Theory Masterfile-VBI

VBI THEORY WEEK FIVE
DIEHL/NEBEL MASTER FILE 2010

-INDEX-
CHAPTER 1 MASTER FILE

WORD DID NOT FIND ANY ENTRIES FOR YOUR TABLE OF CONTENTS.
IN YOUR DOCUMENT, SELECT THE WORDS TO INCLUDE IN THE TABLE OF CONTENTS, AND THEN ON THE HOME
TAB, UNDER STYLES, CLICK A HEADING STYLE. REPEAT FOR EACH HEADING THAT YOU WANT TO INCLUDE, AND
THEN INSERT THE TABLE OF CONTENTS IN YOUR DOCUMENT. TO MANUALLY CREATE A TABLE OF CONTENTS,
ON THE DOCUMENT ELEMENTS TAB, UNDER TABLE OF CONTENTS, POINT TO A STYLE AND THEN CLICK THE
DOWN ARROW BUTTON. CLICK ONE OF THE STYLES UNDER MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS, AND THEN TYPE THE
ENTRIES MANUALLY.

***CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION***
FAIRNESS IS IMPORTANT

1. Fairness promotes impartial adjudication of a round. Without fairness, judges will intervene and vote subjectively
off arguments they have a bias towards. If debates arent structurally fair, then debates dont decide who is the
better debater. This is bad because it means that debaters dont have equal chance of winning the round, which a
required tenet of any competitive activity.
2. Debate utilizes the adversarial system, which means its goal is to determine the truth or falsity of a certain
proposal. In order to determine the truth of particular claims, we must ensure each debater is given equal
opportunity to present, develop, and contest claims. Otherwise debate becomes like a trial where the defense is not
permitted to question witnesses.
3. The rules of an institution are called its practice rules and determine our notions of right and wrong prior to the
evaluation of more general rules. Tamar Schapiro explains, using utilitarianism as an example of a more general
principle:
1

In his early article, Two Concepts of Rules, Rawls sets out to limit the scope of the utilitarian principle by arguing that it is inapplicable to actions of a certain type.25 His claim is that actions
which fall under practice rules, for example actions governed by the rules of games and social institutions, have a
structure which is different from the structure of action presupposed by utilitarianism. Such actions are not, therefore, directly subject
to utilitarian evaluation. Whereas a practice as a whole can be judged in terms of its overall consequences, Rawls claims, a particular move within a practice can
only be judged in relation to the practice rules. Rawls argument turns on a conceptual point about the relation between the rules of a practice and the cases to
which they are applied. Practice rules, he claims, are logically prior to particular cases. In a practice there are rules setting up offices, specifying certain forms of action appropriate to various
offices, establishing penalties for the breach of rules, and so on. We may think of the rules of a practice as defining offices, moves, and offenses. Now what is meant by saying that the practice is
logically prior to particular cases is this: given any rule which specifies a form of action (a move), a particular action which would be taken as falling under this rule given that there is the practice
would not be described as that sort of action unless there was the practice. Rawls illustrates the logical priority of practice rules over actions with reference to moves in the game of American
baseball.27 Outside the stage-settingof the game, it is certainly possible to throw a ball, run, or swing a peculiarly shaped piece of wood. But it is impossible to steal base, or strike out, or
draw a walk, or make an error, or balk. 28 Where the rules of baseball are in force, movements come to constitute moves of particular kinds, and conversely in the absence of such rules, actions
which might appear to be moves are properly described as mere movements. In this respect, Rawls claims, practice rules differ from another general class of
rules called summary rules. Summary rules are rules of thumb. Their role is to allow us to approximate the
results of applying some more precise but perhaps more unwieldy principle to particular cases. As such, summary rules are arrived at
by generalizing the results of the prior procedure. They are reports of these results, presented as guides for deliberating about what to do in cases which are relevantly similar to those used to generate the reports.
Summary rules are therefore logically posterior to the cases to which they apply. For in order to specify a
summary rule, it is necessary to generalize over some range of cases, and the relevant descriptions of these cases
must be given in advance if generalization over them is to be possible. Whereas summary rules presuppose the existence of a well-defined context of
application, the establishment of a practice imposes a new conceptual an normative structure on the context to which they are to apply. In this sense, a practice amounts to the specification of a new form of activity, along with a
new order of status relations in which that activity makes sense.29 From the point of view of a participant, the establishment of a practice transforms an expanse of grass into playing field, bags on the ground into bases, and
individuals into occupants of determinate positions. Universal laws come to hold a priori, for example that three strikes make an out, and that every inning has a top and a bottom. And within that new order people come to
have special powers, such as the power to strike out, or to steal a base. The salient point for Rawls purposes is that there are constitutive constraints on the exercise of
these new powers, constraints by which any participant must abide in order to make her movements count as the
moves she intends them to be.

1 Tamar Schapiro (2001). Three Conceptions of Action in Moral Theory. Nos 35 (1):93117.
-INDEX-

-INDEX-

4. Even if the practice rules seem problematic, this is not a reason for their rejection. Alasdair MacIntyre writes,
2

practice involves standards of excellence and obedience to rules as well as the achievement of goods. To enter into a practice is to accept the authority of those standards
and the inadequacy of my own performance as judged by them. It is to subject my own attitudes, choices,
preferences and tastes to the standards which currently and partially define the practice. Practices of course, as I have just noticed, have a
history: games, sciences and arts all have histories. Thus the standards are not themselves immune from criticism, but nonetheless we cannot be
initiated into a practice without accepting the authority of the best standards realized so far. If, on starting to
listen to music, I do not accept my own incapacity to judge correctly, I will never learn to hear, let alone to
appreciate, Bartok's last quartets. If, on starting to play baseball, I do not accept that others know better than I when to throw a fast ball and when not, I will never learn to appreciate good pitching let alone to pitch. In
the realm of practices the authority of both goods and standards operates in such a way as to rule out all
subjectivist and emotivist analyses of judgment.

5. We should honor fairness because its key to morality, Wallace

To begin, what exactly does it mean to say that the interest in fairness is internal to morality? In the most basic terms, this
means simply that the interest in fairness is itself a moral interest, so that having such an interest is one of the things
that distinguish those who participate in the activities constitutive of moral lifeWhat makes it an interest of ours
that people should act fairly? Why do considerations of fairness provide terms for normative assessment that we care
about, or take seriously? On the present interpretation, the answer would be that we are committed to principles of
fairness just in the sense that we take considerations of fairness to generate moral obligations, to which we hold
ourselves and others.
3

6. Fairness is a precondition to debate existing as an educational activity. If debate werent fair the majority of the
debate community would cease to take part in the activity since all their efforts would be futile. For instance, if effort
and preparation for tournaments no longer mattered, the time that coaches spent instructing their students and the
hours that students spent researching, writing and doing drills would have been a waste. Thus, absent fairness, no one
would be able learn from debate since the activity as a whole would die out. Fairness is key to participation because
the nature of competition is such that you encourage participation so individuals require conceptions of impartiality in
order to have an incentive to compete and thus fairness is an internal link to any other values we receive from debate.

7. All individuals have an intrinsic right to fairness. If I were to beat up a man randomly on the street, you would say I
acted wrongly, he did not receive his due, or I violated some right of his. All these statements ultimately devolve into
a notion of me treating the man unfairly. Fairness is an intrinsic right we are all due. Fairness is important, period.

2 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue. (University of Notre Dame Press, 1984) 190.
3 Wallace, pp. 104-105.
-INDEX-

8. John Rawls[1] explains that that starting point prevents non-arbitrary harms and thus preventing unfair harms.
John Rawls. A theory of Justice. 1971. Cambridge Massachusetts. Belknap press.

Existing societies are of course seldom well-ordered in this sense, for what is just and unjust is usually in dispute. Men[People] disagree about
which principles should define the basic terms of their association. Yet we may still say, despite this disagreement,
that they each have a conception of justice. That is, they understand the need for, and they are prepared to affirm, a
characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining what they take to be the proper distribution of
the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. Thus it seems natural to think of the concept of justice as distinct from the various conceptions of justice and
as being specified by the role which these different sets of principle, these different conceptions, have in common. Those who hold different
conceptions of justice can, then, still agree that institutions are just when no arbitrary distinctions are made between
persons in the assigning of basic rights and duties and when the rules determine a proper balance between competing
claims to the advantages of social life. Men can agree to this description of just institutions since the notions of an arbitrary distinction and of a
proper balance, which are included in the concept of justice, are left open for each to interpret according to the principles of justice that he accepts. these
principles single out which similarities and differences among persons are relevant in determining rights and duties
and they specify which division of advantages is appropriate. clearly this distinction between the concept and the various conceptions of
justice settles no important questions. It simply helps to identity the role of the principles of social justice.

The implication is that all ethical evaluations presume the primacy of fairness by preventing arbitrary preferences of
one debater over another.

-INDEX-
FRONTLINES FOR FAIRNESS
AT: Fairness has no bright-line

1. A bright-line is unnecessary. You cant tell where the color spectrum changes from yellow to orange, but you
can still recognize yellow and orange and discuss them as concepts. Their argument bites into the fallacy of
Lokis Wager by associating a lack of a clear bright line with no ability to evaluate fairness.
2. Because theory is a question of competing interpretations, as long as one side proves their rule for debate is
more fair than their opponents, the judge can vote off of it. A bright-line is not needed in this situation as it is
just a question of competing rules.
3. There is a bright-line. Whether or not someone is put at a structural disadvantage is clear and sufficient to
prove a fairness violation due to the fact that the standards were given in the theory shell.
4. Even if there is no bright-line, people can still agree that certain things are unfair. For instance, killing Jack
Black because he scratched me with a red marker is unfair. In debate, the community agrees that making new
arguments in the 2AR is considered unfair. As long as thats true, then we can use fairness to determine the
decision rule.

AT: The fairest thing to do would be to flip a coin

1. Fairness prescribes giving each side an equal chance to win relative to their skills because the nature of
competition is to determine who is superior, and winning is merely the mechanism by which we determine
superiority, not the end we pursue. We dont say basketball is unfair because Lebron would beat me, we say it
is unfair if Lebron were allowed to travel and I wasnt.
2. Even if you accept fairness is important, it is important only instrumentally in achieving good debate,
therefore, if maximization inhibits good debate. This is not an argument against fairness, but its maximization
of it.
3. Turn. This is worse for fairness and competitive equity because it means that debaters who are more talented
or do more work would be disadvantaged against a novice or a debater who did no work since they would
have as much chance of losing as they would winning.

AT: Fairness is subjective

1. I gave standards to prove why they are being unfair. This empirically verifies that we can have a conception of
fairness and argue over what it is. We can justify what is fair or unfair in the round, and the judge can evaluate
it like any other part of the debate.
2. Even if it is subjective, that doesnt disprove the relevance of fairness. Within a single community such as
debate, we have a general consensus on what good debate is. All debaters understand that there are some
theoretically illegitimate practices; such as making new arguments in the 2AR or stealing your opponents
flow.
3. The implication of subjectivity assumes that fairness is important to begin with. For example, judge
intervention is bad because it is unfair.

AT: Fairness is non-unique

1. This assumes that if you dont have absolute fairness you have no fairness at all. But, we can all assume
Roulette is fairer than Black Jack, even though they both have some level of unfairness. Thus, we should
strive towards being fairer which is sufficient for fairness.
-INDEX-
2. The judges jurisdiction is to evaluate arguments presented in the debate so the abuse that occurs from
arguments can still be voted on by the judge, even if abuse or unfairness occurs external to the arguments
themselves.
3. Competing interpretations solves we evaluate who was more unfair, so both being somewhat unfair is
irrelevant.

AT: Judge Intervention
1. Judge intervention presupposes some conception of fairness because the reason why judge intervention is bad
is because its unfair.
2. If I demonstrate the abuse and win the appropriate decision rule, there is no judge intervention. Its clear
through the standards and the voter how the judge should decide the round.
3. Competing interpretations ensures that there is no judge intervention because judges arent imposing their
view on the round; rather, they just vote for the debater whose rule is proven the more fair or educational for
debate.

AT: Sigels AT: Fairness
1. There is a distinction between fairness and ability. Arguments that should be rejected on fairness are ones that
put debaters at a structural disadvantage in the round because these are things that debaters cant control.
2. Fairness is objective in that we have specific rules that all debaters should abide by. For example, it would be
unfair to read new arguments in the 2AR, talk beyond speech limit, and interrupt your opponent during their
speech.
3. Fairness actually does justify a ballot. Doug Sigel writes,

A third reason that can be introduced in support of punishment is fairness. If it is shown that a given style or theory hurts the debate activity, the abusing
team has hurt the educational experience of the abused team. One team invests hundreds of dollars, hundreds
of hours, and gives up other educational opportunities only to confront a meaningless experience--we all have had the feeling
after some particularly useless debates that maybe we'd be better off not debating. Quite simply, the social contract we all make to try to engage in genuine intellectual
discourse is breached by those who employ disruptive tactics in order to win. A ballot on the illegitimacy of such disruptive abuses seems the least that can
be expected. Competitive equity Is also restored by voting on punishment. Abusive tactics are employed to gain strategic advantage: conditional counterplans , for example, imply
a geometric increase in the burdens placed upon the affirmative. Incoherent delivery is particularly unfair because a debater can never be sure if the bits and pieces of a speech he understood were the same bits and pieces the judge understood. The way
to restore competitive equity is to vote against teams guilty of disrupting the natural competitive opportunity
that existed in the absence of abusive tactics. To merely drop-out bad debate practices is to encourage their
use--teams will run multiple counterplans, counterwarrants and the like and hope to draw lots of attacks on them to waste the maximum time possible, allowing victory on the other issues. It seems particularly unjust
for a team to have to answer multiple counterplans, counterwarrants, and the like and to end up losing on
topicality. Only by voting to punish teams employing tactics that are shown to be injurious to debate--in terms of education
and fairness--can competitive equity be maintained. 4

AT: He only has to win one standard
1. This does not make it abusive. They can turn and weigh between standards or read new standards and explain
why they are more important, so they only have to win one standard as well.
2. This is no different than someone only having to win one link to a kritik, or a link in a disad, or any other
argument. There is no uniqueness to this argument.

4 The Punishment Theory: Illegitimate Styles and Theories as Voting Issues Doug Sigel, Northwestern University 1984 - Waging
War on Poverty
-INDEX-
FAIRNESS > EDUCATION

1. Fairness is an internal link to education for three reasons:
a. Unfairness in the activity will decrease the number of students who do debate, and thus will decrease the
amount of education they gain from debate. Thus fairness comes first because it is necessary in accessing
education in debate.. Debaters need to be structurally equal before other considerations are looked at.
Otherwise, they will have no incentive to debate because people will not engage in a competitive activity if
they are structurally disadvantaged. Rowland
5
warrants:

If debaters come to believe that debate is fundamentally unfair, it is easy to predict that many
students might quit the activity in disgust. Consequently, competitive equity is essential in order to
guarantee that the competitive goals of individual debaters lead them to work hard and achieve the
communal goals of the activity.

b. An activity that promotes unfair practices degrades the educational value of that activity and the skills
learned by participating in it. Thus fairness comes before education because unfair practices are
uneducational.
i. All educational activities value fairness. For instance, in academia, fairness is valued to the extent
that academic dishonesty is punished severely, thus no one can receive the benefits of education
unless they first have fairness.
ii. Fairness is the only way to have access to skills education, ensuring that we can practice
general debate skills. In-round abuse either a) limits me in my argumentation strategy, preventing
me from learning from the round, or b) makes me use theory to check back the abuse, preventing
me from learning about the debate substance in the round. Furthermore, good practices can only be
developed under fair circumstances; otherwise education would be tainted with bad practices.
Skills education is more important than topic education, because if we debated to learn about the
resolution, we might as well just read books and never debate.
iii. Education as a voting issue legitimizes positions that degrade the educational value of debate.
Fairness sets the boundaries for what arguments are truly important and good for education, and it
ensures the negative cannot arbitrarily exclude arguments, or read positions that are irrelevant to
the resolution, but are in some way educational. This logic hurts the educational value of debate
because it hurts the ability for a clash of ideas to ever take place.
c. The skills and information learned in debate are unique to debate because it is a competitive activity.
Competitive activities hinge upon fairness, but without it, they would have no unique educational value.
i. The fact that it is a competitive activity makes debate uniquely valuable for education. Competition
compels people to push themselves and work hard. Competition pushes people to read more,
strategize longer, and to talk about resolutions. Competition thus maximizes education.

2. Fairness is an objective way to evaluate arguments, because what is fair is determined by the same factors, but
each individual contextualizes what is educational. Thus education is vague, and leaves more room for judge
intervention and judge bias.
a. Education is influenced by many outside factors such as the amount of prep one does on an argument, thus
determining the level of substance that we can get from a particular discussion.
b. The value of education is contextualized by the knowledge and skill sets that will be particularly helpful
later, which is vague because individuals do not know what their future will look like, or if their future will
be similar to that of their opponents.

