, the need to e8amine, comprehend, and make sense of events and, consequently, the need for theoretical endeavor. Des(ite Kni#i$istic *es('irL or c#'r0es of e(oc#'$ c#'n0e3 ,ost of us Di$$ D'Be u( to,orroD confronte* 1y ' Dor$* ,uc# t#e s',e 's to*'y3 one t#'t e9(eriences t#e recurrin0 (ro1$e,s of ineFu'$ity3 inCustice3 D'r3 f',ine3 =io$ence3 'n* conf$ict% V'rious (ro1$e,s Di$$ e,er0e 'n* so$utions to t#e, Di$$ 1e sou0#t% T#ese3 sure$y3 c'nnot 1e *econstructe* 's t#e su1 =ersi=e (ost,o*ernists insist3 1ut on$y reinscri1e* 's neD Fuestions% 5n* D#i$e De ,i0#t (ro1$e,'tiPe current BnoD$e*0e 'n* inter(ret'tions3 Fuestion our f'it# in science3 re'son3 'n* $o0ic3 or reinscri1e Fuestions in neD conte9ts3 to su((ose t#ese en*e'=ors contr'ry to t#e 'cti=ity of t#eory 'n* t#e se'rc# for ,e'nin0 'n* un*erst'n*in0 see,s ($'in$y '1sur*% If De '1'n*on t#e (rinci($es of $o0ic 'n* re'son3 *u,( t#e y'r*sticBs of o1Cecti=ity 'n* 'ssess,ent3 'n* succu,1 to ' 1$in* re$'ti=is, t#'t (ri=i$e0es no one n'rr'ti=e or un*erst'n*in0 o=er 'not#er3 #oD *o De t'cB$e suc# (ro1$e,s or 'ssess t#e ,erits of one so$ution =is:U:=is 'not#erN HoD *o De 0o '1out t#e 'cti=ity of $i=in03 ,'Bin0 *ecisions3 en0'0in0 in tr'*e3 *eci*in0 on soci'$ ru$es or ,'Bin0 $'Ds3 if o1Cecti=e criteri' 're not to 1e e,($oye* 'n* re'son 'n* $o0ic '1'n*one*N Oow would we construct research programs, delimit areas of inquiry or define problems to be studied if we abandon rationalist tools of inquiry= $he endless questioning necessitated by critiques prevents us from rationally making decisions. $his destroys education because the critical arguments ignore real world application and thus cannot be utiliAed outside of rounds. $his also links to fairness because if arguments are not grounded in the real world it will be impossible for debaters to predict the world that will be created in round. !redictability is key to fairness because one debater is severely disadvantaged if they are not prepared to make strong arguments that win the ballot. %" Ad2udicability" t is easier to 2udge debate rounds under the policy making framework than under the Q framework because the policy framework 2ust requires a comparison by the debaters of costs and benefits and the advancement of competing moral theories for e8amining policy action which link back to some operative term in the resolution. Oowever, the Q framework does not provide reasons why discourse that 2ustifies bad things constitutes a neg ballot or how to ad2udicate between competing discourse claims, which destroys fairness as it begs 2udge intervention on what discursive impacts are worst.
8% To(ic e*uc'tion) t#e ne0'ti=e c#'n0es t#e *e1'te to ' su1Cect ,'tter t#'t is not re$e='nt to t#e core to(ic issue% Bec'use critic'$ 'r0u,ents c'n 1e 0eneric'$$y $inBe* to '*=oc'cies of ,u$ti($e
1ED
110/169
to(ics3 t#ey *o not '**ress t#e s(ecific issues '**resse* in t#e reso$ution% To(ic s(ecific *iscussion is Bey for e*uc'tion 1ec'use *e1'ters t#en $e'rn fro, ' 1re'*t# of rese'rc# 1ec'use t#ey 're force* to $e'rn '1out t#e *ifferent issues surroun*in0 '$$ of t#e *ifferent to(ics r't#er t#'n on$y *e=e$o( one '*=oc'cy to '(($y t#rou0#out t#e ye'r% 7o$icy ,'Bin0 '$so 'cco,,o*'tes for *e(t# of rese'rc# 1ec'use *e1'ters rese'rc# in *e(t# to *e=e$o( s(ecific ($'ns to run on t#is to(ic3 'n* sti$$ co=er ' 1re'*t# of issues 's t#ey Drite *ifferent ($'ns for e'c# to(ic%
Non:i,($e,ent'1$e K 5$ts B'*

5% Inter(ret'tion) Q alts. must be realistic policy options. Vio$'tion) $he Q alt. cant be implemented in the real world B% St'n*'r*s) 1. ,isadvantage ground" lose all ground to implementation indicts and disadvantages because they never give a tangible implementation method. $his ground is key to answering Qs, and fairness because if cant garner offense off of the alternative, then can never win. % 4eal World" In re'$ Dor$* *ecision ,'Bin03 '*=oc'cies 'ctu'$$y #'=e to 1e i,($e,ente*% To *eny t#is Dou$* *estroy f'irness 1ec'use I ', force* to i,($e,ent ,y ($'n 1ut t#e K *oesn;t #'=e to i,($e,ent t#e '$t% 4eal world decision making is key to education $he scope of negative fiat and the logic of decision making. K. !aul ;trait ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in. $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% '. )iat abuse" Kack of a functional Q alternative is unfair because it is a form of ob2ect fiat in that instead of indirectly advocating a plan to attempt to solve the problem, the negative is essentially wishing away the problems. $his is unfair, because as Str'it and W'$$'ce Four writes"
11E
111/169
An e8amination of the question of fiating 0the ob2ect1 makes our position even more clear. &8cept for those who believe in Rnegative fle8ibility as a cult(like religion, everyone agrees that t#e ne0'ti=e s#ou$* not 1e '1$e to fi't t#e o1Cect of t#e ($'nH otherwise their win percentage would skyrocket at the e8pense of the affirmative. I,'0ine you 're runnin0 'n 'ffir,'ti=e which gives condoms and educational assistance in order to so$=e 'n HIV/5IDS '*='nt'0e% W#'t substantive 'nsDer Dou$* you #'=e to ' counter($'n t#'t #'* '$$ (eo($e infecte* Dit# HIV 1eco,e ce$e1'teN 3r su((ose your ($'n D's designed to so$=e ' 0enoci*e% T#e counter($'n to #'=e t#e culpable 0o=ern,ent ce'se Bi$$in0 (eo($e probably so$=es your 'ffir,'ti=e 1etter t#'n you cou$* e=er #o(e to with the plan. T#ese counter($'ns 're intuitively unf'ir3 ,'Bin0 it i,(ossi1$e for t#e 'ffir,'ti=e to 0ener'te offense. #ut what rule would we adopt to preclude their discussion= !erhapse the negative should not be able to fiat a decision(maker who is affected by the plan. &ven if there was some non(arbitrary way to decide what and who the plan affects, it is unclear if even that rule would be sufficient. 5onsider affirmatives which argue that the World Oealth 3rganiAation is making something worse, perhaps by offering defective medicine or equipment and so the plan has the 7nited ;tates increase public health assistance in order to offset the poor assistance in the status quo. $he counterplan to have the WO3 Lthe ob2ect of the plan is still somewhere in sub(;aharan Africa), so our previously identified rule is insufficient for e8cluding this counterplan, yet it is also intuitively unfair. When alternative agent fiat is allowed, there really is no non(arbitrary method of preventing ob2ect fiat. Since e=ery #'r, 're' is ' conseFuence of no one;s so$=in0 it3 e=ery '$tern'ti=e '0ent counter($'n is 't $e'st ' $itt$e 1it o1Cect fi't% While some counterplans are clearly 0more unfair1 than others, if we can agree with the general principle that o1Cect fi't #'r,s co,(etiti=e eFuity3 t#e on$y true so$ution is to (re=ent '$$ '$tern'ti=e '0ent fi't%
111
112/169
non:te9tu'$ '$ts 1'*

5% Inter(ret'tion"
Q alts. must have an e8plicit te8t B% Vio$'tion" $here is no te8t to the alternative C% St'n*'r*s
"% 5*=oc'cy"
#ecause the Q alt. does not have an e8plicit te8t, do not know what it is. $his creates a moving target because if generate offense off what think the Q alt. is, my opponent could 2ust say that was not the alt. they were advocating and get out of all of my offense. $his destroys fair debate because cannot generate offense, and thus win. $his also harms education because we cannot learn how to solve the Q. %. Ti,e sBeD #y not having a te8t to the alternative, this allows my opponent be a moving target and thus get out of all my offense. $his creates a time skew because by getting out of my offense, my opponent renders all the time spent making those responses useless. A time skew is inherently unfair because it gives one side a clear advantage over the other. '. Reci(rocity" am forced to have a te8t to my plan and present a stable advocacy but the Q doesnt have to have a written description between the status quo and the Q. $his destroys reciprocal burdens because it forces one debater to achieve more while granting an easy out for the other. $his also encourages argument irresponsibility because the Q is not responsible for defending the alt but am forced to defend my te8t for the entirety of the debate. $his e8acerbates the imbalance of fairness.
11%
113/169
Non:S(ecifie* 5ctor B'*

5% Inter(ret'tion) T#e K ,ust #'=e 'n 'ctor s(ecifie* B% Vio$'tion) T#e K *oes not s(ecify 'n 'ctor 1ut Cust 'n '1str'ct entity C% St'n*'r*s)
1.
7re*ict'1i$ity) #ecause the actor isnt specified in the Q, there are an infinite amount of actors my opponent can choose. $his lack of specificity prevents me from making responses, because cannot respond to something that does not e8ist. $his destroys fairness, because if cannot respond, cannot win, and education, because if cannot respond, we cant have an actual, educational debate. % 6o=in0 t'r0et T#is cre'tes ' ,o=in0 t'r0et 1ec'use if I 0ener'te offense off of 'n 'ctor t#'t I t#inB Dou$* #'((en in t#e Dor$* of t#e K3 ,y o((onent cou$* Cust s'y t#'t D's not t#e 'ctor t#ey Dere '*=oc'tin0 'n* 0et out of '$$ of ,y offense% T#is *estroys f'ir *e1'te 1ec'use I c'nnot 0ener'te offense3 'n* t#us Din% T#is '$so #'r,s e*uc'tion 1ec'use De ne=er $e'rn '1out #oD to so$=e t#e K% Re'$ Dor$* '(($ic'1i$ity) Got specifying an actor isnt real world, because we dont debate a realistic actor, which isnt real world. 4eal world decision making is key to education $he scope of negative fiat and the logic of decision making. K. !aul Str'it ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in. $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions%
11'
114/169
Res K;s B'*

5% Inter(ret'tion) Qs must be linked to the affirmative advocacy and not the resolution in general B% Vio$'tion) $he Q is linked to the resolution C% St'n*'r*s) 1. )or my opponent to run a Q on a word in the resolution is to say that 'ffs% s#ou$* ne=er Din% $he aff. debater is forced to either A. ,ebate the topic and link into the Q. #. Got debate the resolution, and be called untopical $hus, because am forced to debate the resolution, should not be punished for something in it. #lame the framers of the resolution for being inconsiderate, not the debater. %. Bre'*t# Allowing my opponent to run a Q on a word in the resolution is allows him<her to run the same thing over and over, and not have to make or research other argument. $hus, by prohibiting the Q, it forces him<her to research, allowing for education '. C$'s# :y opponent running a Q on a word in a resolution allows him to avoid having to respond and clash with my advocacy because Qs come before the substantive debate. $his is unfair because this makes my advocacy meaningless, and uneducational, because it stops us from debating the substantive debate, which is the most educational part of the round.
11*
115/169
&&&C#'(ter >) 7er,ut'tions&&& 7er,ut'tions Nee* ' Te9t

5 J Inter(ret'tion &very permutation must have a te8t. B: Vio$'tion $here is no te8t to the perm.
C: St'n*'r*s "% 6o=in0 T'r0et) Without an e8plicit te8t, the permutation becomes a moving target. :y opponent can respond to any argument make about how s<he perms by morphing it to delink responses. $he interpretation solves by holding the permutation to an e8plicit implementation. :oving targets are unfair as can only win the round if can answer my opponents case. :oving targets make answering my opponents arguments virtually impossible. :oreover, they allow my opponent to have an uncontestable piece of offense or defense that puts him<her at a structural advantage because they can contest all of my offense and defense. :oving targets also harm education since they dodge all clash in the round by evading my responses. 5lash is key to education as we learn from debate by comparing the advantages of different advocacies.
% Re'$ Dor$* '(($ic'tion( n the real world policy makers are forced to use a te8t for their
advocacy. Go one would pass a bill that wasnt written out. $his is an internal link to real world education because using a te8t best models how a procedure would take place in the real world. 4eal world education is the biggest link to education because the skills we learn in debate are only valuable in so far as we can apply them in the real world.
8% Reci(rocity . $he neg is forced to an alt or cp te8tI consequently, the aff should also be forced to a
perm te8t. 4eciprocity is key to fairness because the same thing should be required of both debaters to win the round or it is skewed towards one side and therefore unfair. 2% Co,('rin0 Wor$*s) Without a stable perm te8t we cant compare worlds, as the world with a permutation is nebulous. :y interpretation solves because it holds the perm to an e8plicit te8t so we know e8actly what the aff. world looks like. As a result, we know e8actly how the neg. and aff. worlds interact. $he ability to compare worlds is key to fairness for if this comparison cannot be made, then there is no ob2ective reason to prefer the aff or neg worlds. $his forces the 2udge to intervene which is unfair as it rewards a debater for something they didnt do. $his is also key to education as debate teaches us to compare the advantages of different options. ;ince my interpretation is the only one that permits for comparison, it is the most educational.
11+
116/169
7er, is 'n '*=oc'cy

5% Inter(ret'tion: $he affirmative is allowed to advocate the world of the perm
#. meet
C% St'n*'r*s
1. Ti,e SBeD) f the perm isnt an advocacy then its a time skew for the affirmative. #y testing the competition of the 5! and
proving that its non(competitive, the perm becomes defense on the 5!. $his skews my time because have to answer the 5!, but if cant garner offense off of it. $his also 2ustifies running multiple non(competitive 5!s so that my opponent can waste all of my time. ;ince its beneficial for the affs to increase their advocacy, perming has an advantage, which mitigates the time skew.
%. Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'Bin0) n the real world, policy makers look to see if they can include additional components to
their original plans. ;ince there is no advantage for the aff to use the perm as a test of competition, they are dis(incentiviAed from running it which is disingenuous to the way policy makers act. 4eal world decision making is key to education. /. 0"ul Strait &eorge #"son University and ,rett Wallace Write: &eorge ("shington University. Why debate? So)e o it for s$hol"rships, so)e o it for so$i"l purposes, "n )"ny 1ust !elieve it is fun. -hese "re $ert"inly "ll relev"nt $onsi er"tions when )"+ing the e$ision to 1oining the e!"te te"), !ut "s e!"te theorists they "ren2t the fo$us of our $on$ern. 3ur $on$ern in fin ing " fr")ewor+ for e!"te th"t e u$"tes the l"rgest 4u"ntity of stu ents with the highest 4u"lity of s+ills, while "t the s")e ti)e preserving $o)petitive e4uity. The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. It is the one thing every single one of us will do every day besides breathing. Decision making transcends boundaries between categories of learning li+e 5poli$y e u$"tion6 "n 5+riti+ e u$"tion,6 it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be olicymakers and it transcends !uestions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. -he i)pli$"tion for this "n"lysis is th"t the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real"world decision"making are com aratively greater than any e u$"tion"l disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best im rove all of our lives. (hile poli$y $o)p"rison s+ills "re going to !e le"rne through e!"te in one w"y or "nother, those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions.
5hecks back multiple neg advocacies( $he world of the perm checks back multiple conditional negative advocacies because it makes them a risk issue for the negative. nternal link to education because the negative will run better more warranted and more competitive advocacies if they know that they are a risk issue ,.
119
117/169
7er, is ' test of co,(etition

: the perm is only a test of competition
#( $hey are advocating the world of the perm.
C:St'n*'r*s "% 5*=oc'cy focus( if they are allowed to defend and gain offence from the world of the perm the
affirmative can win on benefits that dont have anything to do with their A5. $his kills topic specific education because they can 2ust derive random benefits off of the perm.
% 5*=oc'cy s#iftin0: Counter($'ns 're *esi0ne* to s#oD t#e o((ortunity cost of 'n '*=oc'cy% If t#e
counter ($'n isn;t co,(etiti=e it Cust ,e'ns its no $on0er 'n o((ortunity cost% T#e $o0ic'$ conc$usion isn;t t#'t it Dou$* t#en 1eco,e ('rt of t#e ($'n it Cust ,e'ns its no $on0er ' *is'*='nt'0e to t#e ($'n t#is is ' =oter for f'irness 1ec'use '**in0 ' nonco,(etiti=e non: to(ic'$ ($'nB to your ($'n is 'n '*=oc'cy s#ift Cust $iBe it Dou$* 1e if you '**e* t#'t De s#ou$* *o t#e ($'n 'n* 0i=e c'n*y to 1'1ies in t#e "'r%
8%Non: uniFue( &ven if they win that its an advocacy the benefits are non(unique because they also
happen in the world of the counter plan. $his means even if they win theory only unique offence of the perm will be the offence of the plan.
D%
11B
118/169
Se=er'nce (er,ut'tions 1'*

A is nterpretation" $o perm the 5! the aff must continue to defend the entirety their original advocacy. # is /iolation" $he Aff severed part of their original advocacy to perm the 5!. 5 is ;tandards" Turn <roun*" ;evering parts of their advocacy allows my opponent to kick the arguments m answering offensively. :y interp solves because s<he has to be held to a stable advocacy so they cant kick my turns. $urn ground is key to fairness as my opponent would otherwise have access to offensive arguments which cant gain offense off of. $his makes it easier for them to win as they have easier access to offense. Str't SBeD" can never form a coherent strategy if s<he can sever. dont know what arguments to go for because s<hell 2ust sever out all answers make and go for the arguments that will inevitably undercover. ;trategy skew is key to fairness as need to be able to formulate a strategy to compete with my opponent. ts also key to education as debate teaches us how to make strategic decisions. We only learn how to make strategic decisions if we can formulate strategies.
11C
119/169
SEVER5NCE 7ER6ut'tionS <OOD