5 Rowland, Robert (1982). The Primacy of Standards for Paradigm Evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18,
154 -160.
-INDEX-
c. The sort of knowledge that individual people need most contextualizes education. For instance, the kid
who places second in the annual international science competition will not need the educational value that
comes from debating cases about science and physics such as the omega point such as debaters who are
not as well versed in the issues.
3. Unfairness in a round has a greater impact on the decision than education, so prefer impacts back to fairness, over
impacts back to education.
a. There is a level of education to all arguments; because critical thinking must take place in fashioning all
responses, thus impacts to education are less relevant than those to fairness.
Education is a more reversible harm because we can always go to the library and read later,
but if I lose this round off of the structural disadvantages the impact is permanent

-INDEX-
EDUCATION IS IMPORTANT

1. Education is the primary skill set evaluated by debate because the nature of argumentation is such that
superior arguments are evaluated. This requires intellect and research, which are educational skills at their
most basic level.
2. Debate is not a fair activity. There are certain disadvantages to debate that are structurally built in to the
activity. Not everyone has equal access to resources and tournaments. We should use debate as an educational
starting point to help debaters get better and improve their skills.
3. Certain arguments might be considered unfair but they should still be discussed in debate rounds because they
are educational and are relevant in the real world. We shouldnt arbitrarily exclude arguments just because
they are deemed unfair. The exclusion of minorities from a certain activity may not be topical but given the
severe political implications of that argument, it should be considered relevant.
4. The biggest out of round impact from debate is the ability to think critically and research topics. Gary
Fine writes:
Gary Alan Fine [Professor of Sociology, Northwestern University] Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture Princeton University Press
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7086.html
Debate is justified as a learning tool, not merely as a means by which adolescents enjoy themselves. In a society concerned about
the perceived failures of its educational institutions, high school debate is a voluntary activity in which some
students--a small and highly select group--choose to engage in research, practice socially valued skills, and demonstrate
these abilities in public settings. Anecdotal evidence suggests that students who participate in intermural
debate do extremely well in their schoolwork and then (and as a consequence) are successful in college and in
graduate or professional school, achieving occupational success. Since debate does not appeal to a random
sample of the student body, causality is hard to establish, but the claim that debate is beneficial is surely
plausible. Debate is one program through which an often shaky institution encourages adolescents to acquire
culturally valued skills. While debate is not the only activity in which the adolescent attachment to
competition is mixed with the acquisition of socially valued skills--Model UN, academic bowls, math teams, chess clubs, and mock
trials also have these attributes--it provides an exemplary case in its organization, its longevity, and its intensity. High
school debate potentially could produce curricular reform based on "teaching the conflicts"9: learning how to
discuss contentious social issues can permit students to engage and confront moral ideals.

5. Education must be upheld before we evaluate truth because debate is about learning how to argue,
not serving as a model for true/good argument.

Robert C. Rowland. The Primacy of Standards for Paradigm Evaluation: A Rejoinder. Journal of the
American Forensic Association. 1982.

I think that Zarefskys position is fundamentally flawed because it incorrectly identifies the purpose of debate.
Debate does not primarily serve as a model for argument. Nor does it serve the same purposes which
argument serves in society. If the goal of debate were to act as a model for argument, then the
competitive aspects of debate would be largely unnecessary. The argumentation scholar could build a
model of argument and then study a few debates to test the model. There would be no need for the
continuing process of tournament competition. I do not deny that the study of debate may help elucidate
some portions of argumentation theory, but the resulting theoretical advances are side benefits and not the
primary purpose of debate. It is also clear that debate does not serve the same purposes as real world
argumentation. In the real world, policy makers could not tolerate a system which allowed inferior
policies to be selected, because they were supported by superior advocates. Yet, there are many debates
in which superior teams win because of their skill, and despite defense of inferior policy positions.
Academic debate, as I argued in the original essay on paradigm evaluation, is a poor method of making
-INDEX-
policy or evaluating scientific hypotheses, but it is a good method of teaching students how to build
arguments so that they can make policy or evaluate hypotheses.

6. The primary concern of debate is education.

J. McBath. "Rationale for Forensics," in American Forensics in Perspective. Ed. Donn W. Parson. Annandale,
VA: Speech Communication Association, 1984. 5-12.

Forensics is an educational activity primarily concerned with using an argumentative perspective in
examining problems and communicating with people. An argumentative perspective on communication
involves the study of reason giving by people as justification for acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values. From
this perspective, forensics activities, including debate and individual events, are laboratories for helping students to
understand and communicate various forms of argument more effectively in a variety of contexts with a
variety of audiences.

7. You as a judge have the duty to vote on education.

Doug Sigel. [Former debate coach and professor at Northwestern University]. The Punishment Theory:
Illegitimate Styles and Theories as Voting Issues. 1984.

A second reason for punishment sees the judge as an educator. Teams damaging the goals of the debate activity should lose
because the judge has a duty to improve the debate form--independent of the duty he has to render a
decision on the issues surrounding the plan. The medium in debate is the message: to abuse the medium
is to destroy the message. A teacher, for example, would not accept a paper with good ideas that are
presented in an unscholarly fashion-in disorganized, ungrammatical style replete with spelling errors
and devoid of organization. While it stretches the analogy to suggest that judges should be solely concerned with skills, it is reasonable for
the judge to punish teams violating the criteria presented in the round to determine the better job of
debating.

-INDEX-
EDUCATION FRONTLINES

AT: No objective way to vote
1. We can weigh between the standards analysis and decide who being more educational. This is empirically
verified by every comparison that has ever occurred.
2. Education is a principle that is studied and evaluated within pedagogical literature and disagreement
between people does not disprove the objectivity of education, but merely that some people are wrong and
pedagogical literature allows us to identify accurate concepts of valuable education. Not every opinion is a
correct opinion.

AT: We debate for competition
1. We dont debate for competition, there are other competitive activities such as basketball and public
forum, which are both competitive and have no educational value, thus the reason we choose Lincoln
Douglas debate over other forms of competition is because it has educational value.
2. This is the is-ought fallacy. Just because this is why we do debate does not follow that this is how we
ought to structure debate. Education is more valuable.

-INDEX-
EDUCATION > FAIRNESS
1. The goal of debate is education. Robert Rowland explains,

I believe that academic debate is, by its very nature, an educational activity. The debate process is designed to fulfill an educational
function. Any goal other than education would be better served by some argumentative activity other than
competitive debate. For example, if the goal were to identify the best policy for dealing with a given problem, then
some sort of hearing process, in which all views could be heard, would seem to be required. A new paradigm,
which served a non-educational purpose would demand not merely different evaluative criteria, but a different activity
altogether.
6

Consequently, debate must always strive to be most educational before anything else.

2. Fairness is only important as an internal link to education. Strait and Wallace write,

First. we must note that the terminal impact to all questions of competitive equity is ultimately participation in itself,
which is good because debate is fun and, obviously, educational. Therefore, if it is the case that the single most
valuable benefit one can gain from participating in debate is that it improves decision-making skills, then the
educational benefit of rejecting an illogical fiat scheme would outweigh competitive equity concerns that are
not absolute. Therefore, unless the negative can show that agent counterplans are absolutely critical to
preserve participation in debate (for example. if the affirmative would will almost every debate without agent counterplans), claims that they
are "not that bad" do not get to the level needed to prove that they are necessary. It is the negatives burden to
justify their use of alternate actor fiat, not the affirmatives burden to dejustify all agent counterplans.

For instance, there are many competitive activities such as basketball and public form where education is not
the goal of the activity or where education has no place in the activity yet we choose LD over that.

3. Valuing education as a principle permits greater discovery. We need to subordinate all other concerns because
we never know what new discoveries with regards to arguments we can make. There might be a new reason
education or fairness themselves are important. Thus I control the internal link into the very process of
justification.

4. Learning how to make real world decisions from education outweighs all other considerations. Strait and
Wallace write,

Why debate? Some do it for scholarships, some do it for purpose, and many just believe it is fun. These are certainly all relevant considerations when making the
decision to join the debate team, but as debate theorists they aren't the focus of our concern. Our concern is finding a framework for debate that educates the largest
quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. The ability to make decisions
deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. It is the one thing every single one of us will do every day
of our lives besides breathing. Decision-making transcends boundaries between categories of learning like
"policy education"' and "kritik education," it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be
policymakers, and it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should have The implication for this
analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making are
comparatively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skills we learn, not the content of
our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, those
skills are useless if they are not grounded in the kind of logic actually used to make decisions. The academic studies
and research supporting this position are numerous. Richard Fulkerson (1996) explains that "argumentation... is
the chief cognitive activity by which a democracy, a field of study, a corporation, or a committee functions...And
it is vitally important that high school and college students learn both to argue well and to critique the arguments of others" (p. 16). Stuart

6 Robert C. Rowland. The Primacy of Standards for Paradigm Evaluation: A Rejoinder. Journal of the American Forensic
Association. 1982.
-INDEX-
Yeh (1998) comes to the conclusion that debate allows even cultural minority students to "identify an issue, consider different views, form and defend a viewpoint,
and consider and respond to counterarguments...The ability to write effective argument influences grades, academic success,
and preparation for college and employment" (P. 49). Certainly, these are all reasons why debate and argumentation themselves are valuable,
so why is real world decision-making critical to argumentative thinking Although people might occasionally think about problems from the
position of an ideal decision-maker (c.f. Urlich, 1981, quoted in Korcock, 2001), in debate we should be concerned with what
type of argumentative thinking is the most relevant to real-world intelligence and the decisions that people make every day in their lives, not
academic trivialities. It is precisely because it is rooted in real-world logic that argumentative thinking has
value. Deanna Khun's research in "Thinking as Argument" explains this by stating that "no other kind of thinking matters more or contributes more to the quality
and fulfillment of people's lives, both individually and collectively" (p. 156)
7

5. Education is a logical perquisite to impacts of fairness because schools need to fund debate, which they do
because it is educational which happens before the round occurs. Participation is a logical pre-requisite to
competition, which is the only reason fairness matters to begin with.

6. Education is more important in the long term because it is the only thing that can affect us later in life. Further,
if we set a precedent where education matters less in all rounds, we create a cyclical harm that is more
detrimental to debate than one person being unfair. The more educational our discussion of the resolution is,
the more topic knowledge we are aware of because the content of the debate rounds is based on the topic.
Topic specific education is important because they have to do with current issues in the world. Understanding
these issues makes us more aware domestic and global citizens

7. Certain arguments might be considered unfair but they should still be discussed in debate rounds because they
are educational and are relevant in the real world. We shouldnt arbitrarily exclude arguments just because
they are deemed unfair.

8. Debate is not a fair activity. There are certain disadvantages to debate that are structurally built in to the
activity. Not everyone has equal access to resources and tournaments. We should use debate as an educational
starting point to help debaters get better and improve their skills.

7 L. Paul Strait (George Mason University) and Brett Wallace (George Washington University). The Scope of Negative Fiat and the
Logic of Decision Making. WFU Debaters Research Guide. 2007.
[http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/2007/The%20Scope%20of%20Negative%20Fiat%20and%20the%20Logic%20of%20
Decision%20Making.pdf
-INDEX-
COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS > REASONABILITY

1. Reasonability puts us into a double bind. Either a) the debaters or judge assert an arbitrary standard to
determine the bright line to reasonability, or b) we debate over what the brightline is, which collapses into
competing interpretations.
2. Reasonability is inconsistent. a) No other argument is not held to a reasonability standard, ie the judge would
not vote neg on a disadvantage to a plan where the neg had a reasonable amount of offense if it was
outweighed by aff turns. And b) Winning reasonability consists of defensive arguments, not offensive ones,
which is different than how other arguments are evaluated. Even if there is terminal defense on a normal
argument, its not an active reason to prefer it.
3. Reasonability promotes a race to the bottomdebaters are incentivized to be most unfair as possible as long
as they are reasonable, taking advantage of the vague brightline to reasonability. This is problematic because
a. It leads to worse debate because people allow for abusive practices. AND
b. As abusive practices become legitimized, the reasonability threshold decreases since norms in debate
include more and more arguments as reasonable.
4. Competing interpretations forces debaters to defend their visions of debate, which creates incentives to ensure
that their arguments are the most fair or educational because it must be consistent with the vision. Further,
because their vision must compete with their opponents, debaters constantly improve their visions of debate,
creating a race to the top for good debate. This is empirically proven with the fall of the a priori.
5. Reasonability causes a strategy skew double-bind. In order to prove that their interpretation is unreasonable, I
either a) need to actually commit the abuse that would be excluded or b) I decide to not engage the
reasonability debate, meaning I cant show their interpretation is abusive, which is disadvantageous because it
already influenced my in-round strategy.
6. The distinction between actual and potential abuse is irrelevant. No argument will be used with its every
function in every round. The more relevant consideration is how an argument can potentially be used because
arguments can be used in multiple ways. (For instance, if they read a conditional counterplan, it doesnt
matter whether or not they kick it or not because it affects my time allocation) Therefore, vote on potential
abuse to deter abusive practices.

-INDEX-
REASONABILITY > COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS

1. Competing interpretation destroys the incentive to innovate. The risk of running diverse arguments and
losing because they dont qualify under the most fair interpretation will lead debaters to adhere to more
generic arguments. Reasonability ensures these innovative debaters an equal chance to win on theory.
Innovation is crucial to the development of substantive argumentation and comes logically prior to any impact
my opponent may claim because however good of a debate he may make, he cuts off the potential for an even
better debate in the future.

2. Counter interpretations create a race to the bottom. Competing interpretations has no limit as to how fair
an argument should be. Therefore, even if some arguments are abusive and unfair, as long as that argument is
slightly fairer than the other, then that argument can be considered fair. On the other hand, reasonability
provides standard of being what is fair.

3. Competing interpretations vastly preferences the debater running theory because all they have to do is
demonstrate a marginal abuse scenario. This creates an incentive for debaters to run interpretations that only
deviate in the most marginal of matters, in order to minimize the room for contestation. Reasonability checks
back unnecessary and marginal theory arguments.

4. Reasonability checks back the fact that theory is only a one-way street. If the affirmative cannot win on
theory, the affirmative is double-bind because the affirmative needs to spend sufficient time answering the
theory shell, but the affirmative cant spend too much time on it to allow the negative to simply kick it. This
puts unfair pressure on an already time-strapped 1AR. Therefore, Allow the affirmative flexibility in
answering negative theory.

(If Neg) Because the affirmative has the last speech, if the negative cannot RVI theory, the affirmative gets
100% control over the decision calculus for the round by having the last speech and the chance to kick theory.
Therefore, allow the negative flexibility in answering affirmative theory

5. Under reasonability, there is better norm internalization because under reasonability, arguments will always
have to be under some category of being reasonable maintaining a norm of being fair. However, competing
interpretations does not provide this norm because there is no burden of being reasonable

-INDEX-
DROP THE DEBATER, NOT THE ARGUMENT
1. The debater should be dropped to create a norm against abusive arguments. Doug Sigel writes,

There does seem to be merit to the negative reinforcement approach to debate. The arguments and styles that are successful are copied;
those that aren't are shunned. While the decision in one round can't by itself fundamentally change debate, a
general trend can be initiated and/or reinforced by a decision. The experience 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 seems especially applicable to the debate setting because the participants have control
over their practices. We all practice judge analysis, trying to adapt to the inevitable likes and dislikes of even the most tabula rasa critic. The
feedback a punishment decision provides is direct: everyone is given notice that the winning team will and can
win rounds in the face of abusive debating and that the judge involved will vote against such practices. It only
takes a few instances of punishment for the entire debate community to start incorporating the risk of
punishment in their pre-round planning.
8

2. Only dropping a debater is a sure-fire way to check back in-round abuse. Doug Sigel writes,

Competitive equity is also restored by voting on punishment. Abusive tactics are employed to gain strategic
advantage: conditional counterplans, for example, imply a geometric increase in the burdens placed upon the
affirmative. Incoherent delivery is particularly unfair because a debater can never be sure if the bits and pieces of a speech he understood were the same bits and
pieces the judge understood. The way to restore competitive equity is to vote against teams guilty of disrupting the
natural competitive opportunity that existed in the absence of abusive tactics. To merely drop-out bad debate
practices is to encourage their use--teams will run multiple counterplans, counterwarrants and the like and
hope to draw lots of attacks on them to waste the maximum time possible, allowing victory on the other
issues. It seems particularly unjust for a team to have to answer multiple counterplans, counterwarrants, and the like and to end up losing on topicality. Only
by voting to punish teams employing tactics that are shown to be injurious to debate--in terms of education
and fairness--can competitive equity be maintained.
9

3. The properties of fairness demand a drop for abusive activities. Doug Sigel writes,

A third reason that can be introduced in support of punishment is fairness. If it is shown that a given style or
theory hurts the debate activity, the abusing team has hurt the educational experience of the abused team. One
team invests hundreds of dollars, hundreds of hours, and gives up other educational opportunities only to
confront a meaningless experience--we all have had the feeling after some particularly useless debates that
maybe we'd be better off not debating. Quite simply, the social contract we all make to try to engage in
genuine intellectual discourse is breached by those who employ disruptive tactics in order to win. A ballot on
the illegitimacy of such disruptive abuses seems the least that can be expected.
10

4. The judge has an obligation to vote down positions that are abusive. Doug Sigel writes,

A second reason for punishment sees the judge as an educator. Teams damaging the goals of the debate activity should lose
because the judge has a duty to improve the debate form--independent of the duty he has to render a decision on the issues surrounding
the plan. The medium in debate is the message: to abuse the medium is to destroy the message. A teacher, for
example, would not accept a paper with good ideas that are presented in an unscholarly fashion-in

8 Doug Sigel. [Former debate coach and professor at Northwestern University]. The Punishment Theory: Illegitimate Styles and
Theories as Voting Issues. 1984.
-INDEX-
disorganized, ungrammatical style replete with spelling errors and devoid of organization. While it stretches the analogy
to suggest that judges should be solely concerned with skills, it is reasonable for the judge to punish teams violating the criteria
presented in the round to determine the better job of debating. When a judge votes for one team in a debate his
ballot has no effect on the course of events being debated. Nobody will get employed this year because an
affirmative wins a round. The only effect a decision has is an educational one--it rewards one team and
penalizes another team. To ignore arguments over the technique of the debate is to confuse the role a judge
plays within the policymaking paradigm with the more fundamental role the judge serves as educator. It seems
entirely plausible for a critic to refuse to decide based on evalu-Ation of policy because issues of technique are introduced into the round. There is no reason
that a debate must intrinsically be decided based on who advocates the best policy.
11

5. Im forced into a double-bind. Either I a) engage the argument substantively and get screwed by the
theoretically illegitimate argument in their next speech or b) I run theory and face an awful time trade off. The
abuse has already occurred the strategy in this speech was based off of the strategy the last debater
employed. Rejecting the argument is not enough because the aff/neg still comes out with the positive time
tradeoff on [insert argument here]. Dropping the debater is the only way to restore competitive equity.

6. Dropping the argument alone encourages debaters to run short abusive arguments because theory just means
that the argument will go away. This destroys substantive debate because it encourages small tricks with little
risk of punishment. Short tricks replace developed argumentation, which harms debate because developed
arguments force debaters to think through long link chains and weigh issues, whereas extending an a priori
takes half a second and is a game over issue.

7. Its not what you do, its what you justify. Debate practice is determined by how judges evaluate rounds. Only
sending a message against bad styles leads to proactively good debating, creating more substantive and less
procedural debate. Voting only in the event of direct abuse creates an incentive for bad debate. If debaters
know they can just kick the argument and get out of the link to theory they will continue to utilize abusive
strategies for the positive time trade-off on theory. Rejecting the argument is not enough.

-INDEX-
DROP THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE DEBATER

1. Rejecting the debater means that theory becomes a way to the ballot. This encourages debaters to invest all of
their time on theory. This prevents topical debate, which is more educational because it allows us to explore
multiple topic areas relevant to our everyday lives, whereas debates about the rules of debate only matter
within the round.
2. Dropping the debater fails in deterring abusive arguments. Sigel
12
writes:

First, punishment arguments do not deter bad debate. It has already been argued that sophisticated debaters who run "junk" arguments " will
eagerly latch onto punishment as another way to avoid research. Some elaboration seems in order. Suppose you and your partner plan on running a
world government counterplan nearly every round. Your response to the threat of punishment will be to write detailed
briefs ) defending the legitimacy of your counterplan. When another team initiates a punishment argument you
will "turn" the argument and make it a reverse voting issue. When the 1AR drops numbers 11, 21 and 26
because of time pressure you will likely win the debate. It seems clear that for teams that systematically abuse the activity
punishment isn't really a problem. At worst they can muddle up the issue and at best they can win on reverse-
punishment.

Thus, rejecting the argument and limiting the debate to that scope prevents punishment as an incentive to run abusive
arguments.

3. Losing arguments is a sufficient deterrent to running abusive arguments. Sigel 2 continues:

Second, losing bad arguments is normally: an adequate disincentive. Most competitive debaters stop using arguments
that don't win. It is not at all clear that a ridiculous hypothetical counterplan, for example, deserves more than a few
intelligent presses to be defeated. Why should this be a reason to give up " the discussion of policy issues and devolve the round into punishment?
Punishing a team for running a bad argument seems to be overkill. Demonstrating argumentative stupidity
through excellence of rebuttal is a far more constructive and efficient time investment than arguing,
punishment."

4. Rejecting the debater encourages theory whenever you cant respond to a good strategy. Sigel 3 argues:

A reasonable position can be developed that voting to punish a team sets a bad precedent. Since it is extremely difficult to
decide when an abusive [a] practice really justifies punishment, the risk that debaters will exploit punishment
as a destructive strategic device seems great. In theory, the punishment argument is the spontaneous response by a team to the abusive
debating of their opponents. In practice, however, debaters plan out strategies to "get a link" to punishment because they
don't have any substantive answers to the other team's policy arguments. Given the already apparent over-use of punishment
arguments by debaters, It seems plausible that voting for them in the future sets a dangerous precedent.
The "whine" argument has become the most serious problem in contemporary debate. Too many teams
employ arguments like topicality and punishment instead of substantive policy positions because it allows
them to avoid research. The activity cannot survive if the "best and the brightest" are plotting ways to make ad hominem attacks on their
opponents. Andy Rist's complaint that he "find[s] the punishment paradigm annoying and [that he] usually consider[s] it only formalized whining" 6 is a candid and
accurate description of one of the greatest problems in contemporary debate--the punishment paradigm.

Thus, this undercuts more innovative substantive debate. Cross-apply why topical debate is the most
important.

5. Rejecting the debater arbitrarily excludes relevant arguments that did not violate the interpretation. If

12 Doug Sigel Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? Northwestern University, 1985.
-INDEX-
arguments are consistent with the original interpretation, then there is no reason why those arguments should
be excluded. Therefore, theory only rejects arguments inconsistent with the interpretation, making it internally
inconsistent to exclude permissible arguments.
6. There is no bright line for what constitutes deserving punishment, Sigel 3 writes:

In practice, punishment debates are incredibly difficult to judge in any systematic manner. At the end of nearly all punishment debates most
judges confront the impossible task of sorting through dozens of ad hominem arguments which are little more than unexplained whines. Many judges come away from the experience feeling like both
teams are guilty and that it would he desirable to vote against both teams.

There are three reasons why the largely rational process of debate judging breaks down under the punishment paradigm. First, it is very difficult to decide when a practice does and
does not deserve punishment. Cindy Leiferman pointed to this problem when she noted that "since Sigel's essay on punishment, nearly every
issue is a 'voter.'" 3 The punishment tag-line has been thrown out in more and more rounds against the most harmless practices. There is no logical way for a judge to decide
whether a tactic is bad enough to cross a threshold which requires punishment. The problem really is
that there is only one punishment --a loss--that a judge can impose. Many practices may be questionable
but it is difficult to tell when the "death penalty" for the round is warranted.

7. We both spend equal time defending and answering the theory argument. That means that there is no time
disadvantage to running theory if you reject the argument because each of us suffers exactly the same time
loss, whereas rejecting me would making all my time spent in the debate irrelevant. Moreover, buying their
time trade-off argument just creates an incentive for them to read longer shells, because they can then say it
merits a more significant punishment. They controlled how much time they spent on the issue.

-INDEX-
THEORY IS AN RVI

1. I had to over-allocate time on theory because it comes first. Unless it is a two-way street, theory skews time by
allowing my opponent to throw out a no risk issue that I have to answer in order to get access to any other arguments
in the round. This puts me at a unique disadvantage because the time that I am forced to respond to theory trades off
with time I could be extending and answering substantive arguments. My opponents ability to kick theory or
substance and go all in on the other demonstrates both the strategy and time skew that occurs. Preserving equal use of
time and strategy is key to fairness because if I cant have a coherent action plan and the time to implement it, there is
no way I can win the round.

2. My opponent only has to win either theory or substance while I have to win both. This is not reciprocal because my
opponent only has to win one layer of the debate while I have to win both. If fairness is important, you have to accept
RVIs.

3. Reverse-voting issues would not chill argument innovation. RVIs actually encourage better theory practices
Sigel[1] writes:
Doug Siegel. The Punishment Theory: Illegitimate Styles and Theories as Voting Issues. Northwestern University. 1984.
It is this authors belief that the criticisms that have been lodged against punishment ignore the built-in check provided by the
reverse-voting issue. For example, one common attack is that punishment "chills" new theory--teams will be afraid to innovate for fear of
being punished. Actually, [But,] punishment only "chills" bad theory. New theory--if it truly is an educational advance--would
be defensible and could alone be a reason to vote for the team introducing it through the reverse voting issue concept.
In fact, since there would be a need to rigorously support any new theory against punishment arguments, new theory
would be more carefully articulated and defended.

4. If theory isnt a two way street, there is an incentive to start unnecessary theory debates because it is no risk for the
time trade off. This is uneducational because it prevents substantive debate on the topic. And topical discussion is
more educational because it allows us to explore multiple topic areas relevant to our everyday lives whereas debates
about the rules of debate only matter within the round and thus lessen the scope.

5. RVIs are necessary in order to check back overuse of theory. Sigel[2] writes:

One fear that has been expressed regarding punishment is the possibility that it will get out of hand-debaters will urge that everything in rounds be subject to punishment. If [theory] this tactic
becomes overused we may create more problems than we eliminate: rounds full of childish attacks on every aspect of
debate practice would be intolerable to judge or listen to. The punishment concept, it seems, has a built in check on overuse and misuse--the reverse voting issue. If a
punishment argument is made and lost, then the team initiating the argument should be punished. It makes sense that once the
round is moved onto the theory plane, it ought to stay there and be resolved at that level. To indict one theory is to
support another; if the indicted theory is defended then the superiority of that theory over its competitor is a voting
issue. It seems fair that when a team is put in extreme peril--they can lose solely on the punishment argument made against
them-their opponent should be put in the same peril.

6. If I win offensive reasons to prefer my interpretation, then you should vote for me. This is not because my
arguments are fair or topical. It's because the negative interpretation was unfair, and you need to make T a risk issue
or the negative can just dump T as a time suck.

-INDEX-

AT I shouldnt win for being fair-
Unlike other activities (like basketball) the clock never stops within the debate round. We dont stop the
debate round to decide if someone is violating the rules. In basketball you dont lose anything by having the
ref call a foul on your opponent, whereas in debate every second I spend arguing about the rules is one less I
get to develop my substantive arguments. ALSO, Im proving why running theory in this way creates a clear
structural disadvantage for the other side.

AT People will bait theory-
People who bait theory will be at a disadvantage because they will have to defend a clearly unfair practice in
order to bait the theory in the first place. Anyone with a basic understanding of theory will be able to answer it
back.
-INDEX-
THEORY IS NOT AN RVI

1. All the justifications for a voter appeal to the principle that abusive practices ought to be voted down. It does
not follow that fair practices ought to be voted for because both debaters are being fair. This is the fallacy of
denying the antecedent, because it states if abusive vote them down, but it does not follow that not abusive
means vote for them.

2. Theory as an RVI would justify debaters running any amount of abusive positions and collapse the debate to a
technical debate between who can defend RVIs being good. This is bad for debate because it means that
fairness no longer has any bearing on the round, its only a question of whether or not theory should be a
reverse voting issue.

3. Disallowing the RVI checks excessive theory use in round. A debater can get out of substantive debate
altogether by writing abusive positions and baiting theory, then coming back with a reverse voting issue and
making their opponent's theory offensive. Theory's original role was to check abuse, but RVI's have made the
form into a crutch for many to get out substantive debate, since shells can be recycled from topic to topic. If
you treat theory as less of a two-way street, it's role becomes more obvious as a legitimate check against
abuse. Topical discussion is more educational because it allows us to explore multiple topic areas relevant to
our everyday lives, whereas debates about the rules of debate only matter within the round.

4. RVIs force the debate to be focused entirely on theory, whereas absent RVIs the debate can return to a
substantive focus. RVIs thus become the sole reason a round can devolve into a theory debate. The ability for
each debater to run theory checks back the abuse that the lack of RVIs could possibly cause. My ability to
initiate a new shell once theory has been run against me makes theory reciprocal because each side can argue
an abuse scenario that can then be weighed against the other debaters shell. This means I have access to the
traditional straight-turn strategy: non-uniquing their argument (with an I meet or no abuse claim) and then
running my own shell as a link turn.

5. RVIs disincentives theory to check actual abuse because people will be afraid to run theory against abusive
positions leading to more unfair debate.

6. This changes the standards for argumentation by making defense now offense. In other words by winning that
you are being fair it now becomes a reason you opponent should lose. However this therefore incoherent as a
principle because it treats fairness as somehow unique when the logic of fairness is exactly the same.

-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 2: TOPICALITY***
AFF MUST BE TOPICAL

1. Debaters should be required to have topical interpretations because the resolutional constraints are the only
way to ensure predictable advocacies, thus allowing the negative to prepare to address the affirmative case in a
substantive manner. The resolution is the only thing that we have to base all of our research and case positions
off, making any other starting point for the debate inherently unpredictable.
2. The tournament rules specify the resolution as the topic for debate. Being non-topical breaks the contract one
makes with the tournament when one is accepted to attend the specific tournament. Individuals are not entitled
to attend a tournament; they apply and are accepted. Since they are not entitled, the tournament chooses to
host students, and therefore the debaters must follow the rules of the tournament.
3. If my opponent can be non-topical, they can talk about anything, such as Immanuel Kant, unicorns, or the
public forum topic. This explodes negative research burdens, both disincentivizing substantive research by
making it seem meaningless, and placing an absurd burden on the negative, which will structurally
disadvantage them by being incapable for preparing for the debate.
4. Forcing the affirmative to do specific research forces us to learn about different issues, increasing the breadth
of research, but allows us to go into depth on the issues and respond substantively to the affirmative case. If
the affirmative was not constrained to the topic, the ground quality for the negative would not be nearly this
educationally stimulating or fair as the affirmative would be able to choose topics that benefit themselves.
5. Debating the resolution is good because it ensures that the round is at least reasonably fair. If the aff got to
pick the topic then nothing could stop them from picking the topic Resolved: genocide is bad. And I would
be forced to defend that genocide was good, which is an impossible burden since nobody credible would ever
defend that argument.
6. Switch side debate is crucial to education and informed citizenship. Douglas Day writes,

Debating both sides teaches students to discover, analyze, and test all the arguments, opinions, and evidence
relevant to decision on a resolution. In addition, it provides an opportunity for students to substantiate for
themselves the assumption that "truthful" positions may be taken on both sides of controversial questions. The
ethics of public debate require full expression, and this is what the practice of debating both sides provides.
While educational debate which permits students to debate only one side of a resolution does not violate the ethics of
public debate, neither does it teach the positive ethical obligation inherent in debate. Murphy and others have argued that
students can gain an understanding of the "opposition" through "analyzing and briefing" both sides of a question without giving verbal expression to both sides.34
Murphy himself, however, in another, and perhaps more thoughtful, moment observed: Through the ages the debater has made his
contribution to keeping the lines of truth open by enforcing a doctrine of both sides. We no longer think,
however, that analyzing lines of argument in order to accept or reject them is a large enough goal. A statement by
Karl Mannheim gives us a doctrine more in keeping with modern thought: "See reality with the eyes of acting human beings;
understand even opponents in the light of their actual motives and their position."
13

13 Douglas G. DAY, Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics at the University of Wisconsin, 1966
["The Ethics of Democratic Debate," Central States Speech Journal, Volume 17, February,
-INDEX-
REASONABILITY FOR TOPICALITY

1. Definitions cant be set as norms because there are so many different interpretations for topics. The value of
maximally good interpretations is substantially diminished on topicality because changing topics prevents the
solidification of norms.
2. Practices are binary in a way that definitions are not. You can either run necessary and insufficient burdens, or not.
Alternatively, there are a nearly infinite number of definitions to choose from. Holding the aff to the best
definition is significantly more limiting than the best practice.

3. There is no such thing as the best definition because definitions are subject to contextual interpretations and social
interpretations that can change over time. Competing interpretations pursues the goal of optimal definitions, which
is a meaningless goal.

-INDEX-
EXTRA-TOPICALITY BAD
1. Predictable limits- This allows any plan to become topical no matter how unpredictable. There could be an
infinite number of non-topical planks that they could advocate. Predictability is key to fairness because it is
the only way that debaters can prepare before the round. I solve back for this because I limit plans to the scope
of the resolution. Extra topicality destroys the best check on predictable limits

Vance Trefethen, 2004 Strategic Debate Reason, Argumentation and Strategy for Winning Scholastic Debates, Training Minds
Ministry. Google Books.

Affirmatives are restricted in their plan mandates to doing only the things authorized by the
literal wording of the resolution. But sometimes they do everything in the resolution, plus more. That
"plus more" creates the problem of "Extra Topicality," because the Affirmative team is not allowed
to go beyond the boundaries of the resolution. At first glance, it doesn't seem like such a big deal. After all, as long as they affirmed all the resolution,
what's the harm in doing more? You can see the obvious problem, when it's put into this extreme situation. To avoid any opportunity for Affirmatives to abusively broaden the grounds of the debate, any
"extra topical" material in the plan (like the Mars Mission above) should be stricken from the round. The negative team has t he right to challenge and ask the judge to strike any mandate in the plan that is not
covered in the resolution. After all, if you allow the Affirmative team to throw in any extra-topical mandates
and advantages, it won't be long before the "real case" becomes a tiny portion of the 1AC, and
all the extra stuff becomes the real purpose of the debate-- a situation grossly abusive to the
Negative team because they can never prepare for all the extraneous matters that an Affirmative
might want to bring up.

2. Disad ground. The affirmative interpretation allows them to solve back any disadvantages I run with non-
topical planks. This is the same as an intrinsicness answer, which allows them to insert random, non-topical
actions, which solve for my harms. I solve for this by only allowing them to advocate planks under the scope
of the resolution. Disad ground is key to fairness because it is the only way for the negative to gain offense to
weigh against that of the AC. If the negative cant win comparative offense then it is impossible to access the
ballot.
3. Research Burdens. Forcing me to be prepared for any possible, non-topical action that the affirmative could
think of would create an infinite research burden. I solve for this since they cant advocate these extra-topical
planks if they are bound to the wording of the resolution. This means their research is going to be
comparatively much better than the negative who has to do shallow research on all possible affirmative plans.
Research burdens are key to fairness because this allows the affirmative to have much better evidence and
research going into the round. This is structurally unfair because they will be better at their position compared
to any other debater.
4. Counter-Plan Ground. Extra-topical advocacies take away counter-plan ground. When they claim an extra-
topical advantage, they take away ground that should be negative ground because it takes away the ability to
run CP because they can capture the opportunity cost. A CP is an opportunity cost to the affirmative plan. The
negatives counter-plan ground key for a fair and educational debate because it is necessary for substantive
and positional takeouts, which match it on equal levels of fiat.
5. Under-Limiting. Allowing extra-topical affirmative fiat underlimits the scope of affirmative fiat by allowing
the affirmative to claim benefits external to the resolution, which is problematic because of how it limits
affirmative fiat, the negative has no way to check back the affirmative solvency for harms.

-INDEX-
EXTRA-TOPICALITY GOOD

A. Interpretation: The affirmative may defend a non-topical affirmative plank, if the solvency advocates both the non-
topical and the topical action.