A is 5ounter nterpretation" $he aff can sever part of their original advocacy to perm the 5!. # is ;tandards" 5ff F$e9" must be able to sever parts of my advocacy as it would be impossible for me to be able to e8tend the 9 minute A5 in four minutes. !ermitting severance perms therefore grants me aff fle8ibility as have greater control over which arguments can go for. $his increases fairness as anything which makes it harder to negate mitigates the empirical negative win bias. Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'Bin0" n the real world, policy makers choose to adopt the best plan possible. $his means that they re2ect parts of their original plans and adopt new measures to ma8imiAe net benefits. $his means, that severance perms most closely resemble real world decision making. 4eal world decision making is key to education. ;traight and Wallace
Why debate= ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decisions to 2oin the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern is finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in. $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es. While policy comparison sBi$$s are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those skills 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bi* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions.
11D
120/169
Intrinsicness 7er,ut'tions B'*

A) Inter(ret'tion J $he aff must permute the 5! by doing the plan and all or part of the 5!. #) Vio$'tion J $he aff permutes by doing the plan, all or part of the 5! and a third action. CA St'n*'r*s J a. C$'s# . ntrinsic perms 2ustify the affirmative perming out of every ,<A or 5! with the intrinsic perm. $his kills fairness by making it impossible for the neg. to win because the aff. can perm out of any arguments. )urthermore, it kills education by preventing any sort of a clash. b. 6o=in0 T'r0et . $he perm makes the aff. a moving target because it advocates an advocacy different from either the plan or the counterplan. $his ultimately kills fairness because it spikes against the offense built up in the last speech and kills education by preventing clash. c. Infinite$y re0ressi=e . $he permutation could do the plan, the 5!, and create world peace. $he negative would never be able to predict which of the thousands of different ways the aff. could add something to the perm to get around the net benefits. d. Ti,e sBeD. 4unning an intrinsic permutation is essential running ' conditional plans that are portrayed in one sentence. $his is in the sense that these plans can be dropped. #ecause the negs argument can be dropped anytime, there is a time skew in which the neg. has time to answer. $his is completely unfair as the affirmative has to choice of dropping it anytime. #y ensuring that the affirmative uses on the original advocacy we are promoting fairness in the round. e. 7re*ict'1i$ity) have no way to predict which third action my opponent will fiat to perm the 5!. $his is unfair as if cant predict what action they will fiat, cant prepare responses to that argument, so s<he will have quantitatively better research on that action than do. :oreover, will be forced to answer a new argument in the %G4, which effectively forces me to go new in the two. :y interp. solves because can reasonably predict the plan and counterplan.
1%E
121/169
Intrinsicness (er,ut'tions 0oo*

A is nterpretation" $he aff may perm the 5! and fiat an additional action. # is ;tandards"
1. Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'Bin0" n the real world policy makers look for most viable policy options. ;o they often modify an
original plan to accept alternative plans and other actions. $herefore, intrinsic permutations best resemble real world decision making. 4eal world decision making is key to education. /. 0"ul Strait &eorge #"son University and ,rett Wallace Write: &eorge ("shington University. Why debate? So)e o it for s$hol"rships, so)e o it for so$i"l purposes, "n )"ny 1ust !elieve it is fun. -hese "re $ert"inly "ll relev"nt $onsi er"tions when )"+ing the e$ision to 1oining the e!"te te"), !ut "s e!"te theorists they "ren2t the fo$us of our $on$ern. 3ur $on$ern in fin ing " fr")ewor+ for e!"te th"t e u$"tes the l"rgest 4u"ntity of stu ents with the highest 4u"lity of s+ills, while "t the s")e ti)e preserving $o)petitive e4uity. The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. It is the one thing every single one of us will do every day besides breathing. Decision making transcends boundaries between categories of learning li+e 5poli$y e u$"tion6 "n 5+riti+ e u$"tion,6 it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be olicymakers and it transcends !uestions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. -he i)pli$"tion for this "n"lysis is th"t the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real"world decision"making are com aratively greater than any e u$"tion"l disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best im rove all of our lives. (hile poli$y $o)p"rison s+ills "re going to !e le"rne through e!"te in one w"y or "nother, those skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions.
Rese'rc# Bur*en . ntrinsic perms make the neg research all possible ways their impacts can be solved, so that their authors advocate the 5!. $his improves clash and creates more actor specific knowledge, increasing education. Critic'$ t#inBin0 . ntrinsic perms force the neg to think quickly and effectively to answer strategic permutations. $his increases the unique form of education that we value debate for. C#ecB for *is'*='nt'0es( #y adding the new essential part to the original advocacy, it solves for the disadvantage against the advocacy. $his allows the debater to add one more plan to be added to give the advocacy more weight. $his creates an e8tra plan that needs to be argues allowing more clash to occur. $his will cause the education process to increase allowing the debaters to have more knowledge. 5ff f$e9i1i$ity( $he aff should have the fle8ibility to run a e8tra new plan to balance out the time skew. #ecause the neg is structurally advantageous, it gives the negative more time to answer the permutation. $herefore, in order to check back the time skew, the aff should have the fle8ibility to add a plan to $re"te f"irness.
1%1
122/169
Ti,e Fr',e 7er,ut'tions B'*

5% Inter(ret'tion) $he aff must permute the 5! within the same timeframe as the 5! and !lan. B% Vio$'tion) $hey change the timeframe to perm the 5!. C% St'n*'r*s) "% I,('ct <roun*) :y opponent is given access to their impacts and the impacts they get from delaying the plan. $his A. e8plodes impact ground for them AG, #. denies the fact that when we wait the uniqueness of the perm changes. $he implication is they are no longer entitled to the impacts of the perm as the global political system changes constantly. mpact ground is key to fairness as letting one debater have impacts they arent entitled to makes it easier for them to win the round as they have greater access to offense. % C$'s#) :y opponent running a time frame permutation allows him to avoid having to respond and clash with my advocacy. $his is uneducational, because it stops us from debating the substantive debate, whereas forcing my opponent to actually clash with my advocacy forces him to make substantive arguments. A substantive debate is key to education because it is where we do our in round learning. D%
1%%
123/169
Ti,e Fr',e 7er,ut'tions <oo*

5% Counter:Inter(ret'tion) $he aff may perm the 5! in an alternate time frame from the initial !lan and 5!. B% I ,eet% C% St'n*'r*s) "% Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'Bin0) n the real world policy makers are sometimes forced to wait to enact the plan and first enact other polices. $ime frame perms therefore best reflect real world policy making. 4eal world decision making is key to education. K. !aul Str'it ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$: Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,. It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% % 5FF F$e9i1i$ity) $he afformqtive is inherently at a disadvantage due to K,s time skew. $his is proven by empirical data that has shown that negatives win percentage is much higher. )urthermore, the negative has fle8ibility to chose the case of their choice while the permutations runs off the outcome fo the counter plan. n this case, there is absolutely no fle8ibility for the aff. #y allowing the affrimative to set up the time frame for the permutation, it increases the fairness of the debate. D%
1%'
124/169
&&&C#'(ter 4) Bur*ens&&& Sin0$e NIB B'*

nterpretation . both debaters must run Gecessary and sufficient burdens /iolation . the aff<neg runs a necessary but insufficient burden ;tandards a. Str'te0y sBeD( When my opponent ran a G #, he<she put into a double bind" either use up precious time and answer the burden which cannot win offense from or ignore and let my opponent to win off it. &ither way lose. $his is uneducational because we value debate for good and strategic decision making. $his double bind prevents me from e8ercising strategic decision making because whatever of the two choices make results in me losing.
b.
C$'s#: #ecause have to read this shell cant clash on a substantive level. #ecause there
isnt clash in the round it becomes impossible for the 2udge to evaluate creating intervention. $his kills fairness because intervention is arbitrary. $his is uneducational because clash is the main reason debate is educationally attractive.
c.
Reci(roc'$ 0roun*( G #s skew ground because he<she only has to win a single link to the standard
while have to win the both A5 and 1EEM of the G5 while he<she can win either. $his skew makes it impossible for me to win the round killing fairness and killing education because he<she doesnt have to substantively clash or weigh.
Ti,e SBeD J 4unning necessary but insufficient burden skews my time because have to respond to
any arguments that link to the burden and they can 2ust kick them in the ne8t speech. $his skew is uniquely abusive because it doesnt matter whether they kick it or not, because it has still skewed my time.
1%*
125/169
Sin0$e ni1 0oo*

A" 5ounter nterpretation" ,ebaters may run a single Gecessary but nsufficient #urden #" ;tandards 1) Aff )le8 . :y opponents interpretation hurts aff fle8ibility because it restricts the number of strategic options the aff can run. :y interp preserves aff fle8 because it gives access to greater argument diversity. $here is an empirically verified negative win skew because of neg time advantage and fle8ibility in picking a case to answer the A5. Aff fle8ibility is therefore key to fairness as it provides for more options in the round so affirmative strategies can better mitigate negative structural advantages. %) !hilosophical ?round . :any moral philosophies such as deontology rely on necessary but insufficient burdens. n deontology, an action that violates rights would be immoral while an action that didnt wouldnt be considered moral. Oence, limiting this philosophical ground would be unfair because it is key aff<neg ground on certain resolutions. t also hurts education because it e8cludes discussion about normatively relevant issues. ," )airness
1%+
126/169
6u$ti($e ni1s 1'*

5A Inter(ret'tions J 1ot# *e1'ters ,ust run necess'ry 'n* sufficient 1ur*ens BA Vio$'tion J t#e 'ff/ne0 runs ,u$ti($e necess'ry 1ut insufficient 1ur*ens CA St'n*'r*s J "A Ti,e SBeD J 4unning multiple G #s skews my time because have to spend time responding to any
arguments that link to them and they can 2ust kick them in the ne8t speech. $ime skew links to fairness because it puts me at a structural disadvantage in the round.
A Reci(roc'$ 1ur*ens ( G #s require that fulfill them or lose. Oowever even after fulfilling them merely break even and still have to prove the resolution true<false. $hus have two burdens to prove while my opponent has one. A lack reciprocal burdens is unfair because it makes it impossible for the other side to win.
&ither a. )ulfill the burden, and break even, or b. gnore the burden, and lose. 4egardless of what do, lose. Go risk issues are unfair because they provide an inherent advantage to my opponent, and uneducational because they discourage debate on substantive arguments
8A No risB ( Gecessary but insufficient burdens set up a no risk situation for my opponent.
2A Ti,e sBeD ( when
fulfill a necessary but insufficient burden only break even which means the time am forced to spend on the burden is meaningless. $his skew is unfair because it gives an advantage to one side and is uneducational because cant make substantial arguments.
+A Turn 0roun* ( When
fulfill a necessary but insufficient burden only break even which means cannot turn them. $urn ground is essential for fairness, because without them cannot generate offense.
-A Str'te0y sBeD ( #ecause my opponent is running multiple no(risk issues, regardless of the amount of
arguments make he<she can 2ust go for the one undercovered. cant develop a coherent strategy because cant predict what my opponent will go for in his<her ne8t speech. ;trategy is key to fairness because it determines how we make arguments that will help us, and my opponents multiple G #s prevent me from doing this. t is also key to education because strategy is what allows us generates substantive arguments.
>A Re'$ Dor$* '(($ic'1i$ity ( Gecessary but insufficient burdens are not real world applicable because
they lack a real impact. A lack of an impact means that we cannot compare impacts, a critical aspect of real life decision(making. 4eal world decision(making has the strongest internal link to education. $he scope of negative fiat and the logic of decision making. K. !aul Str'it ?eorge :ason 7niversity 'n* #rett W'$$'ce Write) ?eorge Washington 7niversity. W#y *e1'teN ;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations when making the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e Bey sBi$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 like 0policy education1 and 0kritik education,1 it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% $he implication for this analysis is that t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny educational *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,. It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of 1%9
127/169
our $i=es% While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions%
DA Voters
1%B
128/169
I,('ct:e9c$usi=e st'n*'r*s B'*

5% Inter(ret'tion . consequentialist standards must include all consequentialist impacts. B. Vio$'tion J C% St'n*'r*s J 1. Intern'$ $inB consistency J impact(e8clusive standards harm internal link consistency because they contradict their moral bases. $hey presuppose a utilitarian calculus but then limit impacts to only one thing, which is not reflective of the way utilitarianism actually works. nternal link consistency is key to fairness because can only weigh and compare arguments on a broad scale when internal links align with the larger focus. :y ability to e8ecute this strategy determines my ability to win the round, so when cant do it then m placed at an unfair disadvantage. nternal link consistency also fosters education because we gain a better understanding of ethical concepts when they are applied in a consistent manner. %. Reci(roc'$ i,('ct 0roun* J impact(e8clusive standards harm reciprocal impact ground because they make it impossible for me to generate consequentialist offense that links into the standard. $hey can then choose a standard that is easy for them to generate links to, but any arguments that would make linking into a utilitarian calculus would ostensibly have no impact upon the round. f the standard includes all consequentialist impacts, then we can both make and weigh similar impacts to determine the round. 4eciprocal impact ground is key to fairness as impacts determine our ability to garner offense that could win us the round, so one side is placed at a disadvantage by being allotted less impact ground. '. Str'te0y *istortion J impact(e8clusive standards skew the importance of the internal link, therefore skewing the siAe of their impacts. &ric !almer e8plains" &ric !almer. 0$ruth, 5omparison, and 6ustification in K, ,ebate.1 #ictory Briefs $aily. April 1+, %EEC. http"<<victorybriefsdaily.com<%EEC<E*<1+<truth(comparison(and(2ustification(in(ld(debate< Oftenti,es *e1'ters Di$$ (resent D'rr'nts for ' st'n*'r* D#ic# 're in trut#3 i,('cts to 'not#er st'n*'r* D#ic# t#ey 're t'Bin0 for 0r'nte*% )or e8ample, consider a negative case which makes the following claims" L1) oppression can lead to genocide, genocide is bad, so the criterion is preventing oppression, L%) affirming allows the construction of threats, which stifles some criticism of the stateI L') not being able to criticiAe the state is a form of oppression. <i=en t#e su((osition t#'t so,eti,es o((ression *oes $e'* to 0enoci*e3 t#is NC is '1$e to D'rr'nt t#e criterion K(re=entin0 o((ression%L T#is in turn '$$oDs t#e ne0'ti=e to Din off of t#e tiniest $inB to o((ression3 e=en if t#'t for, of o((ression is (ro1'1$y not sufficient to $e'* to 0enoci*e3 D#ic# is t#e re'$ re'son D#y De 're su((ose* to 1e Dorrie* '1out o((ression in t#e first ($'ce3 according to this case. T#is is c$e'r$y ' 1'* resu$t) D#'t t#is c'se #'s *one is s,u00$e* in ' $inB to genocide D#ic# #'s =irtu'$$y no (ro1'1i$ity of occurrin0% #ecause they separated the high(impact link story 2ustifying their standard from their contention(level arguments, any link is sufficient to get the really important consequentialist impact from the standard. )orcing them to weigh their impacts against other consequentialist impacts allows probability to play a role in determining siAe of impact. ;trategy distortion destroys fairness because it prevents me from using options like weighing or disads due to their ability to escape these arguments. t also harms education because A. in the real world, we must take probability and magnitude into account simultaneously to gain accurate understandings of the world And #. because have limited options for effective argumentation, cannot make as high(quality responses. $his decreases clash and therefore harms the potential benefits that we could gain from the round in terms of critical(thinking skills.
1%C
129/169
*. <roun*" f the negative can only impact back to a hyper(specific standard, they lose all ground that does not specifically link to the standard. f the aff standard is minimiAing terrorism, the neg loses all ground linking to genocide or slavery, although they both are consequentialist impacts. )orcing them to accept all consequential impacts linked to their standard solves because it e8pands ground until it is more reciprocal. ?round is key to fairness because debaters need to be able to access offensive arguments in order to win the ballot, and if one side is prevented from doing this then that puts them at an unfair disadvantage. mpact ground is also key to education because we lose the critical thinking involved in weighing impacts as well as the research involved in developing big(impact positions if certain impact ground is e8cluded. +. Ne0 f$e9i1i$ity" $he aff has the advantage of picking the advocacy, framing the debate and thus establishing the basis for central argumentation. $hus, the affirmative has the substantive advantage going into the round because the aff gets to introduce the interpretation of the resolution most advantageous to the aff, preventing the neg from generating offense linking to the aff standard. Allowing the neg greater access to consequential impacts checks back this unfairness because the neg can then generate relevant consequentialist offense. Geg fle8ibility is key to fairness because it balances the offset of competitive equity created by the aff ability to establish the grounds of the debate.
9. Re'$:Dor$* *ecision ,'Bin0" limiting impacts to one impact(e8clusive standard is not reflective of how real(world decisions operate. Allowing me to make other consequentialist impacts better models real world decision(making because policymakers never focus their attention on hyper(specific problems when other impacts could be relevant to their consideration. !aul Str'it L?eorge :ason 7niversity) 'n* #rett W'$$'ce e9($'inL?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. http"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$heM%E;copeM%Eof
M%EGegativeM%E)iatM%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdf
T#e '1i$ity to ,'Be *ecisions *eri=in0 fro, discussions, argumentation or *e1'te, is the Bey still. It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us Di$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision:,'Bin0 tr'nscen*s '$$ 1oun*'ries 1etDeen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 $iBe K(o$icy e*uc'tionL 'n* KBritiB e*uc'tion3L it ,'Bes irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of D#et#er De Di$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'Bers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s Fuestions of D#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% T#e i,($ic'tion for this analysis is t#'t t#e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e sBi$$s offere* 1y re'$:Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n 'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e Dei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e sBi$$s De $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% W#i$e (o$icy co,('rison sBi$$s 're 0oin0 to 1e $e'rne* t#rou0# *e1'te in one D'y or 'not#er3 t#ose sBi$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e Bin* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'Be *ecisions% 4eal(world policy(making reinforces critical thinking and argumentative skills that will last all our lives, educational benefits that debate can uniquely provide.
1%D
130/169
1'E
131/169
&&&C#'(ter /) ('r'*i0,s&&& T'1u$' r's' 0oo*