B. Standards
a. Breadth of research: Non-topical affs with solvency advocates that defend the plan increase the
breadth of research because it forces debaters to be able to defend both the non-topical part of the plan, and
the topical advocacy. Also non-topical affirmatives increase breadth because they force debaters to
consider more issues than those contained in the resolution. Broad research is a valuable tool because it is
constantly required throughout life. Throughout education, most jobs, and decisions that we have to make,
research plays a central role. Moreover, the research itself is intrinsically valuable because it exposes
debaters to a wide array of arguments, information, and perspectives. By gaining a broader understanding
of a wider range of ideas debaters become more effective social advocates and democratic thinkers.
b. Aff flex Not letting the aff generate advantages from non topical planks uniquely harms the aff
because the negative can defend multiple counter-plans, all of which are not bound by the resolution, and
abuse the negatives unique ability to fiat. Aff flex is key to fairness because it is the best way to check
back the fact that the negative has the time advantage and historically wins more than the aff.
c. PIC ground Non-topical advocacies immensely expand negative PIC ground because it means the
neg can generate competition from the non-topical part of my advocacy, which they would not have been
able to do had I not defended that. This expansion in PIC ground disproves abuse because the negative just
needs to research more, and they could have several counter-plans ready to go. PIC ground is key to
fairness because it allows the negative to challenge all parts of the affirmative plan and it increases
education because both the affirmative and negative have to be prepared to argue over all parts of the
affirmative plan.
d. Real-World Applicability. We dont constrain ourselves in the real world to just one action. Rather, all
actions are considered with regards to other actions that can be taken in conjunction with them. By
removing the affirmatives access to these arguments and this context, we deny the affirmative access to
the optimal implementation of the affirmative advocacy, as well as the educational benefits of thinking
about policies in terms of the real world application.
e. Turn GroundYes, I solve for poverty, nuke war, terrorism, and heg. This gives neg all the links to
impact turns and kritiks they will ever need or want, so both sides have equal ground to debate. Further,
each new plank has its own link story, so there is a larger amount of link turn ground. There is no reason
the ground the negative is losing is better than the large amount of turn ground I am giving them. Turn
ground is key to fairness because it allows debaters to garner offense off of their opponents positions and
get close to the ballot.
D. Impacts- Fairness/Education

-INDEX-
EFFECTS-TOPICALITY BAD

1. Predictable Limits - The aff interpretation allows any interpretation to become topical as long as it eventually leads
to the resolution occurring. It is unreasonable to expect the negative to predict all AFFs that could be topical in this
way because there could be an infinite amount. Predictability is key to fairness because it is the only way that debaters
can prepare before the round.

2. Turn ground - This destroys my turn ground because Im not able to attack any of the general links to the topic to
the affirmative makes because they side step them by achieving those links through another action, denying me my
generic link turn ground. Generic link turn ground is key to fairness because without it I cant predictably generate
offense off their AC, meaning that I have to spend tons of time making defensive answers to their case without getting
any closer to winning the ballot.

3. Research Burdens - Forcing me to be prepared for any possible action that could cause the resolution to occur
through the plans effects means I would have a huge research burden, because I would have to go into every possible
scenario that could cause the topic to occur when there could potentially be an infinite number of those scenarios. The
affirmative only has to prepared on one plan and can spend all of their time preparing for that. This means their
research is going to be comparatively much better than the negative, who has to do shallow research on all possible
affirmative plans. Research burden is key to fairness because this allows the affirmative to have much better evidence
and research going into the round. This is structurally unfair because they will be better at their position compared to
any other debater.

4. Counter-Plan Ground. FX-topical advocacies take away counter-plan ground. When they claim an FX-topical
advantage, they take away ground that should be negative ground because it creates best counterplan possible that
solves for all affirmative harms and provides net-benefits, while not being topical on-face. The negatives counter-
plan ground key for a fair and educational debate because it is necessary for substantive and positional takeouts which
match it on equal levels of fiat.

5. Fiat abuse- There is no limit on fiat as long as the affirmative can find a way to trace the impact back to the
resolution. This means they can fiat virtually any action and claim that it makes them topical. Avoiding fiat abuse is
key to fairness because fiat determines whether the arguments we make take any sort of force in each debaters world.
Absent fiat you have to defend the probability of claims occurring which is a much more difficult burden. Abusing
fiat allows one debater to create virtually any world that they want to, skewing the round unfairly towards that
debater. This also ruins any educational value for debate because if one side can fiat utopian actions then we dont get
educational value as were not learning anything about the real world.
-INDEX-
Effects-Topicality Good

A. Interpretation: The affirmative may access impacts from the effects of its advocacy.

B. I meet.

C. Standards
a. Link turn ground: being effects topical means the negative has much more ground to link turn the aff
because they can turn the links to the effect as well. Also, when the neg link turns that chain it also calls
into question whether the aff is topical at all which means each link turn gains much higher significance.
Link-turn ground is key to fairness because it allows debaters to generate offense off of their opponents
positions in order to access the ballot.
b. Breadth of Discussion: My interpretation promotes breadth of discussion since it allows both debaters
to talk about not only the plan, but the effects of the plan as well. Breadth of discussion is good because it
ensures debaters are forced to learn about multiple topics that they would not have learned had the aff not
been effects topical.
c. Breadth of Research: Effects topical affs incentivize students to do more research because it forces
debaters to branch out and look into potential topic areas that they would not have otherwise looked into
had the aff not been topical through effects. Broad research is a valuable tool because it is constantly
required throughout life. Throughout education, most jobs, and decisions that we have to make, research
plays a central role. The research fostered by debate in invaluable because it makes debaters effective at
locating sources of information and isolating relevant arguments. Moreover, the research itself is
intrinsically valuable because it exposes debaters to a wide array of arguments, information, and
perspectives. By gaining a broader understanding of a wider range of ideas debaters become more
effective social advocates and thinkers.
d. Real world decision-making - Policy makers dont evaluate their policies in a vacuum. Rather, they
compare the possible effects of every policy action so that they know what each of their decisions means.
Allowing the affirmative to defend a plan that is topical through effects ensures that debaters have to
evaluate all actions that relate to the resolution, rather than a more limited scope of the resolution. Real
world decision-making is key to education because it has the most relevance to how we conduct our
everyday lives, since it doesnt matter only in the abstract but influences governmental policies that change
how we make calculations daily.

-INDEX-
AFF FLEXIBILITY GOOD

1. Affirmative flexibility is necessary to check back time skew. The 1AR has four minutes to respond to seven
minutes of argumentation and 3 minutes to respond to 6. This puts them at a structural disadvantage in which
they are unable to make the same quantity of arguments simply due to the lack of time and thus the
affirmatives ability to check this back with flexible strategies is required to ensure fairness.
2. Affirmative flexibility is key to strategic thinking in debate. When debaters are locked into particular
strategies, it encourages negatives to just read massive twenty-point block to necessary affirmative links rather
than forcing them to adopt nuanced case and rebuttal strategies. This links to education because strategic
thinking provides debaters with an understanding of argument interaction, which can be applicable to
business, political science, and just about any other real life activity.
3. Affirmative flexibility is necessary to check back the negatives ability to adapt to any affirmative advocacy.
Since the affirmative speaks first, the negative can adapt to whatever the affirmative says, which lets them find
the optimal strategy against their opponents strategy, an advantage that is unavailable to the affirmative. This
argument is empirically proven by absurd negative win percentages at out-rounds at top tournaments. The
ability to have multiple strategies checks this back and restores an equitable playing field
4. Affirmative flexibility increases breadth and depth of arguments, because the affirmative can choose to talk in
depth about any given issue, thus increasing depth in-round. This topic is chosen from a breadth of arguments,
thus increasing breadth of research out-of-round. This is only possible with affirmative flexibility

-INDEX-
AFF FLEXIBILITY BAD

1. Aff flexibility allows for the aff to act as a moving target by shifting out of positions articulated in the AC and
changing the nature of the aff thesis throughout the debate. This is fundamentally unfair because it prevents the
negative from crafting a cogent, incoherent strategy against the vague, turbulent affirmative position.

2. Aff flexibility decreases education in round for it incentives cheap-shot affirmative tricks, instead of substantive
debate to avoid negative positions in the name of the illustrious and meaningless affirmative flexibility.

3. Even if the aff is at a disadvantage, there is no unique reason that justifies their particular tactic. Their generic aff
flex arguments could be applied to logically justify any aff strategy.

4. Research burdens. If the affirmative can approach the round being able to choose from an effectively infinite
variety of positions, this places a massive research burden on the negative. There's no way I'll be able to prep for
every possibility. Equitable research burdens are key to fairness because this allows the affirmative to have much
better evidence and research going into the round. This is structurally unfair because they will be better at their
position compared to any other debater.

5. Aff flex is inconsistent with the rest of debate. Every other argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. Affirmative
flexibility assumes that he/she doesnt need to give warrants and justifications for their position.

-INDEX-
FRAMERS INTENT GOOD
1. It is possible to determine framer's intent. Armstrong[2] writes:
Second, their thesis denies a possibilitythat some texts can be interpreted in a certain way. To defeat this claim, we do not need to say that any texts
must be interpreted independently of authors intended meanings. We also do not need to claim that texts should be interpreted this way or even that it is important to interpret texts this
way. All we need to claim is that it is possible to interpret texts [independent of authors intended meaning] this way. Accordingly, we
admit that particular utterances of texts can also be interpreted in another way. In our view, a particular use of a certain
text on a certain occasion can be interpreted in two ways. We can ask what its speaker-meaning is. That
depends on the authors intended meanings. Alternatively, we can ask what its word-meaning is. That does not
depend on this authors intended meanings. Since we admit both kinds of meaning, we do not deny that texts
can be interpreted according to their authors intended meanings. But we do claim that texts can also be
interpreted in another way that is independent of their authors intended meanings. That possibility is what Alexander and
Prakash deny.
My interpretation solves because I am providing a definition that is consistent with a possible framers intent.
Framers intent is key to fairness because arguments that are within the intent of the framers are a reasonably
predictable position.
2. Framers intent is the fairest interpretation of the resolution because the framers create the resolution with the goal
of producing the most competitive equity. The framers of the resolution are all prestigious and qualified members of
the debate community. They work together, using their intellect and experience, to choose and word each topic in the
most fair and educational way possible. As they are the most qualified and experienced for this task, their intent is the
best interpretation of the resolution.
3. Framers have many criteria in choosing a topic, in order to preserve competitive equity.
a. Framers choose topics with a lot of literature on either side in order to insure that both sides have sufficient
evidence to make multiple arguments. Both sides should have clear evidence that points in favor of their side of
the resolution, otherwise one side might have an impossible burden compared to the other.
b. Framers word the topics in order to give both debaters as equal ground as possible. They use wordings that are
most accessible to both debaters, and dont use obscure words or obscure definitions of words to ensure that
neither sides ground is extremely limited compared to the others.
c. Finally, framers choose the topic that is the most debatable. They word it in order to make sure that clash
happens in the debate round. Thus their interpretation provides for the best debate by creating clash and
facilitating debates between both sides.
Because they use these strict criteria, framers come up with topics have as little bias as possible, towards one side or
the other, and thus framers intent is the fairest interpretation of the resolution
4. The framers intent of the resolution is also the best interpretation because it is predictable. This is because:
a. Using the framers interpretation of the resolution allows everyone to know their ground before the round,
understand the topic well, and formulate cohesive arguments because this interpretation is well known and
extremely predictable.
b. It is more predictable use framers intent because they interpret the resolution based on its context, as opposed
to random words thrown together. Using random words all thrown together devalues the topic because it
eliminates the predictability of the interpretation. When the framers word the resolution, they evaluate it based on
the meaning of the resolution as a whole. Thus framers intent best takes into account both the wording and the
context of the resolution, and gives debaters a better understanding of the resolution.
c. The purpose of this interpretation is static; the goal of the framers when wording the resolution was clear: to
provide equitable ground and reciprocal burdens. Thus, this interpretation is never vague, it provides a reasonably
large amount of topic literature, and does not skew ground in any major way. Therefore, since framers intent is
always the same, this interpretation is predictable.
-INDEX-
FRAMERS INTENT BAD
1. The framers set up a broad resolution, and there is no way to determine which specific interpretation of the
resolution. There is no way to determine what the framers intent was. The framers of the resolution do not
provide their explanation or interpretation of the resolution when it is released. Therefore, it is necessary we
argue over what the resolution means.
2. Debate ought to be framed by debaters who compete, and when that right is taken away from debaters to
interpret the resolution, you take away the most valuable part of debate, the undefined and malleable nature of
debate. Even if we know the framers intent, they are providing no warrant why we ought to prioritize framers
intent over any debaters interpretation of the resolution. We should prefer debaters interpretations of the
resolution because it allows for innovative ideas when researching the topic.
3. Although the goal of the framers is to provide a fair topic, often times there are multiple interpretations of the
interpretation that are fair. Often times the framers intent standard for evaluating the resolution is not specified
enough to distinguish between which interpretation must have been the one intended by the framers
4. If the ultimate goal of the framers was to create a fair round, than any interpretation could have been intended.
The framers intent justification gives no way to distinguish between different standards for fairness, and thus
cannot accurately express which interpretation is fairer, and which was the actual intent of the framers.
5. By appealing to framers intent, debaters lose the ability to question assumptions about debate. Without the
ability to do this, debate would never change, because framers would make resolutions based on their
philosophies, which would keep debate from ever changing or becoming better. Thus debate ought to be
framed by debaters to prevent this contradiction because it allows for innovation.

-INDEX-
UNDER-LIMITING BAD

1. Under-limiting allows for abuse as the affirmative already has the advantage of focusing the debate. The
burden of rejoinder justifies a more limited scope for the aff choice.

2. Under-limiting explodes the negative research burden. Because the negative has to link their arguments to the
affirmative advocacy, they must be prepared to engage a myriad of potential issues. This is magnified by the
fact that the aff only has to research their case, while the neg has to research all possible aff cases. This
guarantees a differential in quality. Quality prep is the strongest internal link to fairness because it determines
what arguments we have at our disposal in round, and how much they can help us win.

3. Under-limiting is bad because it prevents us from being real world decision-makers. If we make broad
assumptions about our policies, then we fail to make the best decision in each specific situation. A real world
decision-maker would make decisions based on the context of specific situations in order to get the best
outcome in each, and not just the best outcome most of the time. Real world decision-making is key to
education in the debate round because it is the most valuable skill that can be gained from debate.

4. Under-limiting is also bad because it removes the in-depth analysis that should be made on the topic. Limiting
the resolution is the best way to learn the depth of the arguments. That way people become specialized on
certain issues, and it allows us to have the most educational debate possible. Depth is key to an educational
debate, otherwise no one would know the specifics of what they are arguing and couldnt make informed and
educated arguments.

-INDEX-
OVER-LIMITING BAD

1. Over-limiting skews research burdens. The debater who limits the topic decides the conditions on limitation, and
thus they have the chance to focus on whatever specific ground they find most desirable. They can then become
extremely familiar with that part of the topic while the negative has to spend time on every facet of the topic, and thus
cannot become adequately acquainted with it as much as the affirmative. The burden of research then falls heavily on
the person who did not limit the topic because they have to predict every topic regardless of the limitation. Thus over-
limiting eliminates reciprocal research burdens that are necessary for pre-round structural fairness.

2. Over-limiting the topic destroys our understanding of how different subjects and concerns of the resolution interact
with each other. We fail to learn how to understand how the consequences of our policies. We cant emulate real
world decision-making without the ability to understand the interaction of impacts. Real world decision-making
requires specification. No real world decision maker would ever attempt to make a policy base on solely a specific
context. Real world decision-makers must look at the specific context of each situation and its relation to the broad
scheme of things in order to make the optimal choice. Thus, over-limiting destroys real world decision-making, which
is key to skills education in the round.

4. Over-limiting decreases educational values for two reasons. A). The affirmative doesnt have to prepare for
extensive range of possible strategies to protect its advocacy as the affirmative interpretation of resolution can always
exclude all non-related parts. B). As the affirmative can always turn to its favorite arguments, over-limiting decreases
the affirmatives need to strive to research and create diverse arguments.

-INDEX-
PRECISION GOOD

1. Precision makes for a more predictable debate. Precision clarifies which arguments each debater is entitled to.
This promotes the ability for preparation on the topic. Else debaters either cannot prepare for rounds or risk
preparing arguments that ultimately are valuable for the other side. Both outcomes disadvantage the debater
and distort fairness.

2. Precision increases depth. Precise definitions allow more in-depth discussion of real-world issues since
specific parameters allow us to talk about what policymakers do with regards to legislation. They debate
specific terms since it influences how they are perceived and certain legal norms. Real-world decision-making
is key to education since it is the only type of education that is relevant beyond the debate round, since it
influences how we live our everyday lives.

3. Precise definitions ensures a stable advocacy and in-round predictability. Precise definitions dont allow the
affirmative to shift out of disadvantages to definitions that may be more vague, since they dont specify what
the negative advocates. Rather, each side knows specifically what the affirmative is defending. If I have no
idea what they are defending they can come up in their next speech and say that they dont link into my
arguments. In-round predictability is key to fairness because the ability to know what arguments will or will
not be included in the other debaters definition determines your ability to have arguments access the ballot.

4. Precise definitions encourage clash. This prevents the affirmative and negative from just contesting whether
an issue is aff or neg ground, and instead forces discussion over the actual truth of it. This clash is key to
education because it is the only part of debate that forces actual interaction of arguments and engagement in
the intricacies of each debaters position.

5. Precision ensures counter-plan ground. Knowing exactly what their plan is, is key to counter-plan ground and
creating competitive alternatives or else they will be able say thats my counterplan doesnt PIC out of their
advocacy or that its not competitive. Counter-plan ground is key to real world education because in the real
world we compare other alternatives to the plan in order to decide whether or not we should go through with
plan. Counter-plan ground is also key to fairness because without it the negative would be unable to beat back
affirmatives with giant impacts based solely off of disadvantages creating a structural imbalance for the
affirmative.

6. This checks back affirmative flexibility because it constrains them to the specific definition. Having a narrow
definition limits the amount of arguments the affirmative can run. (See aff flex bad)

-INDEX-
PRECISION BAD

1. Precision hurts innovation and creativity. Having more space inside definitions to do different things is key to
education because the gist of a topic can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

2. Not being precise is not necessarily bad because we can still understand the general meaning of interpretations; as
long as its debatable, then its not a reason to vote me down. Debate checks back all their abuse claims because
we can clarify and contest different applications of a definition.

3. A precise definition doesnt mean that its a good definitionthey need specific reasons why their level of
precision is contextually good in terms of the resolution or the debate. This means this standard is insufficient to
justify their interpretation.

4. Vagueness allows access to a greater number of disadvantages because specific interpretations would exclude
arguments that might link to a broader definition or the resolution, but dont meet the specific standard set forth by
the debater. This means I link turn their ground argument.

5. Allowing precision to be a relevant consideration allows us to exclude more accurate definitions merely because
they are not precise but that is a bad system because it does not answer the question of what the definition means
but how it should be interpreted.

-INDEX-
FIELD CONTEXT GOOD

1. Field context is the best standard because it is provides the most predictable interpretation of the text since it is
derived from the field of literature that the topic was written from. This best reflects the precise meaning of the text of
the resolution, providing the strongest internal link to predictability. Since the text of the resolution is the only
guarantee that both debaters have when entering a round, the words it contains are the only stable determinants of
ground. Predictable interpretations are key to fairness because the provide debaters with the ability to prepare
arguments, research positions, and develop strategies. Since effective argumentation necessitates pre-round
preparation, unpredictable interpretations prevent substantial access to the ballot. Moreover, unpredictable
interpretations put the negative at a unique disadvantage because the affirmative knows the definition before the
round begins. Thus, preparation is exponentially asymmetrical as the AFF has infinite time to prepare. Finally,
Unpredictable interpretations are worse than interpretations that limit ground because there is no way to utilize ground
in a round if a debater was not able to adequately prepare to defend it.

2. Because field contexts definitions are disputed, they are the most accurate definitions since they take into account
objections made by opponents of definitions. This means that they are the closest to topicality interpretations whereas
dictionary definitions and contextual definitions are not disputed in the way that field context definitions are.

3. The argument in the field determines the basis for all arguments that fall within topic literature. I.E. we dont refer
to a hot dog as a warm canine in the context of a restaurant, but we might in the context of seeing a dog on the beach.
This is key to real-world education because we need to evaluate arguments within their actual applications and
systems as opposed to being viewed in a vacuum where they operate independently and without context.
-INDEX-
FIELD CONTEXT BAD

1. Field context doesnt provide a reason to use a definition. Eric Kupferbreg writes,

My contention is that participants in this activity have forgotten that they are in the context of inter-scholastic,
competitive debate--though we often pretend otherwise. What might be appropriate within the subject
matter field may not serve the salient interests of the debate context. A definition that produces an
uneducational or unfair resolution is neither 'reasonable' nor 'best." An expert in agricultural policies does operate with the
same constraints as those placed on a debater. There are, for example, no time limits for speeches, constraints on research resources or competitive incentives to
define someone out of the room. Often, field contextual definitions are too broad or too narrow for debate purposes.
Definitions derived from the agricultural sector necessarily incorporated financial and bureaucratic
factors which are less relevant in considering a 'should' proposition. Often subject experts' definitions
reflected administrative or political motives to expand or limit the relevant jurisdiction of certain
actors. Moreover, field context is an insufficient criteria for choosing between competing definitions. A
particularly broad field might have several subsets that invite restrictive and even exclusive definitions. (e.g., What is considered
'long-term' for the swine farmer might be significantly different than for the grain farmer.) Why would debaters accept definitions that are inappropriate for debate?
If we admit that debate is a unique context, then additional considerations enter into our definitional
analysis.

Thus, field context fails to generate a reason when a interpretation is fair, because the decisions are decided
irrespective of the those values and irrespective of the unique considerations of debate.

2. Using field context creates arbitrary definitions. In a resolution, different terms might apply to different fields,
therefore if you were to use field context, you would get different definitions from different fields which will
cause contradictions as oppose to simply using one source which wouldnt cause such a problem. Therefore,
because using field context causes contradictions this would be bad for education because debaters wont
know the actual meanings of words in the context of different sentences because they used different field
contexts.

3. The publishers in certain fields may not be well respected in this field, and therefore their definition may not
be from the proper field context. For example, Singer who is commonly cut, is actually not well respected in
his field of context. Without explicit proof that this author is well-respected, field context should not be used
to determine topicality.
-INDEX-
LEGAL DEFINITIONS GOOD

1. Legal definition are structured in court precedent that is free from the external whims of a random dictionary or
debater because they are derived from precedent, treaties, court opinions, and state practice. This means that the
definition is not open for interpretation and is a definitive ruling on a words meaning.

2. Legal definitions, on a conceptual level, have great rigidity, which in unique to their nature because the
influence court decisions, and thus to avoid arbitrary harms to individuals, require consistent application.
Consistent application is key to education because it makes sure that debaters have a clear.

3. Terms of art are best defined by legal dictionaries because they define terms based on their applications in the
real world, and more specifically they define terms and their application to law. This is preferable because in
debate tries to maximize the educational output, and by using real world applications we can maximize
knowledge and skills that will provide lasting effects outside of the debate round.

4. Legal dictionaries are the most impartial because multiple authors write them. When there are multiple authors
it first minimizes the influence of a single persons opinion. When there are multiple people, there can be checks
on bias opinions, so the most desirable definitions are produced. Next, because these definitions can alter many
peoples lives because they are used for law, they are made with the utmost care and effort.

5. Legal definitions are unbiased because they are based off of the law, so they provide the most precise
interpretation of the topic. This means that legal definitions are most fair because they do not arbitrarily bias
one side over the other. And they are the most educational because they are founded in the law, and it forces
students to learn more about the structure of our legal system.

6. Legal definitions create the most fair limits because they draw a clear brightline as to what is and is not under
the law. This makes the debate much more predictable because the division of ground is clear, and its
educational because less time is spent debating interpretations and more time debating the substance of the
debate or T standards.
-INDEX-
LEGAL DEFINITIONS BAD

1. Legal terms dont necessarily translate to good debate. The law is not created with regards to the same
constraints and rules that debate has. What is applicable and appropriate in legal terms doesnt necessarily
translate to what is good or bad for debate.
2. Legal definitions arent applicable to debate situations. Legal definitions can be applied to multivariate legal
situations, and are designed to handle those situations, whereas in debate the application of certain definitions
only applies to a single situation.
3. Legal dictionaries are not peer reviewed. Unlike other dictionaries, law reviews do not require peer reviews.
Therefore, there is no check on the definitions allowing for bias inaccurate definitions to be published.
Therefore, if these definitions were to be used for debate, this would decrease the overall educational value of
the debate because these definitions couldnt be applied to the real world. The fact that there is no external
check on legal definitions means that it is highly possible that legal definitions are not even accurately
representing what the law actually says.
4. Legal definitions ignore the fact that the resolution isnt just a legal question, and thus ignore the word in the
context of the entire resolution. This means that it ignores huge chunks of the topic literature that would
otherwise be relevant. This other topic literature is key to education about the topic. Legal interpretations
ignore the evidence from people who have studied the entire situations all their life.
5. Legal definitions are not stable. Legal interpretations cannot provide a stable definition because different
countries and individuals will interpret the definition differently, and this could to drastically different
outcomes. Stable definitions are critical to predictability because if a definition isnt stable it allows the 1NR
to just reframe their T argument in a way that makes the 1AC look worse than it is, which is unfair.
6. [If running philosophical definitions good] You should prefer philosophical definitions over legal definitions
because legal definitions have no relevance in debate. Our resolutions typically ask a moral question, which
means that it would be inappropriate, or at the very least misapplied, to interpret the resolution with a legal
definition.
7. [If not a law related topic] Legal dictionaries are specific to law. Therefore if the resolution doesnt pertain to
law, law dictionaries wouldnt have a place in that resolution. Because you would be applying the wrong
definitions to the wrong resolution the educational value of debate would diminish because then debaters
would learn the wrong way to apply different kind of dictionaries.
-INDEX-
CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS GOOD

1. We should base topicality off of contextual definition because all definitions rely on contextual applications as
there are multiple legitimate definitions of a word chosen depending on how they are used in the sentence.
Fore example, I would like to jump in the pool, doesnt refer jumping inside of a billiards table. Thus without
context, we can arrive at absurd conclusions, which destroy fairness because absurd conclusions shift the
arguments in the round to being something that is indefensible by one debater.

2. Contextual definitions are the only ones that define terms of art. They come from individuals within the field
context, meaning that terms of art are referred to in the same way that they would be when discussing the
argument in a legal or philosophical context. Terms of art are key to fairness and education because they
guarantee stable starting points that reflect real divisions in a literature base as the basis for ground.

3. Contextual definitions are more real-world. This is the way that definition is being discussed in the topic
literature and field of the debate. Real world education is important because debate is only meaningful insofar
as we learn tools and skills that are applicable to situations outside of debate.

-INDEX-
CONTEXTUAL DEFINITIONS BAD

1. Contextual definitions are inherently biased. They come from topic literature that necessarily takes a stance on the
issue at hand. This means that contextual definitions attempt to define terms that are favorable to the outcome the
author seeks to prove. Ground is key to fairness because if my ground is limited then I cant make arguments and
arguments are necessary to win rounds. Furthermore, even if topic literature is peer reviewed, that just means that the
facts are consistent with their definition, not necessarily that the definition is a fair one.

2. Contextual definitions establish overly esoteric definitions. Esoteric definitions exclude debaters from being able
to engage in the debate. Prefer dictionary definitions because access isnt limited to individuals with access to paid-
for databases like lexis-nexus. Ease of access is key to fairness because if individuals are able to access esoteric
definitions that others cannot, they are put a structural advantage coming into the round.

3. There are multiple contexts that a topic could be discussing. The resolution could be talking about the resolution in
terms of a philosophical theory or a policy-making paradigm. Just because it comes from a context that is tangentially
related to the topic, does not mean that the definition is the best definition for the round. The impact is that contextual
definitions as a standard lacks specificity meaning that it is a fruitless way to evaluate definitions.

4. There is absolutely no brightline for what definition is considered contextual. This makes the standard
completely arbitrary. Arbitrary standards ought to be disregarded because they at best fail to advance any educational
argumentation and at worst force judge intervention, which makes the debate about the judge rather than the debater
who did the better debating.
-INDEX-
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS GOOD

1. Common usage. Dictionaries give the most common definitions of terms. Common usage is important because
words dont mean anything outside of the social context in which they are used. This means that it has the
strongest link back to predictability, because its the first and foremost definitions used.

2. Dictionary definitions are the most objective. Any study coming from a field report, law review, or statistical
analysis is incentivized to use a definition that will help bolster their argument, while the only goal of a dictionary
is to give an objective meaning.

3. Dictionaries definitions are accessiblethey give the meaning of the words to everyone. Prefer the definitions
accessible to most people because more specific definitions divorce debaters from the real world and instead puts
them in an ivory tower of esoteric, discriminatory discussion

-INDEX-
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS BAD

1. Dictionaries define words generally, rather than in the context of the field, meaning that dictionary definitions
place us in a context that doesnt recognize the intricacies of the terms of the resolution. This harms the
educational value of the debate because it under limits the threshold for relevant arguments denying both in
depth discussion and research. Dictionary definitions lead to arguments that lack resolutional value, while
excluding scholarly interpretations that are more academic and also topic specific.

2. Dictionary definitions are imprecise and unclear. A dictionarys purpose is to define the term generally so that
it can be applied to a variety of situations. Because dictionaries lack specificity, prefer field context because
field context promotes education by increasing the specific discussion of a topic, meaning that arguments are
more developed.

3. Dictionaries provide no way of weighing between possible definitions. Under limiting arguments to the point
where any dictionary definition is considered reasonable destroys any predictability because I can never tell if
the definition of ought with be moral obligation or logical consequence. And even after it is picked I cannot
contest it because the definition meets the limit. This harms education because it forces me to spend my time
prepping on every single definition, which trades off with valuable research.

-INDEX-
BIDIRECTIONALITY GOOD

1. Bidirectionality is real-world applicable. It promotes real-world education because policymakers cannot
consider issues in a vacuum, but must consider the wider-implication their impacts will have on other policy
actions. So to artificially restrict the topic, ignores this fundamental and key component to education.

2. Bidirectionality is key to strategic thinking in debate. When debaters are locked into particular strategies, it
encourages negatives to just read massive twenty-point block to necessary affirmative links rather than forcing
them to nuance their strategies with regard to the affirmative case and rebuttal techniques. This links to
education because strategic thinking provides debaters with an understanding of argument interaction and
strategy, which can be applicable to business, political science, and just about any other real life activity.

3. Bidirectionality solves for the negative time advantage. The 1AR has four minutes to respond to seven
minutes of argumentation and 3 minutes to respond to 6. This puts them at a structural disadvantage in which
they are unable to make the same quantity of arguments simply due to the lack of time and thus the
affirmatives ability to check this back with bidirectional strategies is necessary to give the affirmative the
same chance to win.

4. Bidirectionality allows debaters to advocate what they actually believe in since they can decide which side of
a certain issue they want to support. Advocating what you believe in is more educational because it teaches
methods of upholding your arguments that are relevant in the real world. Being forced to debate for one
argument does not teach us to develop a personal opinion on the topic, which we are allowed to do when we
could take our own position. No one forces Congressmen to argue for bills that they disagree with. Thus, we
learn relevant educational skills from upholding positions that we believe in.

5. [See Affirmative Flexibility Arguments]

-INDEX-
BIDIRECTIONALITY BAD

1. Bidirectionality decreases clash. If the affirmative advocacy can run a number of contradictory positions, I have
to have prepped multiple contradictory arguments in order to respond because of my burden of rejoinder. Clash is
key to education, because clash increases critical thinking skills by understanding argument interaction.

2. Bidirectionality explodes research burdens. Instead of focusing on one position, I am forced to prep multiple
contradictory positions. This skews research burdens because they have the capacity to run either position or only
needs to research one. This means that I have research twice as much as they do. Equitable research burdens are
key to fairness because I am put at a structural disadvantage if I have to research two arguments for every one they
have to. Furthermore, researching both sides doesnt solve this problem, because I would still have to construct
cases for both sides.

3. Bidirectionality forces me into unstrategic middle ground because if they can argue that either X is good or X is
bad, I am forced to take a stance that doesnt allow me access hard-line advantages. Hard-line advantages are key
to fairness, because a) it is the stance most authors take b) allows me access to the biggest impacts and c) provides
the best clash with my opponent allowing me to weigh and compare my arguments. Ground is key to fairness
because ground determines the arguments I can make.

4. Bidirectionality makes the affirmative a moving target. There is absolutely no way that I can predict which side
the affirmative will argue, meaning that structurally I am put at a disadvantage. Predictability is key to fairness
because if I cant predict the arguments that he is going to make, there is no way that I can prepare arguments.

5. Counter-plan ground- the exact opposite of the Affirmative plan would not be an acceptable counter-plan because
it would also be topical. It makes defending the status quo the only acceptable ground because all other possible
alternatives would be topical. Counter-plan ground is key to real world education because in the real world we
compare other alternatives to the plan in order to decide whether or not we should go through with plan. Counter-
plan ground is also key to fairness because without it the negative would be unable to beat back affirmatives with
giant impacts based solely off of disadvantages creating a structural imbalance for the affirmative.

6. Bidirectionality allows for running the same arguments on both sides. This necessarily trades off with switch side
debate. Failure to debate both sides demeans all meaning to debate, life, democracy, and existence.

Darrin Hicks, University of Denver Professor of Communication & Ronald Walter Greene, UT Austin Professor of Communication,
ARGUMENT AT CENTURYS END: REFLECTING ON THE PAST AND ENVISIONING THE FUTURE, Ed Thomas A. Hollihan ,
2000, p. 302-306

According to Day, the ethics of democratic debate, therefore, should be divorced from personal conviction.
Heretofore, both the proponents and opponents of switch-side debating had accepted Murphy's claim that
conviction is the ethical criterion of public advocacy. They simply disagreed on whether the ethics of the platform were applicable to tournament debating. Not only did Day reject the distinction between school and
public debate, he rejected the ethical status of conviction for debate altogether: "Essentially for the person who accepts decision by debate, the ethics of the decision-making process are superior to the ethics of personal conviction on particular subjects for debate". His conclusion followed froma proceduralist interpretation of
liberalism holding that rights are prior to the good the right and that democracy is "a commitment to means, not ends". It is crucial to note that this move authorized Day's claim that "the ethics of debate are inherent in debate as the technology of decision-making in a democratic society" . That is, debate as a technology of decision-
making, and we would add as a technology of citizen-formation, is itself invested with ethical substance. If debate as a technology of decision-making and self-formation is imbued with ethical substance, it follows that its conditions, procedures, and results are also conceptualized in ethical terms. For instance, as Day argues, the
"prime requisite which must be met if debate is to provide sound decisions is that it be thorough and complete, that all arguments and information relevant to a decision be known and understood". Day's commitment to free speech is based on a radical reading of Mill: Freedom of expression entails more than lifting prior restraints
on argumentation. It necessitates that the construction of avenues of access for minority views within dominant media outlets and, if necessary, the restructuring of deliberative forums so minority views will not be rejected outright because they challenge hegemonic met hods of interpretation. "Free speech is the necessary
prerequisite of full debate [because] it guarantees that full debate can take place". Yet, freedom of speech does not guarant ee that full debate will take place. In this gap between opportunity and outcome Day discovers the ethical demand of democratic debate: "A commitment to
debate as the method of democratic decision-making demands an overriding ethical responsibility to
promote the full confrontation of opposing opinions, arguments, and information relevant to decision.
Without the confrontation of opposing ideas debate does not exist, and to the extent that that
confrontation is incomplete so is debate incomplete". Two practical obligations are entailed in the acceptance of this ethic. First, the fora for public deliberation
must be fully inclusive, encouragement and incentive must be provided those who hold unpopular views to express themselves. Second, and more importantly, "all must recognize and accept personal responsibility to
present, when necessary, as forcefully as possible, opinions and arguments which they may personally disagree". Hence, as Day argues, persuasively presenting a position
which contradicts one's personal conviction is the "highest ethical act in democratic debate". Moreover,
-INDEX-
to argue forcefully for a position one abhors is the hallmark of democratic citizenship. To set aside one's
convictions and present the argument for the other side demonstrates that the citizen has forsaken her or his personal interests and particular vision of the good for the
benefit of the commonweal. That is, the citizen recognizes the moral priority of democratic debate when she or he
agrees to be bound by its results regardless of personal conviction. Debating both sides, then, is
necessitated by the ethical obligations intrinsic to the technology of democratic debate. Both of Murphy's charges
that debating both sides is unethical--requiring students to debate both sides is a form of blackmail and the separation of speech and conviction courts sophistry-are
answered by this position. If debating both sides of a question is an ethical obligation, requiring students to do so as a condition of participation is not an immoral
imposition, but rather an ethical and pedagogical duty. On the other hand, given that privileging personal conviction over
democratic process courts political dangers, divorcing speech from conviction is a prerequisite to
democratic legitimacy. The practice of debating both sides does not warrant support simply because it is ethical, but does so because it is an effective pedagogical technique for inculcating the
communicative competencies necessary for democratic citizenship. According to Day, "Debating both sides teaches students to discover, analyze, and
test all the arguments, opinions, and evidence relevant to a decision. In addition, it provides an
opportunity for students to substantiate for themselves the assumption that `truthful' positions may be
taken on both sides of controversial questions". In response to Murphy and Ehninger's claim that a process of inquiry and discussion could reap these benefits of an
"enlarged mentality" without requiring students to speak out against their convictions, Day counters that it is only through the publication, by virtue of spoken performance, of others' views that the habits of mind necessary
to attend equally and impartially to all sides of a controversy are formed. In other words, by debating both sides of a question, by giving a forceful
presentation of views that contradict her or his commitments, the student learns how to convert her or
his personal convictions into a conviction for the moral superiority of the technology of debate itself. By
learning how to abstract from her or his particularity, a skill necessitated by the demands of debating both
sides, the student is made amenable to the governing force of democratic procedures.
-INDEX-
COMMON USAGE GOOD

1. Debate requires that there be a common starting point for both debaters to engage the discussion. Thus the
understanding of how words are commonly used is important to an activity that uses persuasion. Its unfair for my
opponent to use a definition that is different than is commonly perceived because it eliminates all the prep and
thinking I have done beforehand that assumes an alternate definition. Ensuring equal access is necessary for fairness
because otherwise one debater has an easier way to prepare for the round than the other, skewing the ability to make
arguments in round. Ground is key to fairness as it is the platform on which offensive arguments are made.