1. t prevents 2udge biases from interfering with the outcome of the debate, since the 2udge must let the debaters argumentation determine her views on the issues discussed in the round. 6udge biases are unfair because the debaters have no choice over what sides they have to debate, so if the 2udge is partial to one side then this randomly puts the other side at an unfair disadvantage. %. t holds debaters to a higher standard of argumentation because they can no longer rely on the fact that 2udges will 2ust assume some basic statements are true. $his creates educational benefits because A. debaters will consider the premises behind statements that they typically take for granted, enabling them to e8plore ethical and epistemological issues that previously would have gone unnoticed And #. analyAing the missing warrants behind even simple statements fosters critical thinking and argumentation skills. '. t allows for greater creativity of argumentation because debaters do not need to worry about whether their 2udge will li%e the argument, they only need to be able to defend it. 5reative argumentation provides for unique educational benefits, as topics last for two months and debates on the e8act same issues every round eventually cease to teach any new information or strategic skills. *. t models real world policymaking because the public is, as a whole, relatively moderate in political views. !olicymakers must make some effort to win over completely moderate, relatively unbiased voters in addition to their bases, since political parties do not tend to hold ma2orities among the 7; voting population. $abula rasa therefore gives debaters e8perience in making and understanding policy decisions. +. t gives debaters the ability to have control over their own round, allowing for the most educational and fair debate as debaters can have self(ownership over the activity. ;elf(ownership is important because it amplifies the educational effects of debate. !eople are more willing to devote time and effort to an activity when they see it as something they can have an impact on. 9. t creates greater civic responsibility because debaters become more skeptical of unwarranted argumentation. $hey do not merely accept community norms for what they are, but instead use comparison of 2ustifications to evaluate the values of those norms.
1'1
132/169
T'1u$' R's' B'*

1. ts logically inconsistent. &ric !almer e8plains" &ric !almer. 0$ruth, 5omparison, and 6ustification in K, ,ebate.1 #ictory Briefs $aily. April 1+, %EEC. http"<<victorybriefsdaily.com<%EEC<E*<1+<truth(comparison(and(2ustification(in(ld(debate< 3ne parting thought" some have suggested that there is no reason to have a comprehensive theory of K, because part of what is best in debate is that students are able to challenge assumptions about what standards should be used to evaluate arguments. am partly sympathetic to this point" it seems like debaters ought to be able to argue in(round that any 2udge should set aside some aspect of their default paradigm in order to make space for some particularly unusual sort of argument La performance, for e8ample). t is problematic, however, to suppose that we could get by without any fundamental picture of how arguments should be evaluated at all. Oow could 2udges evaluate a debaters reasons for adopting a different paradigm for the purposes of a round at all without taking for granted certain assumptions about how arguments ought to be understood= At root, debate is a social practice which is constituted by the norms we choose. f no norms remain fi8ed, if there are no rules for the game at all, then 2udges would have no resources to use in evaluating proposals to adopt new norms. 6udges must take some principles for granted when they approach rounds, and reflection is needed to determine what e8actly those principles should be. 6udges must make certain assumptions about argumentation in order to accept any argumentation, even that which suggests a new paradigm for the 2udge. $his renders tabula rasa logically inconsistent because 2udges must violate the 2udging strategy in order to e8ecute it. %. t encourages sloppy argumentation because debaters know that they can get away with untrue or unwarranted arguments as long as their opponents do not point out their errors. $his leads to blippy spreads or blatantly unwarranted arguments which are uneducational because they do not even attempt to preserve some modicum of detail. '. 6udges must have some default paradigm anyway. $he logical e8tension of tab 2udging is that debaters should establish the 2udges paradigm, but if neither debater makes an effort to do so then the 2udge must still have some way to evaluate the round. $his means that tab is insufficient to serve as a 2udging strategy. *. ts impossible for 2udges to entirely eliminate their own biases when evaluating the round, but tabula rasa 2udging pretends that this is viable. $his strategy is problematic because it prevents 2udges from revealing their biases up(front. $his is unfair because then debaters dont even know about the biases they face and have no way of compensating for them. :oreover, it is uneducational because a valuable lesson learned from debate is the ability to convince someone to overcome their personal biases, but this is impossible if 2udges hide behind the guise of being 0tab.1
1'%
133/169
1''
134/169
offense:*efense . trut#:testin0
5% Inter(ret'tion J #oth debaters must adhere to the offense(defense paradigm" the aff must defend an advocacy, the neg must defend not doing that advocacy or doing some competitive advocacy, and the 2udge chooses between the two sides on the basis of reasons provided in the debate. B% $heir arguments only relate to the resolutions truth or falsity, not the preferability of their advocacy over mine. C% St'n*'r*s J 1) 7resu,(tion . truth(testing makes it much easier to presume neg than aff, because the neg can 2ust claim that the aff has the burden to prove the resolution true and in the absence of offense you should negate. 3ffense( defense solves this problem by eliminating the need for presumption, since there will always be a ris% of offense on either side. !resumption toward one side is unfair because this puts the other side at a structural disadvantage going into the round. ts also uneducational because it encourages defense(only strategies because the neg knows that defense is sufficient for them to win off presumption. %) Reci(roc'$ i,('ct 0roun* . truth(testing e8plodes neg counterplan ground because the neg can run a counterplan that is not net(beneficial and still win, as long as they prove that consequentialism must choose the best action. $his means any counterplan that has e8actly the same benefits and impacts as the aff plan is acceptable, vastly widening the range of counterplan options to choose from. 3ffense(defense solves this problem by forcing the neg to defend an advocacy that is preferable and not simply similar to the aff plan. 4eciprocal impact ground is key to fairness because impacts are how both sides generate offense that lets them win the round, so if one side has a greater ability to make impacts going into the round, then this gives them an unfair advantage. 8A C$'s# . truth(testing discourages clash because negative strategies dont need to be relevant to the aff strategy to win. As long as the neg disproves the resolution, this disproval needs no relation to the affs attempts to prove the resolution true. $ruth $esting encourages defense only strategies. ,efense is sufficient to prove a statement false, which reduces debates to defense only strategies with no direct comparison or clash. 3ffense(defense necessitates clash because each side must prove why their advocacy is preferable to the others advocacy. 5lash is key to education because it teaches critical thinking and argumentation skills. *) Re'$ Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 . truth(testing allows for skepticism arguments without significant impacts on the grounds that they have truth value. $his harms real world decision(making because in real life we do not let arguments impact our decisions unless they have some form of tangible impact. 3ffense(defense solves this by forcing people to draw impacts from skepticism if they want to run skeptical positions. 4eal world decision( making is the most important benefit we get from debate because debate primarily teaches us how to make effective decisions, so it provides the strongest link to education. +) Ne0 Bi's" $ruth testing increases neg bias because the Geg has a significant time advantage and only has to prove one e8ample in which the resolution is false and they win. 3ffense(defense solves this because it allows arguments to be weighed against each other, this allows the A5 to leverage offense vs. neg e8amples. $his is key to fairness because without a protection of the A)) it would be impossible to affirm and destroy the competitive equity of debate D%
1'*
135/169
7o$icy6'Bin0 . Trut#:testin0
5% Inter(ret'tion J $he affirmative must defend a specific policy action or plan and the negative must contest that plan by demonstrating an opportunity cost or e8plicit cost to the plan, then both debaters must compare the costs and benefits of the plan. B% $he negative presumes that the resolution is a statement of truth and attempts to prove that statement false C% St'n*'r*s J 1. Re'$ Dor$* *ecision:,'Bin0 J decision(makers in the real world do not act off statements of truthI instead, they act off what they determine they should do. !olicymaking better provides for real world decision( making by forcing us to advocate policy actions and actively engage each others advocacies rather than 2ust responding to the truth of the resolution. 4eal world decision(making has the strongest link to education because the ability to make effective decisions is the most lasting and important skill gained through debating. %. 5ff f$e9 J truth(testing prevents the aff from establishing the terms of the debate because the neg can independently prove the resolution false regardless of the aff advocacy. !olicymaking solves this problem by forcing the neg to engage the aff advocacy rather than the entire resolution. Aff fle8 prevents time skew because A. the aff has to speak first, so when the neg does not engage the aff advocacy this renders si8 minutes of aff time irrelevant and creates a time skew that cannot be recoverable. #. the neg has an automatic advantage because they have more time to respond to the aff case and cover both sides of the round, placing the aff at a structural time disadvantage going into the round. $ime skew kills fairness because the time that we have establishes an upper limit on the number and quality of arguments we can make, so when one side has more time to respond, this gives that side an unfair advantage. '. De(t# of *iscussion J truth(testing promotes a shallow discussion of resolutional issues because the aff must scramble to prove all parts of the resolution true. !olicymaking solves this back by allowing the aff to focus on a specific plan and provide specific research and arguments in support. ,epth of discussion is key to education because we gain nothing from a debate quickly spanning lots of issues, while we are more likely to learn new information from a specified plan. D%
1'+
136/169
Best Custific'tion . trut#:testin0

5% Inter(ret'tion J $he affirmative must prove that the resolution is better 2ustified than the converse of the resolution and the negative must prove that the converse of the resolution is better 2ustified than the resolution through a comparison of reasons. B% $he affirmative<negative views the resolution as a statement of truth attempts to prove the resolution true<false C% St'n*'r*s J 1. 5r0u,ent Fu'$ity J truth(testing encourages tenuous 0a priori1 arguments because one weak reason why the resolution is false is sufficient to negate, but best(2ustification allows for comparison on basis of argument quality. &ric !almer e8plains &ric !almer. 0$ruth, 5omparison, and 6ustification in K, ,ebate.1 #ictory Briefs $aily. April 1+, %EEC. http"<<victorybriefsdaily.com<%EEC<E*<1+<truth(comparison(and(2ustification(in(ld(debate< )or one, trut#:testin0 0ener'tes t#e (ro1$e, of D'yD'r* K(re:st'n*'r*sL 'r0u,ents% If3 for inst'nce3 so,e 'r0u,ent D#ic# c$'i,s t#'t t#e reso$ution is se$f:contr'*ictory is *ro((e*3 trut#:testin0 reFuires ' ne0'ti=e =er*ict 1ec'use t#e *ro((e* 'r0u,ent ent'i$s t#e f'$sity of t#e reso$ution% On t#e 1est Custific'tion (icture3 #oDe=er3 t#e f'ct t#'t t#e *ro((e* 'r0u,ent ent'i$s t#e f'$sity of t#e reso$ution ,ere$y (ro=i*es so,e e=i*ence t#'t ' 1e$ief in t#e reso$ution is unCustifie*% HoD stron0 t#'t e=i*ence is *e(en*s on #oD stron0 t#e *ro((e* 'r0u,ent D's% If t#e 'r0u,ent D's ('rticu$'r$y De$$:*e=e$o(e*3 t#is ,'y D'rr'nt ' ne0'tion3 1ut if t#e 'r0u,ent D's ' ,'n0$e* 1$i(3 t#en it ,'y 1e 1etter to #o$* t#'t t#e 'r0u,ents *e=e$o(e* 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e 're sufficient to Custify t#e reso$ution;s trut# in s(ite of t#e *ro(% #est(2ustification promotes fairness because negs can no longer make big(impact a priori arguments without taking sufficient time to warrant them, whereas truth(testing allows shallow argumentation to win the round as long as it is not sufficiently dealt with. $his also promotes education because higher argument quality necessitates more research and elaboration. %. C$'s# . truth(testing allows the neg to win independent of engaging the aff advocacy, since its sufficient 2ust to disprove the resolution. #est(2ustification solves this because the neg must still be comparative in order to show why their arguments are better 2ustified than the affs. 5lash is key to education because actively engaging the other sides arguments teaches critical thinking and communication skills. '. Offense:*efense *istinction J truth(testing allows the neg to win independent of offense, since they 2ust need to disprove the resolution in order to negate. #est(2ustification solves this problem because it requires that both sides 2ustify their positions. &ric !almer e8plains" &ric !almer. 0$ruth, 5omparison, and 6ustification in K, ,ebate.1 #ictory Briefs $aily. April 1+, %EEC. http"<<victorybriefsdaily.com<%EEC<E*<1+<truth(comparison(and(2ustification(in(ld(debate< 5nother '*='nt'0e of t#e 1est Custific'tion ('r'*i0, o=er tr'*ition'$ trut#:testin0 is t#'t it (reser=es something like the offense/*efense *istinction employed in !olicy. If t#e ne0'ti=e is not (ro=i*in0 (ro'cti=e
1'9
137/169
re'sons for t#inBin0 t#'t t#e reso$ution #'s 0ot to 1e f'$se3 t#en t#ere is no re'son not to 'cce(t t#e 'ffir,'ti=e;s 'r0u,ent'tion% T#e s',e ,ore or $ess #o$*s true for ('rticu$'r 'r0u,ents% 5n 'r0u,ent ,'y (ro=i*e ' 0oo* Custific'tion for so,e c$'i, e=en if t#ere 're st'n*in0 re'sons for t#inBin0 t#'t 'r0u,ent ,i0#t 1e f'$se in t#e e=ent t#'t t#e initi'$ Custific'tion is ,ore (oDerfu$ t#'n t#e re'sons st'n*in0 '0'inst it% 3ffense(defense distinction is key to fairness because otherwise, the aff must generate offense and defense while the neg 2ust has to generate defense. $his e8plodes the affs argumentation burden and places them at an unfair disadvantage, since generating defense is much easier than generating offense. 3ffense(defense also fosters education since it teaches us to make a variety of arguments, and the ability to think quickly and make varied argumentation is a skill that we can use later in life.
1'B
138/169
Offense:Defense . 7o$icy 6'Bin0

nterpretation" #oth debaters must adhere to the offense(defense paradigm" the aff must defend an advocacy, the neg must defend not doing that advocacy or doing some competitive advocacy, and the 2udge chooses between the two sides on the basis of reasons provided in the debate.
/iolation" :y opponent proposes a course of action and defends this course of action as the way to affirm<negate the resolution.
1.
%.
'.
T#eory J $heory has no ballot story under policy making as an unfair plan or cp could still be an ideal policy. $his creates a race to the bottom, as absent an e8ternal check on unfair arguments, it is most strategic to be as theoretically illegitimate as possible. $his also prevents any attempt to preserve fair or educational debate. 3ffense ,efense solves, because theory is an advocacy if it generates uniqueness through the interpretation and a link through the violation 7#i$oso(#y . !olicy making ignores the significance of philosophically relevant positions as all policy decisions are grounded in utilitarianism. $wo implications follow. 3ne, this is uneducational as it disincentiviAes people from learning about important moral philosophies such as deontology. $wo, this is unfair because it arbitrarily e8cludes moral philosophies which are crucial ground for both sides. 3, solves since any moral theory is viable so long as it has an offensive implication. Rese'rc# Bur*ens . #ecause policy making is a plan focused paradigm it gives the neg an infinite research burden because there are an endless number of plans for the aff to choose from. 4eciprocal research burdens are key to fairness because unresearched arguments will be qualitatively worse than researched arguments. $he ability for my opponent to research more effectively than me is unfair as <shell have better arguments, and it is easier to win if you have access better arguments. !olitical relevance and topicality dont prove that the plan is predictable because the political arena is so vast that there are still an unresearchable number of plans the aff could pick from AG, a plan can still have a massive impact but be grounded in post(modern philosophy. Also, 3ffense ,efense solves because all of my arguments are relevant in relation to the plan so any research do can be leveraged against my opponents advocacy.
1'C
139/169
Best Eustific'tion . 7o$icy 6'Bin0

5% Inter(ret'tion J $he affirmative must prove that the resolution is better 2ustified than the converse of the resolution and the negative must prove that the converse of the resolution is better 2ustified than the resolution through a comparison of reasons. B% /iolation" :y opponent proposes a course of action and defends this course of action as the way to affirm<negate the resolution. C% ;tandards
1. T#eory J $heory has no ballot story under policy making as an unfair plan or cp could still be an ideal policy. $his creates a race to the bottom as absent an e8ternal check to unfair arguments, it is most strategic to be as theoretically illegitimate as possible. $his also prevents any attempt to preserve fair or educational debate. #est 6ustification solves because unfair arguments skew substance so that ob2ective evaluations of truth are impossible. $heory then becomes a 2ustification which denies the truth or falsity of an advocacy which would outweigh the 2ustifications to believe the truth or falsity of an illegitimate advocacy. 7#i$oso(#y . !olicy making ignores the significance of philosophically relevant positions as policy decisions are grounded in utilitarianism. $wo implications follow. 3ne, this is uneducational as it disincentiviAes people from learning about important moral philosophies such as deontology. $wo, this is unfair because it arbitrarily e8cludes moral philosophies which are crucial ground for both sides. #est 6ustification solves since any moral theory is viable so long as it provides a 2ustification to believe the truth or falsity of an advocacy. Rese'rc# Bur*ens . #ecause policy making is a plan focused paradigm it gives the neg an infinite research burden because there are an endless number of plans for the aff to choose from. 4eciprocal research burdens are key to fairness because unresearched arguments will be qualitatively worse than researched arguments. $he ability for my opponent to research more effectively than me is unfair as <shell have better arguments, and it is easier to win if you have access better arguments. !olitical relevance and topicality dont prove that the plan is predictable because the political arena is so vast that there are still an unresearchable number of plans the aff could pick from AG, a plan can still have a massive impact but be grounded in post(modern philosophy. Also, #est 6ustifications solves because all of my arguments are relevant as counter 2ustifications to the plan so any research do can be leveraged against my opponents advocacy.
%.
'.
1'D
140/169
Trut# Testin0 . 7o$icy 6'Bin0

$he affirmative must prove the resolution true and the negative must prove the resolution false #. /iolation( :y opponent argues that we should compare the desirability of the affirmative policy to the status quo or an alternative world 5. ;tandards 1. ,ivision of ?round( $ruth testing divides the ground equally such that the affirmative may defend anything that proves the resolution true and the negative must prove the resolution false. Allowing the affirmative to specify a policy action allows the aff to choose the best ground on the topic and forces the negative to contest that ground, which is unfair because the affirmative is granted the ability to only advocate the best argument on the topic, which makes it more difficult for the negative to win. %. !redictability( $he aff can never predict what alternative policy the negative will defend, which is unfair because )irst" $he aff will always be less prepared to answer negative counter plans than the neg will be to defend them and ;econd" #ecause the aff cannot predict the negative strategy they cannot use A5 speech time to pre( empt the G5 so they can never be as directly responsive to the neg as the aff as the neg has thirteen minutes to respond to negative speech time whereas the aff only has B, which allows the negative to better engage the affirmative and gives the neg a greater chance of winning. :y interpretation solves because the aff can always preempt common arguments used to prove the resolution false, whereas there is not a degree of genericness under a policy making paradigm because the negative has literally infinite ground. 8% Rese'rc# Bur*ens . #ecause policy making is a plan focused paradigm it gives the neg an infinite research burden because there are an endless number of plans for the aff to choose from. 4eciprocal research burdens are key to fairness because unresearched arguments will be qualitatively worse than researched arguments. $he ability for my opponent to research more effectively than me is unfair as <shell have better arguments, and it is easier to win if you have access better arguments. !olitical relevance and topicality dont prove that the plan is predictable because the political arena is so vast that there are still an unresearchable number of plans the aff could pick from AG, a plan can still have a massive impact but be grounded in post(modern philosophy. Also, $ruth $esting solves because it is resolutionally focused. $he implication is that the aff can no longer parametriciAe to run a plan which makes all my research relevant as all neg arguments become counter(e8amples which engage the aff advocacy.
,.
mpact( )airness
1*E
141/169
Trut#:testin0 . Offense:*efense
A. nterpretation( $he affirmative must prove the resolution true and the negative must prove the resolution false #. /iolation( :y opponent argues the aff must defend an advocacy, the neg must defend not doing that advocacy or doing some competitive advocacy, and the 2udge chooses between the two sides on the basis of reasons provided in the debate. 5. ;tandards 1. ,ivision of ?round( $ruth testing divides the ground equally such that the affirmative may defend anything that proves the resolution true and the negative must prove the resolution false. Allowing the affirmative to specify an advocacy allows the aff to choose the best ground on the topic and forces the negative to contest that ground, which is unfair because the affirmative is granted the ability to only advocate the best argument on the topic, which makes it more difficult for the negative to win. %. !redictability( $he aff can never predict what alternative advocacy the negative will defend, which is unfair because )irst" $he aff will always be less prepared to answer negative counter advocacies than the neg will be to defend them and ;econd" #ecause the aff cannot predict the negative strategy they cannot use A5 speech time to pre( empt the G5 so they can never be as directly responsive to the neg as the aff as the neg has thirteen minutes to respond to negative speech time whereas the aff only has B, which allows the negative to better engage the affirmative and gives the neg a greater chance of winning. :y interpretation solves because the aff can always preempt common arguments used to prove the resolution false, whereas there is not a degree of genericness under a policy making paradigm because the negative has literally infinite ground. 8% Reci(roc'$ Bur*ens" 7nder 3ffense ,efense, the affirmative burden is to show an offensive, comparative advantage to the aff advocacy. $he neg burden is to provide a competitive advocacy 34 defend the status quo and then prove an offensive, comparative advantage to the neg advocacy. $his gives the neg two sufficient burdens which provides them with two ways to access offense, whereas the aff has only one way to access offense. 7nder truth testing, the aff burden is to prove the resolution true whereas the negative burden is to prove the resolution false so the burdens are reciprocal. 7#i$oso(#y) 3ffense ,efense e8cludes ethical theories that deny the truth of normativity. $wo implications follow. 3ne, this is uneducational as it disincentiviAes people from learning about important moral philosophies such as skepticism. $wo, this is unfair because it arbitrarily e8cludes moral philosophies which are crucial ground for both sides. $ruth $esting solves as ethical theories that deny normativity are reasons to believe the resolution is false.
1*1
142/169
Best Eustific'tion . Offense:*efense

5% Inter(ret'tion J $he affirmative must prove that the resolution is better 2ustified than the converse of the resolution and the negative must prove that the converse of the resolution is better 2ustified than the resolution through a comparison of reasons. /iolation( :y opponent argues the aff must defend an advocacy, the neg must defend not doing that advocacy or doing some competitive advocacy, and the 2udge chooses between the two sides on the basis of reasons provided in the debate.
1. 7#i$oso(#y) 3ffense ,efense e8cludes ethical theories that deny the truth of normativity. $wo implications follow. 3ne, this is uneducational as it disincentiviAes people from learning about important moral philosophies such as skepticism. $wo, this is unfair because it arbitrarily e8cludes moral philosophies which are crucial ground for both sides. #est 6ustification solves by letting advocacies be run as long as there are reasons as to why they are important. C$'s#) 3, doesnt necessitate clash so long as one person proves that they are getting more offense than their opponent is. $his is uneducational as debate teaches us how to make actual comparisons in the real world. n the real world, we must use direct comparison of competing options to arrive at a conclusion, which 3, doesnt necessitate or encourage. :oreover, 3, discourages clash because the time spent is an opportunity cost to trying to access additional impacts. #est 6ustification solves as 0best1 is necessarily a comparative term so we are forced to compare 2ustifications which ensures clash.
%.
1*%
143/169
(o$icy ,'Bin0 . 1est Custific'tion

5% Inter(ret'tion J $he affirmative must defend a specific policy action or plan and the negative must contest that plan by demonstrating an opportunity cost or e8plicit cost to the plan, then both debaters must compare the costs and benefits of the plan. B% :y opponent argues that the affirmative must prove that the resolution is better 2ustified than the converse of the resolution and the negative must prove that the converse of the resolution is better 2ustified than the resolution through a comparison of reasons. C% $he standard is real world decision making. !olicy making is the closest analogue to real world decision making, as we use debate to make decisions. ,ecisions are arrived at by comparing differing options. 4eal(world decision(making is the most important form of education. ;trait and Wallace% write, $he ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. t is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. ,ecision(making transcends boundaries between categories of learning like #policy education#$ and Jkritik education,J it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. The im lication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real(world decision(making arc conductively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed them. t is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. :y link to education will always be stronger because policy making is an empirical form of real world decision making whereas best 2ustification is a nebulous concept that only vaguely applies to how we make decisions.
K. !aul ;trait L?eorge :ason 7niversity) and #rett Wallace L?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative )iat and the Kogic of ,ecision :aking.1 W)7 ,ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. Fhttp"<<groups.wfu.edu<debate<:isc;ites<,4?Articles<%EEB<$he M%E;copeM%EofM%EGegativeM%E)iatM%EandM%EtheM%EKogicM%EofM%E,ecisionM%E:aking.pdfH 1*'
144/169
offense:*efense . 1est Custific'tion

A. nterpretation" #oth debaters must adhere to the offense(defense paradigm" the aff must defend an advocacy, the neg must defend not doing that advocacy or doing some competitive advocacy, and the 2udge chooses between the two sides on the basis of reasons provided in the debate. #. /iolation" :y opponent argues that the affirmative must prove that the resolution is better 2ustified than the converse of the resolution and the negative must prove that the converse of the resolution is better 2ustified than the resolution through a comparison of reasons. No risB issues( best 2ustification simply asks what will prove the resolution is true or false, it puts no limits on things that are theoretically illegitimate or not. t is comparible to doing that which is necessary in order to win which in this case is proving the resolution true or false through the best 2ustifications even if those best 2ustifications means theoretically illegitimate arguments such as a prioris. 3ffense defense solves for this because they do not give comparative weighing through impacts because falsity is not an impact. !reventing no risk issues is key to education because no risk issues prevent learning about the topic because falsity claims 2ust prove how the resolution is false and therefore you dont even talk about resolution. $hey are unfair because they give a huge advantage to one side. %. T#eory J $heory has no ballot story under best 2ustification as a 2ustification must proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. $his creates a race to the bottom as absent an e8ternal check to unfair arguments, it is most strategic to be as theoretically illegitimate as possible. ;ince the ballot asks the 2udge to determine who the better debater is, the 2udges primary obligation is to make this evaluation. !olicy making prevents the 2udge from fulfilling this obligation as they will be forced to vote for the best cheater and not the best debater. 3ffense ,efense solves because theory is an advocacy if it generates uniqueness through the interpretation and a link through the violation '. 7resu((ositions( offense defense does not presuppose plan focus or resolution focus, while best 2ustification 2ustifies res focus. !resuppositions are bad because they make the 2udge presuppose things before even going into the round. $his already takes some portion of the debate out of the debaters hands and puts it into the 2udges. $his is bad because this leads to 2udge intervention even on the most minute level which will eventually lead to large scale 2udge intervention. $his is bad for education because then the 2udge is making the decision of the round based on their intuition which gives no reason for either side to put forth an educational debate full of clash if it is going to come down to 2udges decision anyways. 6udge intervention is also not fair to both debaters because it makes the round based on the arbitrary yet 2ustified decision of the 2udge.
1.
1**
145/169
5ff fr',eDorB c#oice 0oo* c'r*s

T#e 5FF #'s ' Ri0#t to Be t#e One D#o Sets u( t#e Fr',eDorB In t#e Roun*
3,onnell L$imothy, And the $wain ;hall :eet" Affirmative )ramework 5hoice and the )uture of ,ebate1
of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnelli ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
n this light, 5FC ,'y e=en 1e =ieDe* 's ' Kri0#tL si,i$'r to t#e 'ffir,'ti=e;s ri0#t to *efine% 5lthough there are several reasons why the affirmative ought to have the right to define, t#e ,ost (ersu'si=e Custific'tion reco0niPes t#'t Dit# t#e res(onsi1i$ity of initi'tin0 t#e *iscussion on t#e reso$ution'$ Fuestion co,es ' conco,it'nt ri0#t to offer 'n inter(ret'tion of D#'t t#ose Dor*s ,e'n. 3f course, it is not an e8clusive right because the negative can always challenge the interpretations. Ne=ert#e$ess3 t#e 'ffir,'ti=e;s inter(ret'tion c'rries ' cert'in (resu,(tion t#'t is 'cce(te* 's K0oo* for *e1'teL un$ess (ro=en ot#erDise% T#e r'tion'$e for 5FC fo$$oDs ' si,i$'r $ine of t#inBin0% T#e 'ffir,'ti=e s#ou$* 1e '1$e to c#oose t#e Fuestion for t#e *e1'te 1ec'use t#ey 're reFuire* to s(e'B first%
5FF C#oice Ensures Co,(etiti=e EFuity

of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnellii ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
;econd, A)5 ensures competitive equity. Le'=in0 t#e fr',eDorB o(en to *e1'te (uts t#e 'ffir,'ti=e 't ' si0nific'nt co,(etiti=e *is'*='nt'0e% W#en t#e ne0'ti=e #'s t#e o(tion of c#'n0in03 or e=en initi'tin03 t#e fr',eDorB *iscussion3 t#e first 'ffir,'ti=e constructi=e s(eec# is ren*ere* ,e'nin0$ess% T#is #urts t#e 'ffir,'ti=e for tDo re'sons% First3 it 0i=es t#e ne0'ti=e ' tDo:to: one '*='nt'0e in constructi=e s(eec# ti,e for ,'Bin0 fr',eDorB 'r0u,ents% Secon*3 t#e first 'ffir,'ti=e fr',eDorB c#oice @or $'cB t#ere ofA $ocBs t#e 'ffir,'ti=e into *efen*in0 t#eir o(enin0 s(eec# 'ct '0'inst 'n entire$y *ifferent fr',eDorB fro, t#e one it D's *esi0ne* to '**ress% Got only does A)5 solve these problems, it also gives every debater an opportunity to have debates in the framework of their choosing. 5$$oDin0 t#e first 'ffir,'ti=e constructi=e s(eec# to set t#e ter,s for t#e *e1'te ensures t#'t te',s 0et to c#oose to *e1'te in t#eir fr',eDorB #'$f of t#e ti,e% For e9',($e3 if one te', D'nte* to #'=e ' (o$icy *e1'te3 5FC Dou$* '$$oD t#e, to *o so D#en t#ey 're 'ffir,'ti=e% Si,i$'r$y3 if 'not#er te', D'nte* to #'=e ' (erfor,'nce *e1'te3 5FC Dou$* 0i=e t#e, ' si,i$'r o((ortunity D#en t#ey 're 'ffir,'ti=e% T#is ,e'ns t#'t e=ery te', Dou$* #'=e 'n eFu'$ o((ortunity to #'=e fu$fi$$in0 'n* en0'0in0 *e1'tes on t#e issues t#ey c#oose to *iscuss #'$f t#e ti,e%
5FF C#oice Incre'ses E*uc'tion 'n* 5r0u,ent De=e$o(,ent

of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnelliii ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
$hird, A)5 has substantial educational benefits. $o begin with, it Dou$* force te',s to *e1'te in ,u$ti($e fr',eDorBs% Too feD te',s 't 1ot# t#e #i0# sc#oo$ 'n* co$$e0e $e=e$ #'=e true 'r0u,ent f$e9i1i$ity% It is 'n un*eni'1$e f'ct t#'t t#e *e1'te enter(rise Dou$* 1e ' ,ore e*uc'tion'$ un*ert'Bin0 for '$$ in=o$=e* if te',s #'* to (re('re to *e1'te ' ='riety of *ifferent fr',eDorBs% 5FC so$=es t#is (ro1$e, 1ec'use t#e fr',eDorB3 $iBe t#e c'se3 Dou$* 1e *eter,ine* 't t#e 1e0innin0 of t#e *e1ate. 7nfortunately, in a world where the question of the debate is not resolved prior to the start of the debate, teams simply pick the framework that they want to defend and advocate it on both the affirmative and the negative. W#en t#e ne0'ti=e is (er,itte* to s#ift t#e fr',eDorB3 'ffir,'ti=e te',s 're *enie* t#e o((ortunity to *e1'te in t#e fr',eDorB t#'t t#ey se$ecte*% Ce*in0 fr',eDorB se$ection to t#e 'ffir,'ti=e cre'tes ' (er,'nent s('ce for t#e e9($or'tion of ,u$ti($e fr',eDorBs% In*ee*3 it Dou$* '$$oD t#e, to f$ouris#% T#e f'ct of t#e ,'tter is t#'t t#e cre'ti=ity D#ic# st'n*s 1e#in* t#e Di*e ='riety of 'r0u,ent str'te0ies in conte,(or'ry *e1'te ensures t#'t ' *i=erse set of fr',eDorBs Dou$* continue to 1e e9($ore*% 5 )5 aims to break the idea that teams should debate only one way. nstead, it empowers alternate perspectives on debate and gives each an equal footing. n addition, A)5 would have the educational benefit of promoting argument development. If Di*e$y 'cce(te*3 it Dou$* #'=e t#e effect of 1r'cBetin0 fr',eDorB *iscussions% Suc# ' ,o=e Dou$* necess'ri$y focus t#e *e1'te on issues 0er,'ne to t#e fr',eDorB 1*+
146/169
se$ecte* 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e% T#is Dou$* (ro=i*e ,ore ti,e to e9($ore t#ese issues in 0re'ter co,($e9ity% Rec'$$ for ' ,o,ent ,'ny of t#e *i=erse ne0'ti=e str'te0ies *e($oye* 't t#e !!2 NDT% NoD 'sB3 #oD ,uc# ,ore inte$$ectu'$$y reD'r*in0 Dou$* t#ose *e1'tes #'=e 1een if t#e fr',eDorB *iscussions Dere re,o=e* fro, consi*er'tionN 5FC cre'tes ' situ'tion D#ere t#is is (ossi1$e.
5ff C#oice Ensures Co,(etiti=e EFuity in Roun*s