2. The purpose of communication, and debate, is to be able to convey ideas in a clear and concise way. Interpretations
that appeal to common usage best promote that goal because we are able to define terms in a way that is most
consistent with how people are used to hearing it, simplifying the process of communicating clearly. Communication
is the educational goal of the activity.

3. Common usage is most consistent with the real world because we merge our daily use of terms with the debate
world. Using terms that are not most commonly used in the real world promotes an educationally bankrupt view of
debate because it forces us to learn about things that will never be applicable unless we all grow up to write about a
highly specific kind of law. Therefore, prefer interpretations that we would ACTUALLY use at some point in our
lives.
-INDEX-
COMMON USAGE BAD

1. Common usage doesnt provide context to evaluate the round under the terms of the resolution, which necessarily
gives a word context that may not be in line with the common usage of a word. For example, hot dog can be either
a warm-canine or a delicious food, and the actual usage of that word is determined by its context in resolution,
regardless of its most common definition

2. Common usage commits the Is-Ought fallacy. Just because this is how people use it doesnt mean that this is how
people ought to use it. Many people have misconceptions about the meaning of what words mean, which is a
result of the sound byte nature of American politics and the fact that politicians and media outlets define words in
an attempt to garner or reject support. For instance the common man may associate health care reform with death
panels or Obama Care despite the lack of any intellectual basis.

3. There is no bright line for if a definition is found within common usage. Bright lines are necessary because absent
bright lines, standards become entirely arbitrary meaning that they provide no meaningful input on establishing
practices. Furthermore, common usage links especially hard because there is also no comparative metric to use to
compare common usage.

4. Common usage forces generic debate. This decreases education by forcing debaters to focus on conventional
definitions rather than the definitions relevant to the resolution. Prefer debate that is specific to the resolution
because it is more educational as it allows us to explore multiple topic areas relevant to our everyday lives,
whereas debates about the same definition over and over again provide no new, innovative knowledge.

5. Common usage incorrectly assumes that there is one homogenous common community or only one way a word is
commonly used. But there is no one overriding community and different communities use terms in different ways.
Furthermore, even in large communities, such as the debate community different areas have different common
usages of terms. So just having an overreaching community doesnt solve this problem.

6. Common usage is ambiguous. Attig writes,

Common usage does not make clean distinctions and uses terms that overlap or have very fuzzy boundaries. In the case of sound
recordings, the term disc is commonly applied to both analog and digital technologies. The more common term
for digital discs is compact disc or simply CD but we also need a term for analog discs; at the moment, the
preferred term seems to by vinyl disc which brings us to the next problem:
14

7. Common usage is unstable. Attig writes,

Common usage keeps changing. The case of analog sound discs is a perfect example. The terms record,
album, LP, and vinyl disc have all been common usage at one time or another. To 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. ALA feels rather strongly that common usage should not be used to
justify such constant updating of established SMD terms. Once a term has been established for a particular type
of carrier, based (among other factors) on common usage at the time, that term should not be changed. The fact that this

14 To: ALA/ALCTS/CCS Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access From: John Attig RE: General reflections on
the concept of common usage July 21, 2003

-INDEX-
term may not always be recognized by future users is perhaps an argument for applying the common usage
criterion with extreme care in the first place.
15

8. Common usage creates endless distinctions. Attig writes,

Endless distinctions: Common usage, particularly when guided by the warrant of official technical definitions, makes endless distinctions. For example, digital
music (usually in MP3 format) is often stored on either CD or DVD discs; technically, these discs should be described as
CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW, CD-I, and on and on. These distinctions, primarily based on encoding standards, may or may not make a
difference to users; sometimes, special equipment or software is required. However, the differences are truly endless and the list of SMDs
will require continual maintenance if all such distinctions are made. Ironically, what makes a term in common usage really useful is oddly a quality of
sufficient generality. A good common term covers a reasonably broad category of materials and has achieved a certain
level of stability if the fine distinctions based on encoding details can be ignored. ALA suggests that we look for such general terms,
and use other techniques (such as the other physical details or the system requirements note) to cover any important distinct ion.
16

-INDEX-
GRAMMAR GOOD

1. Grammar is necessary to determine the meaning of sentences because it sets up a rule for how the sentence
operates. Without grammar, the resolution is just a string of words with no coherent meaning. Thus even if we can
understand grammatically incorrect interpretations, we strive to maintain grammatical rule in order to promote the
most objective and coherent understanding of language as it applies to it.

2. The text of the resolution is the only thing we have coming into round, thus grammar is a key internal link to
predictability because bad grammar would lead us to have ridiculous unpredictable interpretations of the resolution
since adjectives and verbs would modify different nouns, ect. Otherwise, debating in the round becomes significantly
easier for the debater who has access to alternative definition.

3. Grammatical interpretations of the resolution are necessary for more educational debates because they prevent
arbitrary divisions of what each side may argue. Education necessitates constructive participation by both debaters
to critically engage the arguments presented, which ungrammatical interpretations prevent by creating an unstable
basis for evaluation of the resolution.

4. Grammar is an unbiased interpretation of the resolution. All other methods of evaluation like topic literature
and common usage are based in how certain authors or people interpret the text of the resolution, inviting bias by the
source of the definition. The consistency of grammar, however, avoids this problem by focusing on the etymology of
the word.
-INDEX-
GRAMMAR BAD

1. Grammar is subjective. First, words can have different meanings to different people based on experiences and bias.
Second, dialects and local beliefs influence the interpretation of a sentence or meaning. Moreover, words are defined
not by some overarching authority, but by the general consensus of a culture. This naturally means that words
themselves carry no intrinsic weight.
2. Literal meanings are but one faucet of the resolution, and decrease the deeper levels that might be accessed by a
looser meaning. If we interpret the resolution in the simplest way possible, we not only appeal to the mean but we
also close ourselves off to more varied and complex interpretations that are possible. This shuts down innovative and
in depth education.
3. Grammar is an inefficient way in which way to interpret the resolution. For example, is plurality two things or in
genre, thus the only way by which to compare between these arguments is with standards of fairness or reciprocity.
Thus, at best grammar is a merely a standard of reasonability appealing to judge intervention.
4. Grammar is constantly in a state of flux. Use of current colloquialisms and interpretations, creates a structure in
which rules of grammar are constantly debated. Reject grammar because it fails to provide a consistent metric for
evaluation. Consistency is key to fairness because absent a stable evaluation there is absolutely no way I can predict
which conceptions are relevant to the resolution.
5. Grammar fails to account for terms of art. Grammar definitionally only evaluates:
the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of
syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.[1]
This means that grammar trades off with evaluation of arguments that function through a specific field context. Prefer
field context over grammar because field context because field context carries a stronger link to predictability because
the research that we do is framed by authors in that field.
6. Grammar cannot provide a hierarchy within multiple grammatically correct interpretations. Grammar just explains
that both of our interpretations are acceptable but fails to give any meaningful help in determining which we should
actually use.
-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 3: SCOPE***
PLAN FOCUS > RES FOCUS

Debaters may defend a specific plan as opposed to the entire resolution as long as they disclose the text of the
plan 30 minutes before the round, and the plan is topical.
1. Counter-plan ground by defending a plan, the aff gives the neg much more stable counter-plan ground
because the neg can actually PIC out of aff arguments with an understanding of what the affirmative is going to
defend in the 1AR. This makes plans uniquely good because the negative gets access to counter-plans that they
otherwise would not have.
2. Stable advocacy- advocating a plan means that I cant shift what arguments I go for in the 1AR. Also, since
the plan is my advocacy, I cannot kick it in the 1AR and just straight turn the negative. In a world where the aff
is bound to defend the entirety of the resolution, the aff can be entirely unstable because literally any argument
becomes fair game in the 1AR. Stable advocacies are key to fairness because they ensure competitive equity
since both sides are able to form a cogent strategy.
3. Breadth of research plan focus incentivizes debaters to research multiple possible policy options, and it
forces debaters to research answers to specific affs throughout the topic. If debaters can get by with just reading
counter warrants then there is no incentive for debaters to research the breadth of the topic literature, since they
can just read multiple and outweigh the plan without answering it. The research is intrinsically valuable
because it exposes debaters to a wide array of arguments, information, and perspectives. By gaining a broader
understanding of a wider range of ideas, debaters become more effective social advocates and democratic
thinkers.
4. Depth of discussion plan focus encourages deep discussion about certain issues in round because it
narrows the debate down to a few issues around a certain topic. This in depth discussion is good because it
fosters critical thinking about specific issues instead of vague discussions that lack context, so they are the most
educational.
5. Real world - Plan focus is better for real world decision-making. Plan focus requires us to decide whether
to take specific policy actions based on the context of specific situations, rather than in a vacuum encompassing
all policies that have one similarity. This is better for real world decision-making because legislators dont
make categorical determinations on broad topics; they talk about implementation of the plan in order to decide
whether or not to take the action. Real world decision-making is key to education because it is applied
consistently in a way that influences us every day of our lives, rather than having the influence span only the
scope of the debate round. It is also key to fairness because it is the source of all predictable pragmatic
concerns, since most topical arguments are based on advantages and disadvantages that policymakers debate,
giving both sides a more equal way to access prominent arguments rather than obscure ones.
6. Negative time advantage- Plan focus is key to check back the negative time advantage. Currently, negatives
win more rounds than affirmatives because they can overwhelm the affirmative with disadavantages and
counter warrants, which the affirmative has a difficult time covering. Thus, to check back for the negative time
advantage the affirmative should be able to specify to a particular issue, allowing the aff to prepare to defend
that particular policy.

PLAN FOCUS GOOD FRONTLINES
AT Predictability
1. Since I disclosed the plan text 30 minutes before the round, you knew what was coming, which means all
of your predictability argument are false.
-INDEX-
2. Topicality checks the scope of what is actually a predictable aff, which means that you should be
reasonably expected to prepare for affs that fall within the purview of topicality. If its not topical, then you can
run topicality.
3. [If applicable] Disclosure solves this back once I read the aff for the first time, I put it up on the wiki
which means that you have no excuse for not knowing what was coming.
4. Its okay to be a little bit unpredictable in this instance because negatives are winning so many more rounds
than affirmatives because they are able to just read generic counterwarrants. Plan focus checks back neg win
bias because it means that the negatives cant get away with reading their generic arguments, so it levels the
playing field for the affirmative.
5. [If applicable] The plan is predictable because it is politically relevant [insert explanation]
6. The fact that I am reading solvency advocates checks back the unpredictability of the plan because it proves
that this discussion is a relevant one in the topic literature.
7. Kritik ground checks predictability because you can still have access to all your generic kritiks by saying
that the mindset I am engaging in links to the kritik that you are running.
8. Philosophical arguments check predictability because you can say that the plan would still violate a
deontological standard since it is taking the same action that any other topical advocacy would take.
9. Other generic ground on the topic checks back (explain for specific topic)
AT Ground
1. TURN: Plans increase ground because they grant the negative highly specific links to counterplans, disads,
and kritiks, and these links would not exist in a world of whole resolution focus because nothing would prevent
me from skirting those links by saying they did not deal with what I was actually defending.
2. Plans dont deny the negative key ground because they can still turn the aff, they just need to do more
research. Theyre going to say that they didnt get to run counterwarrants, but that just begs the question as to
what paradigm you evaluate the round under in the first place, so this argument misses the boat.
3. You still have access to all of your generic kritiks and philosophical arguments because you can very easily
explain why the plan still takes the same action as any generic argument and use that as a link to your
argument.
AT Impossible Research Burdens
1. Topicality checks this back because you only have to research what is topical, and anything else is not
legitimate aff ground so you can run topicality to check it back.
2. This is not verifiable at all. Being lazy does not make something an impossible research burden. Youre
going to say that I dont have people helping me cut cards, but that is irrelevant because there is no reason why
you shouldnt be able to cut a kritik to answer this or even make arguments why its not topical if you really
didnt have that much time.
3. Its obviously not an impossible research burden if I was able to find evidence on my side of the debate.
This means that the only relevant question is whether or not you should have been expected to predict this but
the first argument about topicality proves that you should have reasonably predicted this aff because it is a
legitimately topical aff within the parameters of the resolution.
4. Non-unqiue. Debaters know more about their own advocacy, and will have done more research on their
own advocacy than their opponents. Everyone has an advantage over their opponent when dealing with their
own advocacy, and plans do not increase that advantage. For example, if I ran a resolution focused case with a
specific conception of morality, it would be the same as running a topical plan because the negative would
have a similarly proportional knowledge on either of those positions.

AT breadth of discussion good

1. Non-unique. In a round with breadth of discussion, the NR and 2AR collapse the debate to a couple issues
anyways, not because they were the best areas of discussion, but because it was the most strategic.
-INDEX-
2. Turn: Plan focus increases the breadth of discussion across multiple rounds. If plans are allowed, then
debaters research topic areas outside of the stock positions out of round, which solves back their offense
3. Depth is better than breadth because it encourages impact weighing, evidence comparison, and deep
warranting of arguments. This is the best for education because having good warrants and weighing gives
debaters more knowledge on both topic and debate skills education.

AT Need to Prove the Resolution in General
The resolution being general doesnt dictate that we must be general in affirmative argumentation. Madsen and
Chandler[1] write:
A tradition in and of itself does not warrant the perpetuation of that tradition.6 Calling the topic a "resolution" is merely a semantic
distinction not justifying resolutional focus. Debaters through convention lean to treat the resolution as a
problem area. The resolution as problem area fulfills two critical functions; [as] it serves as notice of the area for debate and it
demarcates affirmative and negative ground (Herbeck, Katsulas and Leeper 151). Further the resolution as problem area meshes with the
jurisdictional view of the resolution. [but as] The resolution merely outlines the jurisdictional grant which is available to
the judge, it does not dictate that the affirmative advocate the entirety of that jurisdictional grant (Madsen and Louden
78).

Extension Evidence For Real World Descicion Making

Resolutional focus fails to teach debaters how to debate with the intricacies and robustness of actual policy
argumentations, Madsen and Chandler[2] write:
The resolution as focus of controversy also fails to meet the primary goal outlined at the outset of this paper. The goal of policy
debate should be to teach students how to advocate in arenas of public policy. As Panetta and Dolley suggest, a resolution is
an abstract logical construct which carries no intrinsic truth value. It is only with the introduction of specific
instances that the resolution becomes transformed into a disputable policy statement. Focusing on the abstract
nature of the resolution leads to de-emphasis of plan-specific arguments. With the resolution as focus the affirmative
plan is of secondary importance (Bryant 3). Resolutional focus could in fact lead to examination of multiple policy altematives. Such analysis would be superficial,
with little depth. An affirmative could examine one policy option with the negative considering other separate policy
options. While there might be clash over the relative desirability of the resolution, little direct clash at the
individual policy level would occur.7 We thus suggest the resolution should serve as the starting point for the
discussion of a controversy, but that clash over policy questions requires a narrower focus.

-INDEX-
RESOLUTION IS A TOPIC AREA

1. We should not treat the resolution as the focus of debate but instead contextualize it to a certain advocacy.
a. It teaches debaters an optimal form of real world decision making, Chandler and Madsen explains;

The systems perspective as focal point better meets the goals introduced at the beginning of this essay. First,
systems analysis better teaches debaters about public policy, increasing the educational value of debate.
Debaters learn that adoption of policy alternatives does not occur in isolation. Policy options are instead
shaped and influenced by other elements of the unchanged status quo. As such, the systems perspective better
teaches debaters to unpack the substantive issues of the problem area, increasing their understanding of the
policy making process. By contrast, the plan focus teaches debaters to ignore systemic relationships and focus
instead on the specifics of the affirmative plan. The resolution and holistic perspectives both ignore the system
level of analysis in favor of more general and abstract considerations of resolutional values.

Thus evaluating the resolution is un educational because it a vague hypothetical which does not apply to real world
decisions.
b. It would force the debaters onto equal footing, and create new areas for clash, Chandler and Madsen
explains;

Third, the systemic perspective would place opposing advocates on equal ground. Instead of finding a narrow
part of the resolution to hide behind (the criticism which sparked counter-warrants), the affirmative would
need to demonstrate how their policy would interact with the other elements of the present system. A systems
view of policy analysis would open new substantive areas for clash concerning the nature of policy
interrelationships. Such analysis would increase negative ground without removing all limits on negative
refutation possibilities. Similarly, the negative would need to illustrate the interaction of their policy with
other status quo elements.