of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnelliv ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
)ourth, 5FC cre'tes ' co,(ro,ise t#'t '$$oDs *ifferent (ers(ecti=es on t#e Fuestion of t#e *e1'te to coe9ist% T#e (ro1$e, Dit# $e'=in0 t#e fr',eDorB o(en to *e1'te is t#'t it ,'Bes ' sc#is, in t#e co,,unity ine=it'1$e% Suc# ' s($it3 if it Dere to #'((en3 Dou$* #'=e serious $on0 ter, conseFuences for t#e e9istence of co,(etiti=e *e1'te% Unfortun'te$y3 t#e #istory of interco$$e0i'te *e1'te is ' #istory ,'rBe* 1y fissures t#'t #'=e seen 0rou(s of $iBe ,in*e* (eo($e (ee$ 'D'y fro, t#e $'r0er co,,unity 1ec'use of t#eir *is'0ree,ents '1out D#'t counts 's e9ce$$ence in *e1'te% = $his process has happened before and it is likely to happen again. ndeed, suspect that it is already underway as one or more pockets lament the seeming intransigence of their competitive counterparts in coming around to their perspective on what the activity of debate ought to be about. 5FC is ' co,(ro,ise (osition t#'t 0i=es e=eryone 'n eFu'$ st'Be in t#e 0',e%
5FF C#oice 7uts T#e Roun* In t#e #'n*s of t#e De1'ter3 not t#e Eu*0e
of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnellvi ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
)inally, A)5, if widely accepted, has the potential to change the nature of 2udging and would put debating back into the hands of the debaters. f one consi*ers t#e Di*e ='riety of c$'i,s t#'t Cu*0es to*'y ,'Be in t#eir Cu*0in0 (#i$oso(#ies '1out D#'t t#ey Di$$ 'n* Di$$ not to$er'te3 it is c$e'r t#'t t#ere 're si0nific'nt c$e'='0es in t#e Cu*0in0 (oo$% T#e re'son for t#is is t#'t Cu*0es @,y se$f inc$u*e*A #'=e *ifferent *is(ositions toD'r* t#e Fuestion of t#e *e1'te 'n* t#ey 're often Di$$in0 to i,(ose t#ose =ieDs in t#e *e1'te in ' ='riety of D'ys% 5FC en=isions ' situ'tion in D#ic# Cu*0es cou$* ,utu'$$y '0ree to *is'r,%
5FF c#oice Does Not ,e'n T#'t t#e NE< c'nnot Tuestion Fr',eDorB
of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnellvii ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
&ould A'C mean the negative could never (uestion affirmative assumptions) $here are at least two answers to this ob2ection. )irst, not necessarily. T#e ne0'ti=e Dou$* sti$$ #'=e 0roun* to critiFue t#e 'ssu,(tions e,1e**e* in t#e fr',eDorB '*=oc'te* 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e te',% )or e8ample, if the affirmative advocated ceding political control in raq to the 7nited Gations through a policy framework, the negative could still question all of the policy assumptions which speak to the plans desirability. 5FC on$y constr'ins t#e ne0'ti=e to t#e e9tent t#'t t#ey 're $i,ite* to t#e st'rtin0 (oint se$ecte* 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e% T#is ,e'ns t#'t t#e ne0'ti=e Dou$* 1e force* to 1r'cBet Fuestions re0'r*in0 t#e *esir'1i$ity of t#e 'ffir,'ti=e Dit# res(ect to its $'n0u'0e3 its re(resent'tions3 its (o$itics3 its (erfor,'nce3 its (#i$oso(#y3 etc . ;imilarly, if the affirmative advocated ceding political control in raq to the 7nited Gations through a performance framework, the negative could question all of the assumptions behind their performance in addition to topically derived core negative arguments Lalthough those arguments would have to be adapted to the framework advanced by the affirmative). In suc# situ'tions3 0roun* $oss Dou$* 1e ,ini,'$ 1ec'use t#e 0roun* t#'t t#e ne0'ti=e $oses Dou$* not 1e 0er,'ne to eit#er t#e reso$ution'$$y *eri=e* Fuestion or t#e 'ffir,'ti=e fr',eDorB% T#us t#e on$y t#in0 t#'t t#e ne0'ti=e $oses un*er 5FC is t#e '1i$ity to s#ift t#e Fuestion of t#e *e1'te t#rou0# critiFues of t#e 'ffir,'ti=e fr',eDorB% VieDe* t#is D'y3 t#e ne0'ti=e;s co,($'int is t#'t t#ey *on;t 0et to t'$B '1out e=eryt#in0 1ut t#e 'ffir,'ti=e% But D#y s#ou$* t#eyN 1*9
147/169
E=en If <roun* is Lost 1y 5FF c#oice3 T#e Benefits Wou$* OutDei0# 'ny Dis'*='nt'0es
of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnellviii ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
;econd, t#e 1enefits 0'ine* 1y '*o(tion of 5FC outDei0# D#'t Dou$* 1e $ost% Li,itin0 ne0'ti=e 0roun* focuses t#e *iscussion 'n* 0ener'tes ric#er *e1'tes Dit#in t#e fr',eDorB c#osen 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e% T#ere is no su1st'nti'$ 1enefit to '$$oDin0 t#e ne0'ti=e to Fuestion e=ery 'ssu,(tion since t#e e,er0ence of critic'$ 'ffir,'ti=es ensures ' ($'ce 't t#e t'1$e for t#ese ty(es of 'r0u,ents.
NE<s *o not #'=e ' Ri0#t to Tuestion E=eryt#in03 Infinite 7re( for t#e 5FF is ' 6yt#
of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnelli8 ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
$hird, t#e ne0'ti=e *oes not #'=e ' ri0#t to Fuestion e=ery 'ssu,(tion% Infinite (re('r'tion ti,e for t#e 'ffir,'ti=e is ' ,yt#% 5ffir,'ti=e te',s3 on$y #'=e ' fi9e* ',ount of ti,e to (re('re to *e1'te% If t#ey 're force* to *efen* 'ny 'n* '$$ 'ssu,(tions t#'t t#ey 're #eir to 1y =irtue of t#eir e9istence 't t#e en* of t#ous'n*s of ye'rs of #u,'n ci=i$iP'tion t#ere is no re'son'1$e e9(ect'tion t#'t t#ey cou$* e=er 1e (re('re* to *e1'te. $he number and range of questions that the debate could be about is certainly much greater than the amount of time the affirmative has to prepare. ;uch a situation is anathema to any cooperative learning enterprise% If $e'rnin0 is to 1e ,'9i,iPe*3 ('rtici('nts ,ust #'=e ' re'son'1$e e9(ect'tion '1out D#'t to (re('re for% T#is is3 'fter '$$3 D#y e=eryone D#o ('rtici('tes in tDo:(erson K(o$icyL *e1'te t#inBs t#ere ou0#t to 1e ' to(ic% Yet3 D#i$e De see, to '0ree t#'t t#ere s#ou$* 1e $i,its ($'ce* on t#e 'ffir,'ti=e3 t#e s',e t#inBin0 *oes not '$D'ys see, to '(($y to t#e ne0'ti=e% 5FC ,ere$y reco0niPes t#'t 1ot# si*es nee* to 0i=e so,et#in0 u( to #'=e ' *e1'te%
5FF c#oice Wou$* Not Ti( t#e B'$'nce in t#e 5FF;s F'=or
of :ary Washington) $imothy :. 3,onnell8 ,irector of ,ebate 7niversity
&ould A'C tip the balance too much in the affirmative*s favor) $his is potentially the most serious ob2ection to the proposal advanced here. After all, why wouldnt an affirmative advocate a framework that made it impossible for the negative to win= $he short answer is that some affirmatives might try. HoDe=er3 t#is c#'r0e is not uniFue to t#e (ro(os'$ cont'ine* #erein% T#e 'ffir,'ti=e '$re'*y #'s free rei0n to intro*uce ' fr',eDorB for e='$u'tin0 t#e *e1'te3 'n* ,'ny of t#e, *o% Furt#er,ore3 D#i$e t#e risB of cre'tin0 ' co,(etiti=e i,1'$'nce in f'=or of t#e 'ffir,'ti=e ,i0#t see, $iBe$y3 t#is criticis, is ,ore #y(ot#etic'$ t#'n re'$% T#e s',e co,,un'$ notions t#'t #'=e 0ener'$$y ser=e* to $i,it 'ffir,'ti=e c'se se$ection Dit# res(ect to to(ic'$ity cou$* '$so function Dit# 5FC% Of course3 ne0'ti=e te',s Dou$* #'=e to 1e (re('re* to 'r0ue t#'t t#e fr',eDorB (resente* 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e is unten'1$e for co,(etiti=e 'n*/or e*uc'tion'$ re'sons% #ut, this is no different than what they already prepare to do with topicality. T#ere is ' re'son D#y t#e ='st ,'Cority of te',s *o not run t#e 1est 'ffir,'ti=es fro, ('st to(ics ye'r 'fter ye'r% Ne0'ti=e te',s 're ,ore often t#'n not3 '1$e to e'si$y *efe't t#ose 'ffir,'ti=es Dit# to(ic'$ity 'r0u,ents% Why= Bec'use =irtu'$$y e=ery ('rtici('nt in t#e 0',e #'s 'n intuiti=e sense t#'t De ,ust re'c# st'sis to e=en #'=e ' *e1'te% 5FC ,ere$y c'rries t#'t notion one ste( furt#er 1y reco0niPin0 t#'t to #'=e ' *e1'te De ,ust '0ree on 1ot# t#e to(ic 'n* t#e Fuestion t#'t t#e Cu*0e seeBs to reso$=e Dit# res(ect to t#'t to(ic%
1*B
148/169
Co,('r'ti=e Dor$*s 0oo*

Co,('r'ti=e Wor$*s 5((ro'c# 6'int'ins F$e9i1i$ity For Bot# De1'ters
Gelson EC LAdam ). 6,, ,irector of Kincoln(,ouglas ,ebate and :ock $rial at $he Oarker ;chool, ;an 6ose, 5A.
would like to thank :ichael :angus, whose writings provided the basis for many of these ideas, 4yan Kawrence, who convinced me to adopt my current view of the value<criterion model and whose late(night conversations at /# first got me thinking about alternative approaches to K,, and to 5ameron #aghai and ,aniel Qhalessi, whose final round at this seasons 5!; tournament provided the impetus for the writing of this article. $owards a 5omprehensive $heory of Kincoln(,ouglas ,ebate)
nstead, it see,s ,uc# ,ore re'son'1$e to tre't t#e reso$ution 's ' D'y to eFuit'1$y *i=i*e 0roun*) t#e 'ffir,'ti=e '*=oc'tin0 t#e *esir'1i$ity of ' Dor$* in D#ic# (eo($e '*#ere to t#e ='$ue Cu*0,ent i,($ie* 1y t#e reso$ution 'n* t#e ne0'ti=e '*=oc'tin0 t#e *esir'1i$ity of ' Dor$* in D#ic# (eo($e '*#ere to ' ='$ue Cu*0,ent ,utu'$$y e9c$usi=e to t#'t i,($ie* 1y t#e reso$ution% By ,'Bin0 t#e issue one of *esir'1i$ity of co,(etin0 Dor$*:=ieDs r't#er t#'n of trut#3 t#e 'ffir,'ti=e 0'ins 'ccess to incre'se* f$e9i1i$ity re0'r*in0 #oD #e or s#e c#ooses to *efen* t#'t Dor$*3 D#i$e t#e ne0'ti=e ret'ins eFu'$ f$e9i1i$ity D#i$e 1ein0 *enie* 'ccess to t#ose sBe(tic'$ 'r0u,ents in*icte* '1o=e. 3ur ability to make normative claims is irrelevant to a discussion of the desirability of making two such claims. Un$ess t#ere is so,e si0nific'nt #'r, in ,'Bin0 suc# st'te,ents3 so,e offensi=e re'son to reCect ,'Bin0 t#e, t#'t c'n 1e '=oi*e* 1y 'n '*=oc'cy ,utu'$$y e9c$usi=e Dit# t#'t of t#e 'ffir,'ti=e suc# o1Cections 're not ' re'son t#e ne0'ti=e Dor$* is ,ore *esir'1$e3 'n* t#erefore not ' re'son to ne0'te . Gote this is precisely how things have been done in policy debate for some time" a team that runs a kritik is e8pected to offer some impact of the mindset they are indicting and some alternative that would solve for that impact. A team that simply argued some universal, unavoidable, problem was bad and therefore a reason to negate would not be very successful. t is about time K, started treating such arguments the same way.
Wor$* Co,('rison ReFuires Offensi=e Str'te0ies W#ic# So$=es For Defense S(re'*s Un*er Trut# Testin03 7$us Wor$* Co,('rison Is 6ore Intuiti=e$y True in Re'$ Wor$* Scen'rios
;uch a model of the resolution has additional benefits as well. )irst, it forces 1ot# *e1'ters to offer offensi=e re'sons to (refer t#eir Dor$*=ieD3 t#ere1y furt#er enforcin0 ' ('r'$$e$ 1ur*en structure% T#is ,e'ns *e1'ters c'n no $on0er 0et 'D'y Dit# 'r0uin0 t#e reso$ution is 1y *efinition true of f'$se% T#e Ktrut#L of t#e ('rticu$'r =oc'1u$'ry of t#e reso$ution is irre$e='nt to its *esir'1i$ity% ;econd, it is intuiti=e% W#en (eo($e e='$u'te t#e trut# of et#ic'$ c$'i,s3 t#ey consi*er t#eir i,($ic'tions in t#e re'$ Dor$*% T#ey 'sB t#e,se$=es D#et#er ' Dor$* in D#ic# (eo($e $i=e 1y t#'t et#ic'$ ru$e is 1etter t#'n one in D#ic# t#ey *on;t% Suc# *e1'tes *on;t #'((en so$e$y in t#e '1str'ct% We D'nt to BnoD #oD t#e ='rious o(tions 'ffect us 'n* t#e Dor$* De $i=e in%
Co,('r'ti=e Wor$*s Does not E9c$u*e 7#i$oso(#y In Decision 6'Bin0 But Forces Direct Co,('risons
$his does not, however, mean t#is KDor$*=ieD co,('risonL ,o*e$ Dou$* necess'ri$y re,o=e t#e '1i$ity of *e1'ters to 'r0ue ='$ues or (#i$oso(#y in t#e '1str'ct% We #'=e $on0 reco0niPe* t#'t (ure$y *eonto$o0ic'$ 'r0u,ents #'=e offensi=e i,('cts t#'t c'n 1e co,('re* '0'inst ot#er suc# i,($ic'tions% T#is ,o*e$ Dou$* si,($y reFuire *e1'ters to ,ore *irect$y co,('re3 for e9',($e3 t#e i,(ort'nce of '=oi*in0 tre'tin0 (eo($e 's ,e'ns to 'n en* or (rotectin0 ri0#ts Dit# t#e i,(ort'nce of s'=in0 $i=es or ,'9i,iPin0 econo,ic efficiency3 for re'sons I Di$$ e9($ore s#ort$y%
1*C
149/169
Wor$* Co,('rison Forces Wei0#in0 Of Criteri'

Conte9tu'$iPin0 t#is *e1'te3 1y forcin0 *e1'ters to *irect$y co,('re t#e i,(ort'nce of t#eir contentions3 r't#er t#'n t#eir criteri'3 Di$$ (ro=i*e ' ,ore intuiti=e3 'n* ,ore re'$istic3 e9(erience for our stu*ents% T#e current '((ro'c# to t#e criterion *e1'te '$$oDs *e1'ters to '=oi* so,e of t#e ,ost *ifficu$t3 'n* i,(ort'nt3 Fuestions (ose* 1y t#e reso$ution% W# en a deontological standard is employed, teleological implications of the resolution become irrelevant. When a teleological standard is employed, deontological implications of the resolution become irrelevant. @et, De consi*er 1ot# si*es of t#'t coin D#en De *e1'te ,or'$ Fuestions in out e=ery*'y $i=es% T#e *e1'te is not '1out D#ic# is i,(ort'nt3 1ut '1out D#ic# is ,ore i,(ort'nt3 'n* #oD ,uc#. We dont, to take a common e8ample from this seasons ;eptember<3ctober resolution, say the number of innocents e8ecuted is irrelevant to the 2ustness of capital punishment, seeing as it is a proportional punishment. We argue the e8ecution of a small number of innocents, though regrettable, is not a reason to re2ect the death penalty entirely, given the need for a proportional punishment for murder. ;houldnt our students do the same= W#i$e suc# *e1'te is3 of course3 (ossi1$e un*er t#e current ,o*e$3 t#e Dor$*=ieD co,('rison ,o*e$ ,'Bes suc# c$'s# necess'ry%
5 ) Not Enou0# Ti,e In De1'te For Re'$ Wor$* Discussion

t seems the most likely ob2ection to this reasoning is that there simply is not enough time to conte8tualiAe comparison of impacts in an K, round. #ut think that argument is problematic for two reasons. )irst, *on;t t#inB conte9tu'$iP'tion of t#e i,('ct *e1'te Di$$ t'Be si0nific'nt$y $on0er t#'n t#e ='$ue/criterion *e1'te *oes current$y% In t#e e9',($es I;=e 0i=en '1o=e3 t#e conte9tu'$iPe* co,('rison t'Bes on$y ' $itt$e ,ore ti,e t#'n *oes t#e 'tte,(t to (rec$u*e one;s o((onent;s i,('cts so co,,on in t#e st'tus Fuo% 5n*3 un*er t#e Dor$*=ieD co,('rison ,o*e$3 t#ere is no nee* to s(ent ti,e est'1$is#in0 'n* e9($'inin0 ' ='$ue 'n* criterion3 t#ere1y e'si$y ,'Bin0 u( 'ny '**ition'$ ti,e nee*e* to *e1'te i,('cts un*er t#'t ,o*e l. ;econd, I t#inB it;s unDise to '$$oD suc# ' re$'ti=e$y ,inor (r'ctic'$ concern to (re=ent suc# ' si0nific'nt i,(ro=e,ent in t#e e*uc'tion'$ ='$ue of t#e 'cti=ity3 es(eci'$$y 0i=en our (ri,'ry ro$e 's e*uc'tors% @See #oD e'sy3 'n* ,uc# ,ore re'$istic3 conte9tu'$iPe* i,('ct co,('rison isNA
1*D
150/169
trut# testin0 1'* c'r*s

Trut# Testin0 Le'*s To 5FF str't sBeD
:angus L:ichael, 0the value(comparison paradigm" a turn away from truth(testing,1) 1. aff strategy skew. i am a huge fan of the spread, of tricky arguments, and of very fast debate. however 3 ne0'ti=e s(re'*s #'=e 1eco,e #oriPont'$ r't#er t#'n =ertic'$. in other words, instead of ,'Bin0 2! 'nsDers to t#e 'ffir,'ti=e c'se3 ne0'ti=es #'=e t'Ben to runnin0 ,u$ti($e I' (rioriI off:c'se (ositions% while i believe that off(case debate is good, 'ffIs 're in ' rou0# ($'ce D#en it co,es to 'nsDerin0 t#ese ('rticu$'r ty(es of #oriPont'$ s(re'* 1ec'use e'c# issue is ' 0'teD'y 'r0u,ent J t#e 'ffir,'ti=e ,ust 'nsDer e'c# (osition to Din t#e *e1'te3 1ut t#ey Di$$ 1e #'r* (resse* to 0'rner offense on t#e,% in other words, if you (ro=e $'n0u'0e *oes in f'ct #'=e ,e'nin0 'n* c'us'$ity *oes in f'ct e9ist 'n* PenoIs ('r'*o9 is in f'ct reso$='1$e3 you Di$$ 't 1est 1re'B e=en% t#e "'r ,i0#t 1e force* to s(en* "%+: ,inutes 'nsDerin0 1'cB 'r0u,ents t#'t t#ey #'=e no c#'nce of i,('ct:turnin0 J #'$f of ' s(eec# *e*ic'te* to *efense%
5 ) 5(rioris 're t#e S',e 's t#eory

Aprioris are ,ifferent than $heory #ecause 3ffense 5annot #e ?enerated 3ff of them And they Are mposed by the 4esolution not the ,ebater :angus L:ichael, 0the value(comparison paradigm" a turn away from truth(testing,1) D#i$e ,'ny t#eory 'r0u,ents 're si,i$'r$y 0'teD'y Fuestions3 t#ere is ' fun*',ent'$ *ifference% D#en you3 for e9',($e3 run ' c'se t#'t is not to(ic'$3 you #'=e ,'*e ' *irect c#oice to en0'0e ' ('rticu$'r to(ic 're' 'n* s#ou$* 1e (re('re* to *efen* t#'t t#'t to(ic 're' is $e0iti,'te 'ffir,'ti=e 0roun*% #oDe=er3 you *o not c#oose t#e reso$ution 'n* '$$ t#e 'cco,('nyin0 'ssu,(tions t#ereofH itIs ' 1ur*en i,(ose* on you 1y t#e to(ic3 not 1y your oDn =o$ition . ,oreo=er3 t#eory 'r0u,ents #'=e i,('cts t#'t c'n 1e turne*) e*uc'tion3 f'irness3 etc% 're '$$ i,($ic'tions of *e1't'1$e *esir'1i$ity% trut#3 on t#e ot#er #'n*3 is not 'n i,('ct t#'t you c'n (ro=e 0oo*/1'* J your on$y o(tion is *efense) *eny t#e intern'$ $inBs @no3 t#'t is not trueA%
Trut# Testin0 Le'*s to NE< Str't SBeD

:angus L:ichael, 0the value(comparison paradigm" a turn away from truth(testing,1) %. neg strategy skew. to co,(ens'te for t#ese #oriPont'$ ' (riori s(re'*s3 'ffir,'ti=es #'=e incre'sin0$y re$ie* on #i**en ' (riori s(iBes in t#e "'c% 's ' conseFuence3 De #'=e so,e =ery (ro,inent *e1'ters D#o Din roun*s 1y (resentin0 ' c$'i, in t#e "'c3 ' D'rr'nt in t#e "'r3 'n* 'n i,('ct in t#e 'r% 'r0u,ents 're insufficient$y *e=e$o(e* 'n* ne0'ti=es #'=e $itt$e to no in*ic'tion of D#'t 'r0u,ents in t#e 'ff 're i,(ort'nt% D#i$e critic'$ t#inBin0 'n* str'te0ic (re*iction 're ='$u'1$e sBi$$s3 its unre'son'1$e to e9(ect ' ne0'ti=e to re'* 'n* 'nsDer e=ery sentence of t#e "'c% e=en D#en s(iBes c'n 1e iso$'te*3 'nsDerin0 t#e, is (ro1$e,'tic 1ec'use t#ey 're often so ='0ue t#'t ' co,($ete res(onse is i,(ossi1$e%
Trut# Testin0 Le'*s to Irreso$='1$e De1'tes

:angus L:ichael, 0the value(comparison paradigm" a turn away from truth(testing,1) '. irresolvable debates% inste'* of re'c#in0 ' sortof str'te0ic'$$y:sBeDe* synt#esis3 t#ese tDo forces inste'* cre'te *e1'tes t#'t $e'=e Cu*0es *u,1foun*e*% t#e 'ffir,'ti=e Di$$ *ro( 'n o=er=ieD t#'t K(ro=esL t#e reso$ution contr'*ictory D#i$e t#e ne0'ti=e Di$$ *ro( ' s(iBe t#'t K(ro=esL t#e reso$ution t'uto$o0ic'$% if t#e Cu*0e is $ucBy3 one of t#ese 'r0u,ents Di$$ so,e#oD res(on* to or un*er,ine t#e ot#er 'n* ' *ecision c'n 1e ren*ere* Dit# so,e *e0ree of f'irness% oftenti,es3 #oDe=er3 t#ere is no co,('rison 1etDeen t#e 'r0u,ents 'n* no o1=ious inter'ction 1etDeen t#e,% e=en in t#e first c'se3 t#is is not t#e (inn'c$e of su1st'nti=e *e1'te% in t#e $'tter c'se3 it is ' *irect in=it'tion for Cu*0e inter=ention% t#is is not iso$'te* to t#e $oDer 1r'cBets of tourn',ents eit#er J ,'ny #i0#:(oDere* (re$i,s 'n* e$i,in'tion roun*s fe'ture t#ese str'te0ies%
1+E
151/169
Trut# Testin0 Le'*s to Defense On$y Str'te0ies

:angus L:ichael, 0the value(comparison paradigm" a turn away from truth(testing,1) *. defense(only strategies. es(eci'$$y on t#e ne0'ti=e3 *e1'ters incre'sin0$y *efen* t#'t t#eir o((onent is Dron03 not t#'t t#ey 're ri0#t% 'fter '$$3 t#e ne0 0ets to *efen* V(% e=en on t#e 'ffir,'ti=e3 ,'ny 'ffir,'ti=es ten* to Din *e1'tes Dit# *efensi=e 'r0u,ents) VV( WX. (% un*er t#is fr',eDorB3 *e1'ters 're tr'ine* 's so(#ists3 not '*=oc'tes% t#is '$so $e'*s to *e1'tes t#'t 're *ifficu$t to '*Cu*ic'te 'n*3 fr'nB$y3 1orin0 J if neit#er si*e is Dinnin0 ' c$e'r i,('ct to D#y t#eir si*e is 0oo* @or true3 un*er t#e *o,in'nt ('r'*i0,A3 its *ifficu$t to e='$u'te t#e Dinner of t#e roun* in ' non:'r1itr'ry D'y%
1+1
152/169
7o$icy,'Bin0 0oo* c'r*s

7o$icy E'si$y Reso$=es W#et#er or Not 6u$ti($e 7$'ns C'n Be Eustifie*
Kichtman and 4ohrer LAllan 6., ,aniel :., 0!3K 5@ , ;!7$& AG, !A4A, ?: &/AK7A$ 3G" A 4&;!3G;& $3 43WKAG,,1 Allan +ichtman is ,rofessor of
-istory at American .niversity/ and $aniel 0ohrer is Associate ,rofessor of Speech Communication and Theatre at Boston College."
)irst, 4owland contends that the policy(making model is unclear because it fails to indicate 0whether the negative must defend a single policy system or may defend several systems.[ 4owlands quandary is readily resolvedI policy comparison may involve any number of negative alternatives . As we noted in 1DCE, A program of action is affirmed because it is superior to all other proposed competitors
and rejected because it is not as desirable as at least one other competing proposal .
5 ) 6u$ti($e 7o$icy O(tions O=er$o'* De1'teH HoDe=er3 T#is Is Not 5(($ic'1$e To 7o$icy 6'Bin0 But Trut# Testin0% 7o$icy 6'Bin0 ReFuires t#'t 5ny 7o$icy 5*=oc'te* Is W'rr'nte*
-istory at American .niversity/ and $aniel 0ohrer is Associate ,rofessor of Speech Communication and Theatre at Boston College." 4owland subsequently impugns the multiple policy option, arguing that it overloads the time capacity of debate by enticing negative teams to advance policy alternatives that cannot be adequately described or analyAed in a single debate. 1 $his argument has force, however, for the hypothesis testing model, not for the policy systems paradigm.
Unlike the hypothesis testers, we neither arbitrarily grant a favorable presumption to every negative alternative nor permit substantive contradictions among counterplans. e also re!uire sufficient development of counterproposals for accurate policy comparison. "n this conte#t, the multiple policy option might actually serve to raise the standards of argumentation in academic debate. $egative advocates would be well advised to take the time necessary for presenting new policy systems only when their sustaining arguments are of high enough !uality to offer compelling alternatives to affirmative cases.
5 ) 7o$icy 6'Bin0 I0nores I,($e,ent'tion Issues

Policy Making Framework Includes Implementation, This is Key to E ecti!e Policy Making "nd "FF #ias "rguments "re $ontradicted Kichtman and 4ohrer LAllan 6., ,aniel :., 0!3K 5@ , ;!7$& AG, !A4A, ?: &/AK7A$ 3G" A 4&;!3G;& $3 43WKAG,,1 Allan +ichtman is ,rofessor of
-istory at American .niversity/ and $aniel 0ohrer is Associate ,rofessor of Speech Communication and Theatre at Boston College." ;econd, 4owland maintains that the policy(making model 0is biased for the affirmative1 because it is easier to identify advantages than disadvantages of policy change.% @et %owland fails to show why this problem uni!uely applies to our model of debate&
whatever the prevailing theory, someone must propose a policy change and someone else must seek to oppose it. :oreover, %owland later contradicts his argument by suggesting that the policy'making paradigm encourages catastrophic disadvantages of such magnitude as to defeat affirmative cases despite scant probability of their actual occurrence. %owland further suggests that our model is biased toward the affirmative because it downplays problems of implementation.()* +et we have pointed out that problems of implementation ,with the e#ception of the illegitimate argument that the plan will not be adopted- are central to the policy'making model since they crucially affect the probability of achieving the affirmative advantages
5 ) 7o$icy 6'Bin0 Le'*s To ' SBeDe* VieD of t#e 7o$icy En=iro,ent

1+%
153/169
7o$icy 6'Bin0 In De1'te Is 'n 5ccur'te Ref$ection of 7o$icy 6'Bin0 'n* Inc$u*es Soft V'ri'1$es
-istory at American .niversity/ and $aniel 0ohrer is Associate ,rofessor of Speech Communication and Theatre at Boston College." $hird. 4owland argues that the policy systems model 0produces a skewed view of the policy environment1 that deifies quantification, ignores 0soft1 variables, and submerges human values.1+ Oere %owland mows down an army of straw soldiers as he attacks an
oversimplified view of policy'systems analysis. Although .entagon planners and other officials have sought to devise a form of pseudo policy science that banishes !uestions of value and counts only that which is countable, our own approach emphasi/es that policy systems analysis places matters of value at the forefront of analysis, incorporates soft variables, and avoids the mechanical computation of e#act numerical functions.( As we observed in a 1DBD article devoted to the very issues raised in this ob2ection, the policy'systems model actually paves the way for direct clashes over the ideology 0a necessary component of any policy system1 that implicitly or e#plicitly guides all human decision. For the model highlights the combination of fact and value in policy comparison and clarifies the relationships between means and ends in policy systems. 4owland
lampoons value debate, noting the absurdity of arbitrarily assigning 02ustice a numerical importance B.' with freedom slightly higher at C.*1 ;uch 0a quantitative measure of value,1 he adds, 0reflects only the raters intuitive evaluation of the importance of the value.1 C $ever do we advocate infle#ible
and arbitrary assignments of weights to core values like freedom and justice. "nstead we alert advocates to the importance of grasping the philosophical foundations for guiding values and of establishing priorities among policy outcomes according to the value tradeoffs they entail. t
is 4ow\ land, not us, who disparages the possibilities of debating human values. 4e2ecting 4owlands positivistic viewpoint that dismisses values dispute as inherently intuitive and thereby meaningless, we maintain that debate over ideology is especially important for a society e#periencing rapid technological change. #y drawing on humanitys rich historical tradition and e8amining alternative views on the nature of man, advocates may well be able to suggest non(arbitrary weightings of even highly abstract values. $o abdicate this responsibility is to permit 0our technology to define our values for us.11 nstead of ignoring so t !aria%les that de y inclusion in a &uantitati!e comparison o costs and %ene its, we e#plicitly incorporate them in the policy.making process. !olicy comparison, we have noted, 0may not always accommodate the smooth e8change of benefits and costs.1 %[ 5ertain fundamental rights of human beings, for instance, may be given absolute priority over other in\ terests. $hus policy debaters could legitimately contend that the e#amination of
particular costs and benefits must take place within boundaries that cannot be crossed irrespective of circumstance. 23 !olicy analysis also takes into account the process by which decisions are reached, encompassing 4owlands
concern for 0questions of responsibility.1 %% 5onsiderations relevant to the decision(making process as well as to the 0end states1 of policy simply become components of the costs and benefits to be weighed in the evaluation of competing policy.%' 7se of the policy(systems paradigm does not mean that debate is reduced to the mechanical computation of numerical measures. $he highest levels of rhetoric, analysis, and evidential support are required for warranting a choice among competing systems of policy" advocates cannot simply accumulate quotations and contentions without e8plicitly showing how they relate to the task of policy comparison. We also warn against simplistic assumptions about the numerical e8actitude that can be attained in policy dispute, observing that" 0Advocates seek estimates of probabilities and values that are as precise as possible, given limitations of information, time, and analytic technique. &ven practitioners of the natural sciences often work comfortably with ranges of probability and estimates of varianca1 %* 4owland cites our stricture to be 0as precise as possible1 as though it were a sinI %+ but without such an effort, the only alternatives are ambiguity, imprecision, argument by anecdote and innuendo.
D
5 ) 7o$icy 6'Bin0 I0nores Res(onsi1i$ity 7o$icy 6'Bin0 Inc$u*es t#e 5n'$ysis of en* St'tes 'n* Does Not 5*=oc'te Si,($e 6ec#'nic'$ Co,(ut'tions3 t#e On$y 5$tern'ti=e to 7o$icy 6'Bin0 is 5,1i0uity
-istory at American .niversity/ and $aniel 0ohrer is Associate ,rofessor of Speech Communication and Theatre at Boston College." nstead of ignoring soft variables that defy inclusion in a quantitative comparison of costs and benefits, we e8plicitly incorporate them in the policy.making process. !olicy comparison, we have noted, 0may not always accommodate the smooth e8change of benefits and costs.1 %[ 5ertain fundamental rights of human beings, for instance, may be given absolute priority over other in\ terests. $hus policy debaters could legitimately contend that the e8amination of particular costs and benefits must take place within boundaries that cannot be crossed irrespective of circumstance. % .olicy analysis also takes into account the process by which decisions
are reached, encompassing %owland3s concern for !uestions of responsibility.( 22 4onsiderations 1+'
154/169
relevant to the decision'making process as well as to the end states( of policy simply become components of the costs and benefits to be weighed in the evaluation of competing policy. 2* Use of the policy'systems paradigm does not mean that debate is reduced to the mechanical computation of numerical measures. The highest levels of rhetoric, analysis, and evidential support are re!uired for warranting a choice among competing systems of policy5 advocates cannot simply accumulate !uotations and contentions without e#plicitly showing how they relate to the task of policy comparison . We also warn against simplistic assumptions about the numerical e8actitude that can be attained in policy
dispute, observing that"
'Advocates seek estimates of probabilities and values that are as precise as possible, given limitations of information, time, and analytic techni!ue. 6ven practitioners of the natural sciences often work comfortably with ranges of probability and estimates of varianca( () %owland cites our stricture to be as precise as possible( as though it were a sin& 27 but without such an effort, the only alternatives are ambiguity, imprecision, argument by anecdote and innuendo.
5 ) Hi0# 6'0nitu*e LoD 7ro1'1i$ity I,('cts B'* E='$u'tin0 Hi0# I,('cts 'n* LoD 7ro1'1i$ity I,('cts is ' True Ref$ection of 7o$icy 6'Bin0
-istory at American .niversity/ and $aniel 0ohrer is Associate ,rofessor of Speech Communication and Theatre at Boston College." )ourth, and finally, 4owland claims that the policy systems paradigm produces 0bad argument1 by encouraging debaters 0to present catastrophic impact arguments1 even when the chances of catastrophe occurring are minute, ,ebate, he observes, 0would do well to copy other disciplines ( . . and re2ect arguments which do not meet a minimum standard of proof,1 adopting perhaps 0the .E+ significance level.1 %9 @et low probability, high'impact arguments are not necessarily bad
arguments.( Authorities in some fields such as epidemiology and nuclear power regulation reali/e the critical importance of including in their analyses assessments of even small probabilities of catastrophic events. $heir work demonstrates the sophistication of the investigations required for establishing the likelihood of catastrophic occur(
rences.
%owland also misrepresents the process of probabilistic reasoning in a comparison of policies conte#t, thereby conjuring false dangers to debate, The import of a catastrophic outcome argument comes not from demonstrating at some level of probability that policy + may produce catastrophic result 8, but from showing that the probability of catastrophe 8 occurring is greater under policy + than under alternative policy +* Lwhich may, of course, be the present system). &ven if it were true that one could readily show some small probability that
catastrophic outcome U would result from adoption of policy @, it decidedly does not follow that one could readily show that the probability of U given policy @ is greater than the probability of U given alternative policy 1*/ i.e, that ! LU<@) X ! 2/1*". An advocate could argue, for e8ample, that deployment of the :U missile system risks nuclear war by destabiliAing the current balance in strategic weaponry. #ut a defender of the :U could respond that failure to deploy the system risks nuclear war by giving the ;oviets an opportunity to destroy Americas ground(based deterrent. $he resolution of this controversy Li.e., the determination of whether ! 2/1" 3 ! LU<@) or ! LU<@) W ! LU<@) or ! LU<@) 4 ! LU<@) would involve highly comple8 argumentation and substantial presentation of evidence. Thus by insisting on the comparative nature of
policy decisions, our debate paradigm protects advocates from cheaply made catastrophic impact arguments. 4ompeting paradigms that slight the comparison of policy systems offer no such protection.
1+*
155/169
(o$icy,'Bin0 1'* c'r*s

Hi0# 6'0nitu*e3 LoD 7ro1'1i$ity i,('cts in (o$icy ,'Bin0 f'i$s
4owland L0$O& !4 :A5@ 3) ;$AG,A4,; )34 !A4A, ?: &/AK7A$ 3G" A 4&63 G,&4,1 4obert)
)irst, Kichtman and 4ohrer misunderstand my ob2ections to the policy making paradigm. )or e8ample, they all but ignore my e8planation of how the (re%
su((ositions of t#e (o$icy ,'Bin0 (ers(ecti=e ine=it'1$y $e'* (o$icy ,'Bers to *oDn($'y or e=en i0nore non:Fu'ntifi'1$e issues.\ &ven more seriously, they misrepresent
several of my arguments. )or e8ample, Kichtman and 4ohrer claim that by ob2ecting to big impact disadvantages both ignore the potential value of such disadvantages and contndict my other claim that policy making is biased for the affirmative[ Actually, the point is that 1ec'use
(o$icy ,'Bin0 $'cBs ,ini,u, st'n*'r*s for e='$u'tin0 'r0u,ents3 1ot# 'ffir,'ti=e 'n* ne0'ti=e *e1'ters 're encour'0e* to (resent enor,ous i,('ct 'r0u,ents in situ'tions D#ere t#ey *o not '(($y.B 3n a related issue, Kichtman and 4ohrer accuse me of inconsistently
ob2ecting to the emphasis in policy making on quan. tification, while at the same time suggesting use of the .E+ significance standard as a numerically precise measure of the minimum proof level which all arguments should meet before being considered,C Kichtman and 4ohrer then e8press surprise that would defend such an obviously inconsistent position. Actually, never defended the position which they describe. nstead, referred to t#e
%!+ si0nific'nce test 'n* ,ini,u, (roof st'n*'r*s use* in science 'n* t#e #u,'nities in or*er to *is(ute t#e (osition of (o$icy ,'Bers t#'t '$$ 'r0u,ents s#ou$* 1e e='$u'te* (ro1'1i$istic'$$y re0'r*$ess of t#e su((ortin0 e=i*ence%Y It is =ery c$e'r in t#e conte9t of t#e ess'y t#'t I Dou$* ne=er '*=oc'te t#e use of ' nu,eric'$$y (recise ,ini,u, 1ur*en of (roof st'n*'r*. t is also hardly fair of Kichtman and 4ohrer to claim that 0dismiss values dispute as inherently intuitive and there by meaningless.1[ :y point is t#'t t#e 'tte,(t 1y (o$icy ,'Bers to Fu'ntify t#e i,(ort'nce of '$$ (ro1$e,s often f'i$s 'n* ,'y $e'* to ' ,isst'te,ent of t#e i,(ort'nce of ' (ro1$e, .
Kichtman and 4ohrer ignore or misrepresent many of the substantive ob2ections to the policy making model.
7o$icy 7'r'*i0, Le'*s to 'n O=ersi,($ific'tion of Re'$ Wor$* 7o$icy ,'Bin03 t#is *e: $inBs t#e, for, t#eir offense
4owland L0$O& !4 :A5@ 3) ;$AG,A4,; )34 !A4A, ?: &/AK7A$ 3G" A 4&63 G,&4,1 4obert) A second problem with the defense of policy making by Kichtman and 4ohrer is that rather than defeating ob2ections to the model, they tend to simply define those ob2ections as irrelevant. For e9',($e3 t#ey c$'i, t#'t t#e re'$ Dor$* e9(erience Dit# cost 1enefit 'n'$ysis3 77BS3 'n* ot#er for,s of (o$icy ,'Bin0 is not re$e='nt to 'n e='$u'tion of t#e (o$icy ,'Bin0 *e1'te ('r'*i0,%; " T#is (osition is ,ost un s'tisf'ctory% It is not 't '$$ c$e'r D#y t#e e9(erience Dit# re'$ Dor$* for,s of (o$icy ,'Bin03 D#ic# 're 1ui$t on t#e s',e 'ssu,(tions 's t#e (o$icy ,'Bin0 *e1'te ('r'*i0,3 is not re$e='nt to 'n'$ysis of t#'t *e1'te ('r'*i0,% It is =ery e'sy for Lic#t,'n 'n* Ro#rer to c#'r'cteriPe re'$ Dor$* (o$icy 'n'$ysis 's 'n Ko=ersi,($ific'tion%L1% Oowever, since t#ey *o not i*entify t#e fun*',ent'$ (#i$oso(#ic'$ *ifferences 1etDeen t#is Ko=ersi,($ific'tionL 'n'$ysis 'n* t#eir oDn syste,3 t#ere is e=ery re'son to 1e$ie=e t#'t t#e (ro1$e,s D#ic# ($'0ue re'$ Dor$* (o$icy ,'Bin0 ,i0#t '$so ($'0ue t#e (o$icy ,'Bin0 *e1'te ,o*e$% Re'$
1++
156/169
Dor$* (o$icy ,'Bers *o not (ur(ose$y i0nore Fuestions of ='$ue or (ro1$e,s of i,($e,ent'tion% T#ose (o$icy scientists *o t#eir 1est to t'Be into 'ccount '$$ of t#e re$e='nt issues3 1ut t#e 'ssu,(tions of t#eir ('r'*i0, $e'* t#e, into error% T#e s',e cou$* De$$ 1e true of t#e (o$icy ,'Bin0 *e1'te ('r'*i0,%
7o$icy 6'Bin0 Fr',eDorB Is V'0ue 'n* Inconsistent