2. Given that the resolution is such a broad statement, the only way that we are able to make claims about its
truth value is by contextualizing the resolution. Moral claims are meaningless in the abstract because moral
rules are determined by the interaction of multiple moral principles. Moral statements in a vacuum dont
make sense because the relationships between competing principles are non-verifiable without context. For
instance conformity to principle that life is good does not prove the legitimacy of the rule killing is wrong, as
its permissible to kill in self defense.
3. The resolution must be treated as a topic area to preserve access to topic literature. In academia people take
resolutions like this as a starting point and justify multiple policies using the broad concept of a resolution as a
subject for their specific ideas. Debate is no different. We should use the resolution as a starting point for our
ideas and from that discuss specific ideas that fall within the purview of the resolution. Further authors rarely
defend the universal legitimacy of an idea but instead evaluate resolutions in terms of case studies.

-INDEX-
RES FOCUS > PLAN FOCUS
1. Resolution focus preserves predictability. Its impossible to predict what policy the affirmative will advocate
going into the round and thus the negative has no way to ensure that they are prepared for all affirmative
plans. This puts the negative at a structural disadvantage by exploding the negative research burden by forcing
them to research every plan that might be topical so as not to get blindsided by the affirmative. Further the
negative will never be able to match the affirmatives depth of research as they must split their prep among
many potential plans. Thus I control the internal link to education because we cant have an educational debate
if one side is less prepared then the other to engage it.

2. Limits. The affirmative drastically over-limits the topic because it crowds out relevant negative ground that
would otherwise have been in play. The affirmative can choose advocacies that are generally more supported
in the topic literature as long as they get the right to decide the issue of debate. This skews the topic literature
away from the negative by the affirmative getting to exclude instances of the resolutional conflict that
generally flow negative. This means that the negative ground is qualitatively worse by being forced to defend
issues that the affirmative cherry picked. Overlimiting is bad for fairness because it puts one debate at a
structural disadvantage from the beginning of the round since I cant develop as substantive arguments.

3. Specification leads to educ. Madsen and Chandler write:

The third benefit, specificity of analysis, is a legitimate advantage of plan focus. However, is specificity [is not] a sufficient basis for the plan
as focus? We think not, because specificity also has its drawbacks. For example, specificity can lead advocates to
focus on tangential issues such as plan flaws, where the affirmative errs in the correct grammatical
construction of their plan. Further, merely because the plan provides a clear focus does not mean that
advocates of policy change should ignore systemic relationships inherent to the plan. Overemphasis on
specificity sacrifices the benefits derived from depth of analysis on systemic relationships.
17

4. Resolution focus is key to generic ground. The affirmative by specifying the resolution can choose particular
instance of the resolutional action that avoid many of the generic arguments in the topic literature. When I
make generic arguments the affirmative will simply claim they dont apply to the nuances of the affirmative
plan. This is unfair because the inability to apply the generic arguments in the topic literature prevents access
to general aspects of the topic literature.

5. Breadth.
a. Breadth of discussion. Resolution focus encourages breadth of discussion in round because debaters
get to talk about multiple politically relevant issues that they wouldnt have the same chance to talk
about outside of rounds. Breadth of discussion in round is critical to education because it ensures
people listen and critically evaluate arguments that they wouldnt have otherwise because the
competitive nature of a debate round creates an environment conducive to that kind of discussion.
b. In-round breadth. Resolutional focus gives us more ideas and arguments in the topic literature. Breadth
is uniquely good in-round, because different kinds of arguments interact with each other in different
ways, while a plan-focus debate is binary. Argument interaction over diversity of arguments is better
because it requires debaters think critically about weighing different impacts to each other.

17 Amie Madsen (Northwestern) and Robert Chandler(Illinois State University), Spheres of Argument: Proceedings of the Sixth
SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Annandale VA: Speech Communication Association, 1989.
-INDEX-
TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS BAD

1. Predictable Division of Ground. The resolution provides the parameters for the debate and the ground that
each the affirmative and negative have. Topical counterplans dont allow for a predictable division of ground
because it allows the negative to advocate common affirmative ground. Predictable division of ground is key
to fairness because before either debater can make arguments to help them win, they have to be able to prepare
with knowledge of what they are to defend in the round.

2. Switch-side debate. Topical counterplans destroy switch-side debate because the negative makes affirmative
arguments. Empirically, switch-side debate is uniquely valuable to developing the education necessary to
develop coherent advocacies. Dybvig and Iverson write,

Not all debate research appears to generate personal advocacy and challenge peoples' assumptions. Debaters
must switch sides, so they must inevitably debate against various cases. While this may seem to be
inconsistent with advocacy, supporting and researching both sides of an argument actually created stronger
advocates. Not only did debaters learn both sides of an argument, so that they could defend their positions
against attack, they also learned the nuances of each position. Learning and the intricate nature of various
policy proposals helps debaters to strengthen their own stance on issues.
18

3. Topic Literature. Topical counterplans use common affirmative topic literature rather than debating issues the
topic literature specifies as negative ground. Topic literature is key to fairness because we derive all of our
arguments from the topic literature. It is also key to education because without a focus on the topic literature
debaters would be unable to learn about the topic at hand and have deep and substantive research and debates.

18 Kristin Dybvig and Joel Iverson. Can Cutting Cards Carve into Our Personal Lives: An Analysis of Debate Research on Personal
Advocacy, http://debate.uvm.edu/dybvigiverson1000.html
-INDEX-
TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS GOOD

1. Negative flexibility. The ability for the affirmative to specify any open action under the resolution allows them
to claim many benefits that avoid many of the conventional harms. This is why affirmatives specify in the first
place to move the debate onto a plain more prepared for. Thus the only way to check this back is to increase
negative ground to have alternative methods of solvency.

2. Real world decision-making. When Senators are discussion what policy to enact it is a false assumption to
believe that its either join the ICC or not, for example. It is perfectly reasonably for someone to suggest that it
would be better for the US to submit to the jurisdiction of a different court. Policymakers dont disregard
policy options arbitrarily just because they are similar to another bill that may be passed. Real world decision-
making is key to education because it is the single most important factor in justifying why debate is
extrinsically valuable, and it serves to prepare us for a world where we are no longer debaters.

3. Key to test best policy option. The purpose of debate is to make sure that we critically evaluate our options
and decide that which is most beneficial. Topical counterplans are just a part of this process because they say
that the aff is not as good as some other option. Also topical counterplans are legitimate because the aff
forgoes its ability to defend the counterplan when it decides to pick a specific plan.

4. Clash. Topical counterplans increase clash in the debate because it forces comparison between which
advocacy would be better as opposed to just reading disadvantages and not doing any weighing. Clash is good
for education because it forces debaters to compare arguments which is the most real world skill that we could
ever get from debate because every day of our lives we are forced to compare between options.

5. Proportional Division of Ground. When the affirmative runs a plan he defines the ground he will defend and
that negative can advocate, for example he might delink out of possibly negative disadvantages. The only
possible proportional response to the change in ground is to give the negative the ability to run topical
counterplans. The affirmative already took away possible ground so topical counterplan ground serves to
equalize the imbalance. Ground is key to fairness because ground determines the arguments I can make and if
I cant make arguments I cant win the round.

6. Topical Counterplans are key to checking back uneducational plans. Affirmatives can pick any plan under the
entirety of the resolution, meaning that they can pick hyper-specific advocacies that are not only irrelevant in
terms of the entirety of the topic but also de-link the majority of negative arguments. Therefore the only
possible way to salvage the education in the round is by allowing the negative to run topical counterplans.

7. Topic literature. Similar policies are explicitly compared by advocates of different policies. Topic literature is
key to pre-round preparation because the arguments in the literature are the same ones that occur in round.
Denying me that literature excludes the crux of arguments that are leveraged against plans, giving me an
uneven quantity of arguments.
-INDEX-
PICS BAD

1. Strategy Skew. PICs allow the negative to concede to 100% of the affirmative, and thus co-opt 100% of the
affirmative speech and advantages with the affirmative action. This skews my time quantitatively because I lose
almost 6 minutes of my original AC. This links to fairness because the time we have determine the arguments we can
make and defend, if one debater has more time than the other it skews the time in there presence. This harm is
magnified by the fact that the 1.a.r already only has 4 minutes to respond to the 7 minute negative construction and if
we cant use embedded answers in the A.c. then the time skew has profound implications on the affirmatives access to
the ballot.

2. Predictability. Theres always another part of the affirmative plan that the neg could just sever out of or modify to
get some small net benefit. The affirmative cant possibly predict all of these different specific arguments. This means
the AC cant adequately prepare an affirmative strategy to defeat the different potential negatives, and its
unreasonable for the aff to predict every possible pic. This is key to fairness because if I cant predict what I need to
prepare I will always be at a structural disadvantage compared to my opponent.

3. Turn Ground. PICs can tweak my advocacy in the most minute of ways. In this situation, there is a small difference
between the affirmative and the negative. So, there is only a small piece of offense that the affirmative can respond to.
Since I can only generate offense through ground, the fact that the PIC limits the ground I can generate offense from
Since ground is the only way to generate offense towards the ballot, destroying ground, prevents the affirmative
ability to win the round.

4. Time Skew. The affirmative devoted 6 minutes to reading a 1AC that becomes entirely irrelevant now because the
negative claims 100% solvency through a PIC. This leaves the affirmative with 7 minutes to beat back 13 minutes of
argumentation. Time skew is unfair because it leaves one debater with less time to spend on the arguments that matter
in the debate.

-INDEX-
PICS GOOD

1. Research encouragement. PICs force both sides to do nuanced topic-specific research instead of vague and
generic research. Specifically, the negative has an incentive to research what effects a minor adjustment would
have on the resolution, while the affirmative needs to do research to counterbalance the PIC. Higher level
research is key to education because it is from our research that we derive our arguments and have meaningful
and substantive debate on a given policy.

2. Real world decision making. Real World Decision makers are always faced with the decision of how to go
about doing something, or to what degree to do it. Policy makers have actual discussions about which parts of
the plan are good. If part of a bill is undesirable, a congressman doesnt throw out the entire bill. Rather, they
adjust the bill to avoid whatever undesirable effect the plan may cause to maximize its utility. Real world
decision-making is key to education because knowledge is only as useful as it is applicable and it consistnetly
influences us every day of our lives. It is also key to fairness because it is the source of all predictable
pragmatic concerns, since most topical arguments are based on advantages and disadvantages that
policymakers debate, giving both sides a more equal way to access prominent arguments rather than obscure
ones.

3. Predictability. PICs force the affirmative to defend the entirety of the resolution when they are writing their
positions. This is good for both pre-round predictability, as the text of the resolution is the only predictable
and static thing debaters share before the round, and in-round predictability, as the affirmative cannot delink
from disadvantages that discuss only part of the resolution. Predictability is key to clash, because if dont
know what the arguments are, we cannot properly address them. And clash is key to education because
debates are more educational when in-depth discussion forces debaters to address internal links are specific
arguments.

4. Ground. PICs are essential negative ground. The negative must criticize the affirmative and explain why its
wrong. One of the necessary arguments I need to make is why the entire plan isnt beneficial or would be
more beneficial without a certain part. Thus, plan inclusive counterplans are necessary negative ground as a
reason why the affirmative plan is harmful.

-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 4: STATUS***
CONDITIONALITY BAD

A. Interpretation: Debaters must defend one unconditional counterplan.
B. Violation: They defend [multiple conditional counterplans] or [a counterplan that is conditional]
C. Standards:
a. Reciprocal ground: the affirmative gets to defend one policy action while conditionality would justify
the negative generating offense off of multiple advocacies which significantly increases their
likelihood of winning- the aff doesnt get to run multiple plans to find the best example of the
resolution, so the negative shouldnt get to use multiple examples to disprove the resolution.
Reciprocity is key to fairness because it ensures that debaters are not at a structural disadvantage
before the round, and reciprocal ground is necessary to maintain competitive equity.
b. Strategy skew: conditional counterplans undermine the affs ability to generate offense on the
counterplans because the neg can just pick the cp that has the least coverage and analysis, which skews
time allocation undermining the affs ability to win given how much of a time disadvantage that the
affirmative is at in the 1AR. And this outweighs any other instance of strategy skew because the aff is
at an inherent advantage since the neg has the ability to win with straight turns on the AC, but
conditionality allows the neg to get out of turns on the counterplan. Formulating a strategy is key to
education because absent a cogent strategy, debate would devolve into a game that required little skill,
and it would destroy critical thinking because we would not be forced to think about specific strategies.
c. Real world decision-making: One policymaker cannot propose competing pieces of legislation. I have
never seen a Senator unroll a list of 30 bills he/she might advocate that day. Moreover, it is impossible
for congress to weigh a particular plan against multiple policy actions, which means that the neg
should only be able to defend a single unconditional counterplan. Real world decision-making is key to
education because it is the single most important factor in justifying why debate is extrinsically
valuable, and real world decision-making prepares us for a world where we are no longer debaters.

-INDEX-
CONDITIONALITY GOOD

A. Counter-interpretation: The NEG may run [X] conditional counterplans provided that they are backed by a
solvency advocate with an advanced degree in a relevant scholarly field, they employ the same actor as the
AFF and each one is at lease [X] minutes long, and the text was disclosed 15 minutes before the round.
B. I meet.
C. Standards:
a. NEG FLEXIBILITY: The AFF interpretation kills NEG flexibility because they have no strategic
options in the NR. NEG debaters are literally stuck with one option the entire round. NEG flexibility is
key to fairness because it is necessary to check back AFF advantages. The AFF gets exponentially
more time to prep its AFF; they set the grounds for debate, and establish the default framework for the
round. Absent flexibility the NEG falls prey to these AFF advantages. The AFF is going to say that Im
wrong and that NEGs actually win way more. But, this is only because AFFs arent running plans.
Moreover, NEG flexibility provides the internal link to breadth of research because the AFF has to be
prepared to answer multiple NEG positions, fostering broad research skills. Furthermore, flexibility
provides the internal link to breadth of discussion because the NEG forces discussion of a wide range
of topics during the round.
b. REAL WORLD: The AFF interpretation destroys real world decision-making because we wouldnt be
comparing policy options to all potential alternatives. No real world decision-maker would every
ONLY compare an option and one alternative. Instead, we compare a policy and all potential
alternatives in order to determine the true opportunity cost of the policy. This provides a unique type of
education in terms of actual decision-making that cannot be captured by generic education arguments.
c. STRATEGIC THINKING: Conditional counterplans force the AFF to make strategic choices and
think critically in the 1AR. The decisions the AFF has to make when choosing how to engage multiple
conditional positions uniquely promotes quick decision-making, strategic understanding of argument
interaction, and effective time allocation. Critical thinking is a unique educational benefit that ensures
practical application of debate skills by enabling effective critical thinking.

-INDEX-
DIPOSITIONALITY BAD

1. Its essentially conditional. The conditions under which they can kick the counterplan are conditions that are
so unfavorable for the aff that the only reason that its dispositional is so they can whine in the 2nr about how
its distinct from conditionality. All of my arguments as to why it is bad for them to run conditional
counterplans apply to dispositional counterplans.
2. Perm ground dispositionality destroys my ability to test the competition of the counterplan because the
moment I permute the counterplan they can claim that it is no longer part of their advocacy. Perm ground is
key aff ground because if I dont have the ability to permute counterplans then I am stuck playing defense on
the counterplan. This means that all they have to do is explain why the counterplan solves the aff and win a
risk of offense and they win.
3. Clash. Dispositionaly undermines clash because the negative always has the option to kick the counterplan as
long as the affirmative doesnt just make defensive answers to the counterplan. Debate without clash leads to
less substantive debate because the debates become two ships passing in the night, and people never learn how
to interact arguments with one another.

-INDEX-
DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD

A. Counterinterpretation: The neg may run dispositional counterplans if the conditions under which they may
kick the counterplan is if the aff permutes the counterplan, runs theory against the counterplan, or straight
turns the net benefit.
B. I meet the CP has clear parameters on when it may be kicked.
C. Standards:
a. Neg flex the negative needs the ability to generate opportunity costs to the affirmative. Unconditional
counterplans are bad because it means the neg can only read one CP as an opportunity cost to the aff
and I have to defend it no matter how much time the aff spends straight turning it, and conditionality is
bad because I can kick it whenever I want, which means you cant formulate a strategy. Dispositionality
is good for neg flex because there are explicit instances under which I can kick the neg, so im not stuck
with it, but I also have a chance to generate disadvantages against the aff, while solving it. It also
solves back aff strat skew because you know under what parameters I can kick the counterplan, and
can plan the 1AR accordingly.

AT Strategy Skew

1. There is no strategy skew I am explicit under which circumstances I have to go for the counterplan which means
you can formulate your strategy around that.

AT Ground Skew

1. Dispositional counterplans are best for aff ground because literally all you have to do is explain why the CP
doesnt solve as well as the aff, and then explain why the aff solves and you win.
2. Dispositional counterplans let you generate offense off of the CP and if you read offense plus some defense I am
stuck going for the counterplan, which means that you can still win off of the counterplan.
-INDEX-
LIMITED CONDITIONALITY BAD

1. All of the arguments for regular conditionality bad still apply. Just because they decrease the abuse by limiting
themselves to one conditional advocacy doesnt mean the abuse disappears. Under a competing interpretations
framework, it is still fairer to reject the use of the conditional counterplans due to all my standards.

2. Even under reasonability, limiting the negative to one conditional counterplan is still sufficient abuse to vote
them down. Under their interpretation, the negative still has the ability to develop multiple worlds: the status
quo and the counterplan. And they can still decide to kick one in the next speech, meaning that the huge
amount of time that I invested in one of the advocacies is entirely wasted. Time skew destroys fairness
because if I dont have the same amount of time to respond to arguments, my opponent is put at a structural
advantage.

3. Running one conditional counterplan is still uneducational because it allows debaters to abandon their
advocacy mid-round. Forcing debaters to stick to their entire advocacy fosters skills that are necessary in the
real world, such as the ability to defend all the pitfalls of their advocacy.
4. Limited conditionality is completely unpredictable. If the affirmative articulates disadvantages to the counter
plan, the negative can just kick it later. I never know which position he is going to kick until its too late.
Predictability is key to fairness because if I cant predict the strategy my opponent is going to use, there is no
way that I can make strategic responses, and making good responses are key to winning rounds.
5. Limited conditionality prevents depth of discussion. When the negative can have multiple advocacies, the
affirmative is forced make shallower arguments in order to better cover. The fewer worlds the affirmative
needs to compare, the more developed a debate can be because the affirmative can develop more in depth
argumentation. In depth argumentation is key to education because it forces debaters to understand the
intricate link chains within their positions.