$he final ob2ection to Kichtmans and 4ohrers position is that (o$icy ,'Bin0 ('r'*i0,, which they defend, #'s 1eco,e so ='0ue 's to 1e '$$ t#in0s to '$$ (eo($e . Kichtman and 4ohrer now allow the negative to defend multiple policy positions as long as those positions are adequately defined and consistent. ' Oowever, t#ey *o not e9($'in D#y t#e ne0'ti=e ,'y not *efen* inconsistent (o$icies 's $on0 's t#ose (ositions 're in*e(en*ent (o$icy syste,s . T#e o(% (onents of
t#e 5W5CS s'$e 'r0ue* 1ot# t#'t S'u*i 5r'1i' is so stron0 t#'t t#e ($'nes 're not nee*e* 'n* so De'B t#'t t#e ($'nes Dou$* *o no 0oo*% T#e re Fuire,ent t#'t t#e (o$icy (ositions 1e '*eFu'te$y *efine* is '$so essenti'$$y ,e'nin0$ess% )ew 2udges will vote for positions which they believe are inadequately defined. T#e (o$icy ,'Bin0 ('r'*i0, is 1eco,in0 incre'sin0$y ='0ue in ot#er 're's 's De$$% Lic#t,'n 'n* Ro#rer noD 'r0ue t#'t t#e (o$icy ,'Ber s#ou$* not reFuire *e1'ters to Fu'ntify '$$ #'r,s3 'n* s#ou$* in so,e inst'nces 0i=e s(eci'$ 'ttention to Fu'$it'ti=e or ='$ue re$'te* #'nns% "2 In '**ition3 t#ey '** ',1i0uity to t#e ,o*e$ 1y '*,ittin0 t#'t ZCert'in fun*',ent'$ ri0#ts of #u,'n 1ein0s3 for inst'nce3 ,'y 1e
given absolute priority over other interests1\ n the original model, no interest was ever given absolute priority over other interests.19 4ather, all of the various competing interests were compared. )inally, Kichtman and 4ohrer now agree that all questions of theory and substance may be disputed in a given debate.\\
7o$icy 6'Bin0 is ' Fr',eDorB T#'t c'nnot 1e Use* in Roun*

At this point, question whether the version of policy making described by Lic#t,'n
'n* Ro#rer is 'ny $on0er ' use'1$e ('r'*i0,% It s#ou$* 1e rec'$$e* t#'t ('r'*i0,s (ro=i*e 1ot# t#e $ens t#rou0# D#ic# t#e *e1'te Dor$* is =ieDe* 'n* t#e st'n*'r*s 1y D#ic# 'r0u,ents 're e='$u'te*% 7o$icy ,'Bin0 's *escri1e* 1y Lic#t,'n 'n* Ro#rer3 no $on0er fu$fi$$s eit#er function% 5 (o$icy ,'Bin0 Cu*0e ,'y or ,'y not $i,it t#e ne0'ti=e to ' sin0$e (o$icy% T#e Cu*0e ,'y 'tte,(t to Dei0# '$$ issues in Fu'ntit'ti=e ter,s3 or ,'y 0i=e (re ce*ence to Fuestions of ='$ue3 or ,'y e=en 0i=e '1so$ute (riority to so,e issue 'n* i0nore t#e ot#er issues, A policy
maker might give absolute priority to an argument about motive or presumption, which was tied to some 0fundamental right.1 At that point, the policy making 2udge might be defining the issue of motive or presumption in terms which are normally associated with the hypothesis testing or stock issues paradigm. T#e (o$icy ,'Bin0 ,o*e$ D#ic# e,er0es fro, Lic#t,'n;s 'n*
Ro#rer;s ess'y is noD so ='0ue t#'t eit#er stocB issues 'n'$ysis or #y(ot#esis testin0 cou$* fit co,fort'1$y Dit#in it% Sarefskys main argument against the functional view of paradigm evaluation flows from his analysis of debate as a sub(
set of argumentation which serves as a model for all of argument.lC As understand his position, Sarefsky believes that debate is a field of argumentation which is valuable because it fulfills the general goals served by all argumentation and because it serves as a paradigm case or model for argument. Sarefsky reasons that since there are no clearly agreed upon purposes of argumentation, it is fruitless to try and establish standards for evaluating all debate paradigms. A paradigm which fulfilled one purpose might not fulfill another purpose. n addition, Sarefsky argues that since debate serves as a model for argument, theoretical questions should take precedence over practical matters in the evaluation of paradigms.
1+9
157/169
T#e 7oint of De1'te is Not to Cre'te Effecti=e 7o$icy But To De=e$o( SBi$$s To Co,e to t#e Trut# 's C$ose 's 7ossi1$e
think that ['refsBy;s (osition is fun*',ent'$$y f$'De* 1ec'use it incorrect$y i*entifies t#e (ur(ose of *e1'te% ,ebate does not primarily serve as a model for argument. Gor does it serve the same purposes which argument serves in society. If t#e 0o'$ of *e1'te Dere to 'ct 's ' ,o*e$ for 'r0u,ent3 t#en t#e co,(etiti=e 's(ects of *e1'te Dou$* 1e $'r0e$y unnecess'ry. $he argumentation scholar could build a model of argument and then study a few debates to test the model. $here would be no need for the continuing process of tournament competition. I *o not *eny t#'t t#e stu*y of *e1'te ,'y #e$( e$uci*'te so,e (ortions of 'r0u,ent'tion t#eory3 1ut t#e resu$tin0 t#eoretic'$ '*='nces 're si*e 1enefits 'n* not t#e (ri,'ry (ur(ose of *e1'te% t is also clear that debate does not serve the same purposes as real world argumentation. In t#e re'$ Dor$*3 (o$icy ,'Bers cou$* not to$er'te ' syste,3 D#ic# '$$oDe* inferior (o$icies to 1e se$ecte*3 1ec'use t#ey Dere su((orte* 1y su(erior '*=oc'tes% @et, there are many debates in A
4&63 G,&4 1C Sarefsky, 0$he !erils of Assessing !aradligms,1 p. 1*1. 1+C which
inferior policy positions. 5c'*e,ic
superior teams win because of their skill, and despite defense of *e1'te, as argued in the original essay on paradigm evaluation, is ' (oor ,et#o* of
,'Bin0 (o$icy or e='$u'tin0 scientific #y(ot#eses3 1ut it is ' 0oo* ,et#o* of te'c#in0 stu*ents #oD to 1ui$* 'r0u,ents so t#'t t#ey c'n ,'Be (o$icy or e='$u'te #y(ot#eses. Oere, Sarefsky misunderstands the statement
that, 0$he ultimate goal of debate is to teach people how to argue effectively.11 Sarefsky proposes several definitions of 0effectively1 and eventual. ly concludes that the concept is unreasonably vague.%E #y claiming that debate teaches people how to argue effectively, meant that *e1'te te'c#es (eo($e #oD to 1ui$* 0oo* 'r0u,ents in or*er to co,e 's c$ose to t#e trut# 's
(ossi1$e% It is not necess'ry to *efine K0oo* 'r0u,ent3L 1ec'use t#e *e1'te (rocess is 1ui$t on t#e 'ssu,(tion t#'t t#e *i'$ectic'$ interc#'n0e 1etDeen '*=oc'tes is t#e 1est test of 'r0u,ent Fu'$ity% $he
dialectical process forces debaters to argue 0realistically,1 0creatively,1 0analytically,1 and so on in order to defeat the arguments of the opposition% De1'te3 is (ri,'ri$y 'n e*uc'tion'$ 'cti=ity D#ic# te'c#es *e1'ters to 1ui$* 0oo* 'r0u,ents% 3nce it is understood that the purpose of debate is to teach argumentation skills, most of Sarefskys ob2ections to the five proposed evaluative standards quickly disappear. )irst, think that Sarefsky is mistaken when he suggests that all of the ma2or paradigms are clear and internally consistent. have argued at some length elsewhere that the policy making paradigm is neither clear nor 1D ;ee 4obert
4owland, 0;tandart for !aradigm &valuation,1 Journal of the American 'orensic Association, p. 1'D. %E Sarefsky, 0$he !erils of Assessing !aradigms,1 p. 1*%.
consistent,%i Kichtmans and 4ohrers latest defense of policy making, in their critique of 0;tandards for !aradigm &valuation,1 illustrates this problem.
1+B
158/169
&&&C#'(ter "!) 6isce$$'neous Citin0 Wit#out 7er,ission 1'*

Inter(ret'tion) ,ebaters must provide written permission from the author in order to cite articles that indicate permission is necessary for quotation% #. Vio$'tion) 6y o((onent cites ' c'r* fro, one suc# 'rtic$e Dit#out Dritten (er,ission. C% St'n*'r*s) 1. Source ='$i*ity ( authors continually change and update their positions when drafting articles, which means that the author may not ultimately agree with the conclusions drawn from cited evidence. n working papers, conclusions are often pre(drafted before all e8perimental analysis is complete, which means that we have no idea whether the ideas proposed in the paper are the result of rigorous e8perimentation or research. $hey can claim that this evidence has the same ethos appeal as that from other authors, but we have no way of verifying that. ;ource validity is key to fairness because we do not have limitless resources in(round and cannot fact(check every statement, so we have to rely on the fact that work by topic authors possesses a certain degree of academic quality and base our arguments off that assumption. ;ource validity is also key to education because we gain no benefits from debating sources that are not even academically sound.
A.
%. 5ccess to rese'rc# . they ignored the authors message and used the evidence anyway, but other debaters may have been more academically ethical and asked permission. We have no way of knowing whether the author would have granted those debaters permission, so by using the position without receiving the same constraints, they give themselves access to research that no one else has. f everyone asks permission before citing such articles, this grants everyone equal access to those same articles. &qual access to research is key to fairness because research determines our abilities to make arguments that could win us the round, so if one person has access to more research then they unfairly have a better opportunity to win. '. nconsistency" 3ften within drafts, Authors continually change and up date their position. $his means that the author may not agree with the conclusions drawn from my opponents evidence. n working papers, authors have not thought out the thesis or conclusion of the paper which means it would allow for multiple conclusions to be drawn from an article. $his is key to fairness because citing inconstant and unfinished 2ustifies strawmaning arguments and deleting te8t from articles, this allows debaters to be manipulative and destroys the competitive nature of debate.
2% 5c'*e,ic Honesty: Citin0 Wit#out (er,ission =io$'tes 'c'*e,ic #onesty "n "uthor+s Permission Must "lways #e ,i!en
KIEEME -. /09TAT6:6$T ;F 6T<"49 A$= %69.;$9">"?"T"69 "$ T<6 .U>?"4AT";$ ;F %696A%4<,(
Enacted in March (---, mostly re!ised in 1ecem%er (--. KIEEME, 2m 3-4. The Korea 5cience 6 Technology $enter, 789:), ;eoksam:dong, ,angnam:gu, 5eoul <89:4-8, Korea, Tel= >3(:(:983:4.93, Fa?= >3(:(:983:87(8, Trans. 6lectr. 6lectron. :ater. http"<<transeem.org<data<;$A$&:&G$M%E3) M%E&$O 5;M%EAG,M%E4&;!3G; # K $ &;M%E GM%E$O&M%E!7#K 5A$ 3GM%E3)M%E4&;&A45O.pdf )
The authors3 central obligation is to present a concise, accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources of information to permit others to 1+C
159/169
repeat the work. Proper acknowledgment o the work o others used in a research pro@ect must always be given. "uthors should cite pu%lications that ha!e %een in luential in determining the nature o the reported work.
In ormation o%tained pri!ately, as in con!ersation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not %e used or reported without e?plicit permission rom the in!estigator with whom the in ormation originated. "nformation
obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, cannot be used without permission of the author of the work being used. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, e#ecution, or interpretation of the research study . "ll those who ha!e made
signi icant contri%utions should %e o ered the opportunity to %e listed as authors. Ather indi!iduals who ha!e contri%uted to the study should %e acknowledged, %ut not identi ied as authors. The sources o inancial support or the pro@ect should %e disclosed. .lagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior and is never acceptable . It is unethical or an author to pu%lish manuscripts descri%ing essentially the same research in more than one @ournal o primary pu%lication. 5u%mitting the same manuscript to more than one @ournal concurrently is unethical and unaccepta%le. I related manuscripts are %eing su%mitted concurrently, the author should in orm the editor o the relationship %etween the manuscripts. Bhen an error is disco!ered in a pu%lished work, it is the o%ligation o all authors to promptly retract the paper or correct the results. "n erratum or pu%lication should %e su%mitted when a signi icant error is disco!ered in one o her or his pu%lished reports.
It is unf'ir to =io$'te t#e 'ut#or;s contro$ of t#eir inte$$ectu'$ (ro(erty% T#is is t#e eFui='$ent to ste'$in0 1ec'use you 're *isre0'r*in0 t#e 'ut#or;s ri0#t to t#eir t#ou0#ts 'n* t'Bin0 t#e, 's your oDn% Contr'*ictin0 t#e Di$$ of t#e 'ut#or =io$'tes one of t#e fun*',ent'$ ru$es of 'c'*e,i'% Sc#oo$s f'i$3 e9(e$3 *is'ssoci'te Dit# stu*ents D#o #'=e co,,itte* 'c'*e,ic fr'u*3 t#is ou0#t to 1e t#e s',e in t#e *e1'te% T#is is t#e stron0est $inB into f'irness 1ec'use $yin0 'n* c#e'tin0 *estroys t#e co,(etiti=e eFuity of *e1'te 'n* t#e inte0rity of our co,(etition% If I c#oose to res(ect t#e 'ut#ors reFuest I ', (unis#e* 1ec'use I *on;t #'=e 'ccess to t#ese c'r*s% ,.
/oters
1+D
160/169
6iscut e=i*ence 1'*

". Interpretation= The opponent must cut card e!idence that is completely rele!ant to the author*s !iews in the article sourcing the in ormation #. Ciolation= The opponent did not cut e!idence rom the articles in a way that re erenced the !iews o the article. $. 5tandards= <. Predicta%ility= #y mis:cutting cards, the opponent remo!es an element o predicta%ility in e!idence that he presents %ecause I may ha!e ran into the same article while researching the topic or my case. #ecause de%aters o ten ind themsel!es running into the same articles, there is &uite o ten an element o predicta%ility that each de%ater has i they happen to hear cut e!idence rom an article they skimmed while researching or possi%ly used on another case. 2esearching these articles and %ecoming amiliar with the topic literature allows de%aters to %etter prepare arguments or ind other credi%le cards that com%at this in ormation. Dowe!er, i the in ormation has %een mis:cut, the element o predicta%ility disappears. Furthermore, the opponent is orced to scram%le or a last minute credi%le warrant to re ute e!idence that is not credi%le. This misuse o e!idence links to airness %ecause each de%ater should %e gi!en an e&ual opportunity to win the round i they used the same resources to warrant their claims, and %y ad@usting the opinions o the author, my opponent has a clear ad!antage o!er me. (. Misuse o Topic Eiterature= My opponent was a%le to not only phrase the words o the author to his ad!antage, %ut he also used the credi%le name o the author to make his e!idence appear more credi%le. Theoretically, i we allow any de%ater to cut cards in such a way that they can skew the author*s initial thoughts and %elie s in the article, then e!ery de%ater could pick words and phrases that ad!ocated their own %elie s and simply re erence it %ack to a credi%le source. The whole reason that the original source was credi%le was %ecause there was a credi%le author or e?pert on the su%@ect o the resolution that decided to e?plain hisFher !iews. Mis:cutting cards simply makes the e!idence as credi%le as the person who cut the e!idence. Be can deduce that my opponent*s e!idence is no more credi%le and should ha!e no weight in the round. In act, placing a credi%le author*s name on e!idence that clearly outlines the %elie s o my opponent is e?tremely un air %ecause it gi!es credi%ility to in ormation that deser!es none.
19E
161/169
Fu$$ cites necess'ry

A. Inter(ret'tion) ,ebaters must have available full citations for all evidence read in round. #. Vio$'tion) ;<he admits that s<he does not have full citations available C% St'n*'r*s) 1. E=i*ence et#ics) 4equiring debaters to have their citations accessible is necessary to prevent evidence distortion. Without open access to tags and cites, there isnt a way for the debate community to hold debaters accountable for mis( cut evidence. Without accountability, there is G3 incentive to not distort evidence. :isrepresented evidence destroys the educational value of debate because academically dishonest debaters are rewarded by claiming ethos for arguments that do not actually stem from reputable sources while those who maintain academic integrity are severely disadvantaged. )urthermore, misrepresenting evidence egregiously distorts the academic work of an author and promotes further evidence distortion in future conte8ts. $he 2udge has a duty to promote honest academic practice and thus must prevent activity that is detrimental to the academic world. %. Effecti=e c$'s#) 4equiring debaters to have their citations available allows other debaters interested in the evidence presented in the round to research good responses and subsequently effectively engage in similar or identical positions. )ailing to have such citations available renders debaters unable to evaluate the evidence outside of round more carefully. $hus lack of evidence citations prevents future debates from containing substantial clash of solid evidence. 5lash is key to education because it allows debaters to develop critical thinking skills when comparing evidence. Furt#er,ore, the lack of accountability that incentiviAes evidence makes it impossible to effectively engage such warrants because there is no amount of research that could enable one to predict the distorted evidence since it is not derived from the actual topic literature. f s<he tells you that there are disclosure forums where debaters could get these cites, this is no e8cuse for his<her failure to provide them in this round because this is the only way to unequivocally match evidence to the arguments espoused in this round. D%
191
162/169
E$$i(ses 1'*
A is nterpretation" ,ebaters must have the full te8t of all their evidence available. # is /iolation" Ois<Oer evidence has ellipses. 5 is ;tandards" "A Rese'rc# Bur*ens J :y opponent can use ellipses to make their evidence say virtually anything. )or e8ample, removing the word 0not1 would reverse the authors argument. ;ince cant read the full te8t of the card to determine if they are grossly misrepresenting the evidence, s<he is incentiviAed to change it and therefore make it unresearchable. $his gives me an impossible research burden as what can research is constrained by what topical authors write about. :y interp solves because all evidence would be constrained to the topical literature. 4eciprocal 4esearch #urdens is key to fairness as unresearched arguments will be qualitatively worse than researched ones. :y opponents arguments will necessarily be better than my answers so s<he will have an easier time accessing the ballot. A 5c'*e,ic Honesty . &llipses are academically dishonest because they can alter the authors advocacy. $he evidence is therefore disingenuous to the intent of the author who wrote it. Academic Oonesty is key to education because in the real world there are massive repercussions for academic dishonesty in schools and other educational forums. 4eal world learning is key to education as debate is only valuable if it teaches us how to make decisions in the real world.
19%
163/169
SDitc#:si*es *e1'te 0oo*

5% Inter(ret'tion J the aff must be topical and the neg must directly contest the affirmative advocacy. B% Vio$'tion J C% St'n*'r*s J 1. Effecti=e c$'s# J$heir strategy allows them to avoid clash on the fundamental part of the debate, and 2ust concede most of my case instead of engaging in it. $his destroys clash because there are few points of contention in the roundI they agree with my advocacy, but say that theirs should win the ballot for a reason unrelated to debating the resolution. 5lash is key to education as the actual debating and comparison of arguments is what gives us the skills to make decisions and well(reasoned arugments in the real world. Also, without the e8pectation of confrontation of arguments, there is no such thing as a likely strategy or argument and all predictability ceases. !redictability is key to fairness because one, our inability to predict arguments out( of(round skews our research and preparation so that we are always behind on the evidence debate, and two, our ability to predict strategies in(round directs our ability to formulate responses and generate strategy which is how we win the round. %. Reci(roc'$ rese'rc# 1ur*ens J when they do not engage in switch(side debate, they only need to do research for one side of the resolution while have done research for both sides. $his also destroys breath of research because we only research one side instead of both sides of the issue in academia, literally cutting our education knowledge in half. ;witch(side debate promotes fair research burdens because people must research both aff and neg arguments and responses to those arguments. 4eciprocal research burdens are key to fairness because the research that we do determines our ability to generate arguments that could win us the round, but we only have a limited amount of time in which to do research. When they can artificially lower their research burden, this allows them to do great depth of research on one topic and preclude all of my responses, placing me at an unfair disadvantage. '. Critic'$ t#inBin0 J when they do not engage in switch(side debate, they avoid the lessons in critical thinking skills that debate can teach. $he ability to construct well(reasoned arguments for positions that we may not necessarily agree with uniquely teaches critical thinking because it e8pands our understanding of argumentation. We learn more about logic and argumentation when formulating advocacies that we do not agree with, because we are better able to see the flaws in logic as they occur and seek to correct them. ;witch( side debate ensures that debaters participate in this educational e8perience , because everyone must find one side of each resolution more believable than the other. 5ritical thinking skills are a valuable educational tool. Oarrigan e8plains 5A;&@ Oarrigan, A $hesis ;ubmitted to the ?raduate )aculty of WAQ& )34&;$ 7G /&4; $@ in !artial )ulfillment of the 4equirements for the ,egree of :A;$&4 3) A4$;, %EEC, 0A ,&)&G;& 3) ;W $5O ; ,& ,&#A$&1. ,efined as 0reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do1 L&nnis, 1DCB, p. 1E), critic'$ t#inBin0 $e'rne* t#rou0# *e1'te te'c#es stu*ents not Cust #oD '*=oc'te 'n* 'r0ue3 1ut #oD to *eci*e 's De$$% &ach and e=ery stu*ent3 whether in debate or Lmore likely) at some later point in life, Di$$ 1e ($'ce* in t#e (osition of t#e *ecision:,'Ber% F'ce* Dit# co,(etin0 o(tions D#ose costs 'n* 1enefits 're initi'$$y unc$e'r3 critic'$ t#inBin0 is necess'ry to 'ssess '$$ t#e (ossi1$e outco,es of e'c# c#oice3 co,('re t#eir re$'ti=e ,erits3 'n* 'rri=e 't so,e fin'$ *ecision about which is preferable. n some instances, such as choosing whether to eat 5hinese or ndian food for dinner,
19'
164/169
the importance of making the correct decision is minor. For ,'ny other *ecisions3 however, t#e i,($ic'tions of c#oosin0 'n i,(ru*ent course of 'ction 're potentially 0r'=e. As 4obert 5rawford notes, there are 0issues of unsurpassed importance in the daily lives of millions upon millions of people...being decided to a considerable e8tent by the power of public speaking1 L%EE'). Although the days of the 5old War are over, and the risk that 0the ne8t !earl Oarbor could be Rcompounded by hydrogen1 L&hninger and #rockriede, 1DBC, p. ') is greatly reduced, the manipulation of public support before the invasion of raq in %EE' points to the continuing necessity of training a well(informed and critically(aware public LSarefsky, %EEB). n the absence of debate(trained critical thinking, ignorant but ambitious politicians and persuasive but nefarious leaders would be much more likely to draw the country, and possibly the world3 into conflicts with incalculable losses in terms of human Bwell(being. <i=en t#e ,yri'* t#re'ts of 0$o1'$ (ro(ortions t#'t Di$$ reFuire incisi=e so$utions3 inc$u*in0 0$o1'$ D'r,in03 t#e s(re'* of ('n*e,ic *ise'ses3 'n* t#e (ro$ifer'tion of QW6DsR De'(ons of ,'ss *estruction3 cu$ti='tin0 ' ro1ust 'n* effecti=e society of critic'$ *ecision:,'Bers is essenti'$% As Kouis 4ene #eres writes, 0with such learning, we Americans could prepare...not as immobiliAed ob2ects of false contentment, but as authentic citiAens of an endangered planet1 L%EE'). $hus, it is not surprising that critical thinking has been called 0the highest educational goal of the activity1 L!archer, 1DDC).
;ince the most valuable thing debate can do is prepare its participants for the future, critical thinking is a necessary educational component of the activity.
19*
165/169
N'rr'ti=es 1'*
A" interpretation ( debaters must only use evidence that is ob2ective or analytical #" violation ( my opponent is running narrative evidence and is requiring voting on narratives 5" standards ( 1. predictability . there are an infinite number of stories or narratives under every topic, since stories cover every aspect or e8perience of an issue and can be e8pressed by any actor associated with a situation. Assuming that narratives are legitimate argumentation, cant have any kind of pre(round predictability about which narrative my opponent will choose since its impossible for me to research all narrative possibilities. !redictability is key to fairness because the person running the unpredictable argument is prepared, whereas cant generate a counternarrative or another strategy because dont have any idea what their narrative might be. %. effective clash ( by saying that they should win based on an arbitrary factor Fsuch as representationH, they reduce effective clash. $here is no way can make arguments against the actual position without first engaging in an un(educational debate about whose arbitrary reason to win the round is better, which is ineffective because there is no way to prioritiAe who deserves more FrepresentationH. 5onstraining us to debating empirical or analytical warrants eliminates this kind of debate because both types of warrants are easily comparable. &ffective clash is key to fairness because arbitrary argumentation favors the side who anticipated the arbitrary clash, since they can prepare marginally better arguments in advance for why their arbitrarily chosen position is better. &ffective clash is also key to education since it promotes argumentation and strategy that cannot occur in a world absence clash, both of which are valuable skills that debate can teach. ,. ;&& ,&!&G, G? 3G $O& !3; $ 3G" switch(sides debate good, aff must be topical, non(implementable kritik alternatives bad, mindset fiat bad and paradigm issues.
19+
166/169
Ne0'ti=e$y Dor*e* inter(ret'tions 1'*

Inter(ret'tion J $he A)) and the G&? must use positively worded interpretations Vio$'tion J the aff<neg uses a negatively worded interpretations ;tandards 1 .4eciprocality . the negative interpretation does not say what their kind of debate would look like, 2ust the one thing it doesnt include. $his means A. they can never generate offense on theory, since the way you gain offense is by comparing two rules for debate, and the relative desirability of each. f someone runs a 0truth testing1 bad interpretation, then you wouldnt know how to evaluate it unless they proposed a different paradigm ( without an e8plicit alternative theres no way to tell whats good or bad. #. :y ability to respond to theory is devastated . cant weigh between the violations and relative unfairness when theres no way for me to tell what their form of debate looks like. :oreover, without a positive interpretation cant get e8ternal disadvantages to their interpretations to weigh against mine . they avoid having to actually establish a rule for debate can respond to. $his destroys reciprocality on the theory flow since its always easier to criticiAe than to advocate . of course theyll win on theory if cant show why their interpretation is a bad idea. ( ;<Oell say can 2ust impact turn their violation .&. why showing why this one forbidden thing is valuable, but only impact turns is still wildly unreciprocal theory ground. cant run counter standards, or other reason why their interpretation is a bad idea, while they can go full out on my interpretation. %. predictability in theory( you could run a negatively phrased interpretation on seriously any word in the A5 . cant be e8pected to think deeply about every possible element of anything m doing, all can do is attempt to follow rules that think produce good debate. !redictable in terms of fairness is key since if he can find arbitrary reasons why something m doing is slightly unfair, and then 2ust criticiAe without showing an actual rule which can follow, have no ability to be prepared for theory and be able to defend the legitimacy of my arguments. $he only way can construct a fair A5 is by thinking about rules can follow, not through evaluating each fragment. , is the impact ( )airness. L>) )irst, f a round is unfair, that means the outcome no longer relates to the in game skill of the participants. $hus you cant know who has done the better debating, 2ust the more abusive. $he ballot asks you who has done the better debating, and fairness structurally allows you to see whose better at debate. L>) ;econd, !refer competing interpretations to reasonability as its strategic to be abusive, meaning debaters have an incentive to be as close to the line of reasonability as possible, thus debates under reasonability will always be worse than they could be under competing interps. L>) $hird, ,rop the debater as time spent on theory cant be made up( was forced to run theory and further the abuse the argument caused in round also hurt my ability to win even after it goes away. $he implication is that you need to vote off theory as the round is irrevocably altered away from the substance. L>) )ourth ( this invalids that other shell by showing you that you cant fairly evaluate the theory flow and thus cant fairly determine if there was abuse in that case. )34 5U" ( empirically proven, the 0condo counterplans bad1 shell would be unrespondable too if couldnt establish why conditional counterplans are bad as compared to dispositional or unconditional counterplans.
199
167/169
5r1itr'ry counter:inter( ($'nBs 1'*

nterpretation" ,ebaters must have a link to a standard for every part of their counter interpretation. /iolation" :y opponents counter interpretation includes the arbitrary component 0>>>>>>>>>>1 which they do not link specifically to any standards in the counter interpretation ;tandards" 1" Kink turn ground. #ecause there are arbitrary components of the counter interpretation, cannot generate offense on those components because they are not e8plicitly linked to any standard, making it more difficult for me to win the theory debate because all of the components of my interpretation are specifically linked to a standard so my opponent is granted link turn ground that am denied. %" Arbitrary ,istinctions" Allowing arbitrary counter interpretations causes arbitrary distinctions to be drawn in theoretical issues for what is permissible and impermissible, allowing debaters to 2ustify solely what they do without defending the fairness of the macro(theoretical issues. 5ffir,'ti=e te',s occasionally res(on* similarly to to(ic'$ity 'r0u,ents 1y offerin0 t#e counter: inter(ret'tion t#'t on$y t#eir ($'n is to(ic'$, 'n* ne0'ti=e te',s #'=e fi0ure* out by now t#'t t#ese Bin*s of counter:inter(ret'tions 're #i0#$y 'r1itr'ry% We conten* t#'t Cust $iBe 'n inter(ret'tion of D#'t is to(ic'$ ou0#t to 1e 0roun*e* in so,e non:'r1itr'ry $iter'ture3 inter(ret'tions of D#'t t#e ne0'ti=e ou0#t to 1e '$$oDe* to fi't '$so s#ou$* 1e non:'r1itr'ry% T#e current re(ertoire of inter(ret'tions t#'t *e1'ters use ,'in$y focuses\ on *istinctions $iBe (u1$ic =s% (ri='te 'ctors3 *o,estic =s% intern'tion'$ *ecision: ,'Bers3 ,u$ti:'ctor fi't 'n* o1Cect fi't3 1ut t#ese c'te0ories ,iss t#e ,'rB co,($ete$y3 1ec'use t#ey #'=e not#in0 to *o Dit# t#e foun*'tion of ne0'ti=e fi't3 t#e $o0ic of *ecision:,'Bin0% W#en '$tern'ti=e '0ent fi't is '$$oDe*3 t#ere re'$$y is no non:'r1itr'ry ,et#o* of (re=entin0 o1Cect fi't% Since e=ery #'r, 're' is ' conseFuence of no oneIs so$=in0 it3 e=ery '$tern'ti=e '0ent counter ($'n is 't $e'st ' $itt$e 1it o1Cect fi't% W#i$e so,e counter($'ns 're c$e'r$y IO,ore unf'irO t#'n ot#ers3 if De c'n '0ree Dit# t#e 0ener'$ (rinci($e t#'t o1Cect fi't #'r,s co,(etiti=e eFuity3 t#e on$y true so$ution is to (re=ent '$$ '$tern'ti=e '0ent fi't% $his skews fairness because it allows debaters to create the illusion that their specific practice is fair whereas it is really a component of or 2ustifies a larger, highly unfair practice, and education because debaters do not defend the true assumptions of their arguments, destroying clash. '" Argument quality. Arbitrary counter interpretations lead to poor argumentation because first" they allow for debaters to construct arguments with incomplete link stories by allowing them to omit a link between the standard and part of the interpretation and second ;econd" #ecause parts of the counter interpretation are not linked to standards then it makes responses to the counter interpretation blippy and underdeveloped because there was no link in the first place to be contested on a substantive level, which destroys education because we do not learn anything from engaging in blippy and unwarranted debate because this does not allow us to learn how to properly construct and defend an argument, one of the most valuable skills we learn in debate.
19B
168/169
Non:s#e$$ t#eory 1'*

A( nterpretation" $heory must be run in the form of a shell with an e8plicit interpretation, violation, standards, links between the violation and the standards, internal links between the standards and fairness, and an impact with a decision rule.
#( /iolation" theirs isnt Lspecify why) 5( ;tandards" 1. St'1$e '*=oc'cy: $he interpretation and violation of a theory shell indicate e8actly what we should be doing and how the other side has violated that. Without an e8plicit interpretation and violation they can shift their advocacy depending on my answers. $his is an internal link to fairness because if they can switch how link in to the position or what their advocacy is dont have a fair chance at beating it. 5r0u,ent c$'rity: $he shell format helps your opponent to internally signpost the arguments and understand what is being done and why it is bad for debate. 4efusing to use the standard format is uniquely harmful in the case of theory because need to be able to understand e8actly what m doing and why youre asking the 2udge to vote me down on it in order to be able to answer the theory argument, which is key to fairness because otherwise they can gain offense on theory due to the fact that simply could not answer their arguments 5r0u,ent Fu'$ity: Without a theory shell debaters can have missing internal links in their appeals to fairness or education as there is no accountability for level of argument development such as the shell structure, which is unfair because my arguments are held to higher standards of acceptability based on the requirements of various structural components such as having uniqueness, a link, and an impact for an advantage or disadvantage.
%.
'.
19C
$he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. iii $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. iv $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. v ;uch splintering has happened in each of the past three decades. t began when in the 1DBEs when the 5ross &8amination ,ebate Association L5&,A) was formed as a break away group from the G,$. t continued in the 1DCEs with the creation of the American ,ebate Association LA,A), a rules based organiAation that kept the G,$ topic, but crafted a series of content rules to govern the conduct of debates. And it occurred again in the 1DDEs with the formation of the Gational &ducational ,ebate Association LG&,A) which was itself a reaction to the trend toward G,$ style debating in 5&,A. Oowever, splits in the larger debate community, are not always permanent as the reunion of G,$ and 5&,A in the mid( 1DDEs demonstrates. vi $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. vii $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. viii $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. i8 $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper. 8 $he author would like to thank 5arly Woods, 5lint Woods, and 6.!. Kacy for their helpful suggestions on this paper.
ii

Theory Master File

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Theory Master File

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Victory Briefs Institute

NEBEL/DIEHL THEORY FOCUS WEEK V !"!

Victory Briefs Institute

Victory Briefs Institute

Victory Briefs Institute

Victory Briefs Institute

&&&C#'(ter ") intro*uction&&& F'irness is i,(ort'nt

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

5 ) F'irness $e'*s to inter=ention

5 ) F'irness #'s no 1ri0#t$ine

5 ) You cou$*;=e 1een unf'ir 1'cB

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

5 ) T#eory is 'n e9:(ost f'cto

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Co,(etin0 inter(ret'tions . Re'son'1i$ity

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Re'son'1i$ity . Co,(etin0 Inter(ret'tions

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Dro( t#e *e1'ter3 not t#e 'r0u,ent

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Dro( t#e 'r0u,ent3 not t#e *e1'ter

1DC+ ( 5larifying Water !olicyH

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Oowever, theoretical issues contain no educational value. So$t furthers"

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

T#eory is 'n RVI

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

RVI B'* 7ree,(ts

% 5 T#ere is no ti,e sBeD

8% 5 I *on;t nee* to s(en* t#'t ,uc# ti,e on t#eory

2% 5 RVI;s *iscour'0e t#eory

+% 5 You s#ou$*n;t Din for (ro=in0 your inter(ret'tion is ,ore f'ir

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

T#eory is not 'n RVI

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

&&&C#'(ter ) To(ic'$ity&&& 'ff ,ust 1e to(ic'$

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Re'son'1i$ity for to(ic'$ity

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

5ff f$e9i1i$ity 0oo*

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

'ff f$e9i1i$ity B'*

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Fr',er;s Intent <oo*

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

Fr',er;s Intent B'*

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

File Name Stuyvesant AE res Page

8% 5 I on;t nee to s(en* t#'t ,uc# ti,e on t#eory

Diction'ry efinitions 0oo

iction'ry efinitions 1'*

&&&C#'(ter 2) St'tus&&& conition'$ity 1'

Li,ite* Conition'$ity B'

$i,ite* conition'$ity 0oo