-INDEX-
LIMITED CONDITIONALITY GOOD

1. Limited Conditionality is consistent with real-world advocacy Solt19 writes:

Second, this form of limited conditionality is also consistent with real world advocacy. Faced with
one proposal for change, opponents of a policy frequently offer a counter-proposal. In response to
the Republican tax cut proposal, the Democrats will offer an alternative tax cut proposal of their own.
But even if the Democrats' plan is rejected, the Republicans' need not be embraced. Democrats can still
vote against the Republican plan. Indeed, this posture of proposing an alternative, but still
defending the status quo as superior to the policy proposed by one's political opponents is so
common that it is essentially business as usual. Thus, rejecting all forms of conditional argument is
in fact less in accord with the practice of real world public advocates than is the acceptance of limited
conditionality.

Real-world advocacy is key to education because these arguments dictate the way that the real world
functions. Furthermore, real world advocacy determines the predictability of arguments, which is key
to fairness because predictability determines the arguments we can make. If I cant make arguments I
cant win the round. If it is used in the real world, I shouldnt be expected to assume that it is unfair.
2. Limited Conditionality balances the playing field by checking back the affirmative use of permutations.
If the affirmative can advocate doing both the counterplan and the affirmative advocacy, the negative
should have a reciprocal ability to say do neither the counterplan nor the affirmative advocacy.
Reciprocity is key to fairness because if debaters do not have equitable ability to make arguments, the
affirmative debater is put at a structural disadvantage.

3. There can be multiple permutations, which gives the affirmative a greater scope of arguments. This is
checked back by limited conditionality. Solt [2] writes:

Fifth, normal permutation theory still gives the affirmative more policy options than the negative, even
allowing the negative an inherent right to the status quo. There are almost always several legitimate
permutations which can be articulated in response to a given counterplan. Thus, in most rounds there
will be several policy options (the original plan or any of a number of permutations) justifying an
affirmative ballot. Even allowing the status quo fallback, the negative does not reach complete parity.
But disallowing even that option constitutes a major failure of reciprocity.

Reciprocity is key to fairness, because if more avenues to the ballot fall in favor of the affirmative he has a
structural advantage coming into the round.

4. Limited conditionality is uniquely unproblematic because the affirmative case disproves the status quo
already. Solt [3] writes:

Seventh, the status quo is a uniquely unproblematic option to add into the mix. The affirmative has
already had the whole 1AC to indict the status quo; thus, the status quo has already been subject to
reasonably in depth discussion. Disadvantages commonly establish their uniqueness relative to the status
quo. The affirmative's initial advocacy is that the plan is superior to the status quo. Not requiring that the

19 Roger Solt. The Disposition of Counterplans and Permutations: The case for Logical, Limited Conditionality. 2003.
-INDEX-
affirmative successfully sustain this claim at the end of the round lets them shift their fundamental
advocacy stance. Consistent advocacy on the part of the affirmative logically requires them to win both
that their plan is superior to the status quo and that their plan (or a permutation) is superior to the
counterplan.
Consistent advocacies are key to fairness because there is no way that I can predict the arguments that my
opponent will go for, if his advocacy is constantly changing.
-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 5: COUNTERPLANS AND FIAT***
NEGATIVE FIAT GOOD

A. Interpretation: The negative may fiat the passage of one counterplan [or kritik alternative]
B. I meet
C. Standards:
a. Solvency Ground. The affirmative may only claim benefits via the use of fiat, so if the negative cannot
use fiat, then they dont have the same access to solvency. Both debaters have to be held to the same
actor so we have access to the same solvency ground. Solvency Ground is key to fairness since all
arguments need claims warrants and impacts. I need solvency ground to access to impacts, and by
extension, the ballot.

b. Reciprocal burdens. The affirmative gets to fiat one plan, thus its only reciprocal that the negative also
gets to fiat one plan with the same actor. Otherwise, the negative is forced to defend the status quo,
which is not reciprocal because it means the affirmative can spend all their time explaining why the
status quo is bad and gives a chance to make even the slightest change to the status quo. Reciprocity is
key to fairness because it ensures competitive equity.

c. Turn Ground. In a world without negative fiat, the affirmative can just frontload on the status quo bad,
and then just run an affirmative that has a very marginal benefit and say that it outweighs. This allows
them to avoid disadvantage ground because they dont need to run an affirmative that has a very large
impact, so it just has a small effect on the world. This leaves a negative with very little ground to make
turns or link DAs. This ground is key to fairness because equal access to ground is key to ensuring the
debate is structurally fair.

d. This is necessary to demonstrate opportunity costs to the affirmative. This is legitimate negative
ground because its absurd to claim that merely because an action has a positive effect that you ought to
do it, because if there is a higher valued alternative, which you forego, then there is a net loss in
potential utility. This means that it would not prove the resolution, in any way true, under a
consequentialist framework.

e. Real world decision-making. In the real world, decision maker dont claim an action is valuable if
there are better alternatives, which can only be evaluated in the scope of negative fiat. Otherwise,
debaters would only analyze one action in relation to the status quo. Real world applicability is key to
fairness because the primary source of arguments is from the real world. It is also key to education
because knowledge is only useful as much as its applicable to the real world.
-INDEX-
ALTERNATIVE AGENT FIAT BAD

a. My interpretation is that the neg can advocate multiple actors doing the CP, but they must have they will
cooperate solvency advocates.
b. They dont have solvency advocates that say they will cooperate.
c. Standards:
i. Disad ground: their interpretation is clearly a gross abuse of neg fiat. They can fiat any sort of utopia
under their interpretation, since they aren't constrained by what is actually likely to happen in the real
world. They can fiat North Korea-U.S. Cooperation. There is just no way I can generate ground against
this, because they can advocate a fake dream world. Disad ground is key to fairness because it ensures
that both sides have an equal chance of winning since they have access to offense.

ii. Predictable limits: Solvency advocates and the literature serve as a check on the predictable
arguments that can be run. I need access to the lit on this debate, because it's a debate about what
factors will influence state policy. That's an immensely complex debate and we need to appeal to
experts in round. However, NO experts write accessible and predictable literature about their
interpretation. And there are over 190 countries in the world so its impossible to predict which actors
they would choose to defend. Predictable limits are key to fairness because it ensures both sides a
structurally equal chance of winning.

iii. Reciprocal burdens: The aff only gets to defend one actor, while the negative can defend
multiple actors. This is bad because it means that the negative gets access to tons of advantage and
disadvantage ground that the affirmative never had access too, and it means that the negative can just
say that 1 of their multiple actors would be able to solve the aff better. Reciprocity is key to fairness
because it ensures competitive equity.

-INDEX-
ALTERNATIVE AGENT FIAT GOOD

A. Interpretation: the negative may defend a different actor than the affirmative as long as there is a qualified
solvency advocate that compares the two countries taking the policy action defended by the plan.
B/ Violation: I meet
C. Standards:
1. Real world solvency advocates prove that the counterplan is real world because it proves that other
countries could do the plan, and the debate should be a question as to which actor should do the plan. And,
its not unpredictable because there are only a certain number of countries that could ACTUALLY do the
plan, so specificity of the evidence solves back your 190 countries argument. Real world decision making
is a uniquely important benefit of debate because it is the only skill that we will actually have to use every
day of our lives. Improving our ability to make such decisions is an indispensible benefit of debate and a
skill that can have an impact on our lives.
2. Key to test the desirability of the affirmative plan - The only way that we are able to determine whether
or not the aff has picked the best policy option is if we can test against other agents doing the plan. If it
would be more desirable for the EU to do the plan as opposed to the USFG, then it does not make sense to
say that we should just stick with the United States Federal government. Testing the real world desirability
of the plan is good because it increases critical thinking since it forces us to make comparisons that will be
relevant in any decision we make in life.
3. Neg flexibility without the ability to defend a different actor doing the plan, the 1AC can just
frontload on reasons why it would be really bad for a specific actor to do the negative, which kills the negs
ability to generate disadvantages off the aff if the aff can just claim that their actor avoids the disads. Nex
flexibility is good because it is critical to ensure that the negative is on an equal playing field with the aff,
and its key to education because it allows the negative to think critically about multiple, strategic policy
options.

-INDEX-
MULTI-ACTOR FIAT BAD

A. Interpretation: The negative can advocate multiple actors doing the CP, but they must have they will
cooperate solvency advocates.
B. Violation: he doesnt have they will cooperate solvency advocates

1. Real World Applicability. Individual actors cannot act via the assumption that other actors will act with them.
They need to work for that cooperation, expend political capital, and make gains and concessions in the
international arena. Thus, fiat of international cooperation is utterly unrealistic. Real world applicability is key to
fairness because the primary source of arguments is from the real world. It is also key to education because
knowledge is only useful as much as its applicable to the real world.

2. Predictable limits. Solvency advocates and the literature serve as a check on the predictable arguments that can be
run. Debaters need access to the literature on a debate because we are neither academics nor experts in the field in
question. However, NO experts write accessible and predictable literature about their interpretation. And there are
over 190 countries in the world so its impossible to predict which actors they would choose to defend.
Predictable limits are key to fairness because it ensures both sides a structurally equal chance of winning.

3. Solvency Ground. The affirmative only gets to defend one actor, while the negative can defend multiple actors.
This means that the negative gets access to tons of advantage and disadvantage ground that the affirmative never
had access too, and it means that the negative can just say that 1 of their multiple actors would be able to solve the
affirmative better. Both debaters have to be held to the same actor so we have access to the same solvency ground.
Solvency Ground is key to fairness because all arguments need claims warrants and impacts, I need solvency
ground to access to impacts, and by extension, the ballot.

4. Disad ground. They can fiat any sort of utopia under their interpretation, since they aren't constrained by what is
actually likely to happen in the real world. They can fiat cooperation between two nations, such as the US and
North Korea, or even the US and Germany during the Second World War. Debaters cant generate ground against
this because disads are based on the probability of occurrence for links, which fiat definitionally removes as a
relevant question. Disad ground is key to fairness because it ensures that both sides have an equal chance of
winning since they have access to offense.

-INDEX-
MULTI-ACTOR FIAT GOOD
A. Interpretation: The affirmative/negative may defend multiple actors acting in conjunction as long as they have
solvency advocates that defend those actors working together.
B. Violation: I meet

1. Real World Applicability. No one considers actions or problems with regards to single actors, but instead evaluate
considerations that require cooperation such as environmental harms like global warming. These are legitimate
considerations debaters should discuss, which are both pertinent to our lives and relevant to being well-informed
citizens. But they are only engaged in with reference to multiple actors. Real world applicability is key to fairness
because the primary source of arguments is from the real world. It is also key to education because knowledge is
only useful as much as its applicable to the real world.

2. Topic Literature. Any abuse of multi-actor fiat is checked back by topic literature because many people talk about
the advisability of cooperation and multi-actor action. I cant advocate a counterplan without solvency evidence.
Fiat just means the counterplan will happen, not that it will work. This means there is both ground on my
counterplan, and a reason it is predictable. By not allowing for multi-actor fiat, my opponent removing relevant
topic literature, thus denying affirmative and negatives relevant ground and chances to gain offense because we
derive arguments from topic literature.

3. Best policy option. Under policy focus the role of the judge is to vote for the best policy. Denying me any
counterplan prevents them from doing this. This is structurally unfair because it prevents me from achieving the
burden required of me under this paradigm.

4. Depth of discussion forcing the aff defend their actor against another private actor forces in depth discussion
because it requires debaters to go in depth on the benefits and disads to a certain actor and REQUIRES
comparison between those two actors. This makes debates so much better because the aff cant get away with
saying that they have an internal link to their impact, they must weigh those internal links against those of the
counterplan. In depth discussion is key to education because it causes debaters to think critically about their
advocacy and objections to that advocacy.

-INDEX-
INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD

a. Interpretation: The negative must defend the actor defended by the resolution or specified by the affirmative.
b. Violation: the negative defends an international body doing the plan.
c. Standards:
1. Real World Applicability-Because international actors consist of so many actors the probability of them doing
something is very low. When unions forms among states and the try to make decisions, their personal interests
usually conflict. This is empirically proven in the UN when they struggle to pass any legislation or agreements
because different countries want different things and when they feel left out, they go against it. Therefore to
fiat that these actors would do such large scale things would be absurd in the real world.

2. International fiat is inconsistent with the nature of foreign policy
Ross K. Smith [Wake Forest University] The International Counterplan: A Survey of the Issues 1998
This line of argumentation gains strength in the foreign policy context Why do we call it "foreign" policy? The
answer is that this is the field of policy that [foreign policy] concerns what actions our nation should take in
light of actions beyond our jurisdiction, beyond our control. To fiat the action of foreign nations is essentially
the equivalent of gutting- the basis for foreign policy analysis. As Professor John T. Rourke of the University
of Connecticut puts it "Foreign policy is formulated by a decision-making process that occurs within two
settings. One is the external setting that exists outside the state. Countries must deal with the realities of the
world system.... Often this external setting severely constrains what countries can or cannot do and must or
must not do."' To remove these constraints by fiating international action is to artificially change the foreign
policy calculus.

3. International fiat allows us to assume changes in state action
Ross K. Smith [Wake Forest University] The International Counterplan: A Survey of the Issues 1998
Third, the lack of a principle grounding for international fiat leads to unprincipled policy analysis. The
negative basically simply assumes that since other counterplans are legitimate, internationally fiated ones are
as well. But where does this reasoning lead? If the case impact is civil war in Russia, why not fiat that the
Russian government changes its policy to prevent the war? If we can fiat any action by any other nation, then
all foreign policy is basically meaningless since the purpose of foreign policy is to deal with the actions of
other nations. Some negatives will try to say that's different and invoke the "subject/object distinction": we
don't fiat the subject (Russia?) just the object? This phrase, as you can see has next to no meaning and is just a
self-serving artificial distinction. By pointing to potentially worse fiat abuse the negative seeks to justify their
own.

Real world applicability is key to education because educations would not be important if we could not apply
it to the real world.

4. Research Burdens- There are multiple international institutions and even more countries within those
international institutions that play a role in making decisions. This creates an impossible research burden for
the aff because it is impossible for me to predict which international body you will use, and how people will
react to the plan, which is important because it creates links for your disad scenarios. Impossible research
burdens destroy education because debater is no longer a game about critical thinking, but instead its about
finding the most obscure scenarios. And this harms fairness because it puts the aff at a structural advantage
since only the neg could predict which actors will matter.

5. Topic Literature: Authors talking about international actors tend to be very biased. Most literature that is
written is usually not usable because when it comes with interactions with other countries, people in a specific
-INDEX-
country are always going to want to act in their best interest whether its net beneficial or not. Therefore there
will not be a lot of usable literature. Not having an equal amount of literature is unfair because both debaters
should have an equal chance at cutting good cards, otherwise one debater would be inherently disadvantaged
because of the lack of available literature to develop arguments.

6. Reciprocity [If the topic is specified to the USFG)- The aff only gets the USFG, but the neg gets to defend
any international institution and the nations within that institution. This is bad because it means that the
negative gets access to tons of advantage and disadvantage ground that the affirmative never had access too,
and it means that the negative can just say that the nations within the international body solve better.
Reciprocity is key to fairness because if both debaters dont have an equal chance at accessing the ballot than
the round is inherently skews to that debater.

7. Justifies object fiat if the aff can justify other international bodies doing the plan, then they could just fiat my
advantages away because they could say these would not occur in a world where we used X international
body, or that people would just not [explain object of advantage.] Object fiat is bad because it would cause
neg win percentage to skyrocket since the aff could never generate offense off of the aff or neg.

-INDEX-
INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD

a. Interpretation: The negative/affirmative may fiat an international actor [doing the plan etc]
b. Violation: I meet.
c. Standards:
i. Political Relevance in a globalized world international institutions and agents are growing to
be some of the most politically relevant actors in the world. Actors like the UN, WTO, EU, and
more are now in control of more decisions than ever before. This makes international fiat the
most real world form of fiat. Come out from under that rock- The US isnt the only country that
does things, this is key to real world education. Real world education is good because the
purpose of debate is to prepare us for our lives outside of school and debate. And this solves are
your unpredictable arguments because it proves that my interpretation could have been
predicted.
ii. Topic literature there is tons of literature in the topic as to why it would be good if an
international institution were instituting the plan. To say that the aff/neg only gets to defend the
USFG is a) ignorant and b) ignores huge chunks of topic literature that includes highly relevant
arguments like relations DAs, modeling DAs, and other arguments that should not be arbitrarily
excluded. Topic literature is key to fairness because it sets the basis for every other argument
that is relevant in the round. And its key to topic specific education because the literature that
constitutes the topic determines what we learn on any given topic. ALSO, because international
actors comprise of many different countries, the literature coming from them is universal. As
oppose to using literature that may be very influenced by western cultures, international actors
comprise of many different cultures, which means no single culture can influence the literature.
Topic literature universality is key to education because simply learning western ideals
wouldnt be very helpful because we live in a very diverse world, therefore learning different
cultures ideals would be beneficial for education.
iii. International agent fiat is necessary to test the advisability of the agent of action. This is
particularly relevant to ethical debate because large portions of philosophical literature discuss
the nature of agent specific obligations. For instance, even if putting out a fire is good, it seems
reasonable that firefighters and not teachers should do it. This is especially true for
governmental obligations because different governments owe different obligations to different
people both under international law and philosophical literature.
iv. Disad and counterplan ground-International actors consist of many different actors, therefore
any disads or counterplans that link into any of the actors part an international actor like the UN
would link into that specific international actor. Also, disads and counterplans that specifically
link into that specific international actor also links. Therefore fiating an international actor
gives the other side a lot more ground. Disad and counterplan ground are key to fairness
because it lets the other side solve for my offense and generate unique offense so they can
access the ballot
v. Predictability- Because international actors are made up of multiple actors, their actions attract
a lot of attention. Whenever the UN does something, authors write about it because the chances
of that action, affecting people on a global scale are large. However if a small country were to
do something, because it most likely wont affect a large amount of people, not many authors
will right about it. International actors have a lot more literature on them, so it will be more
predictable to discuss they issues. Predictability is key to fairness because it is the only thing
debaters have to prep before the round.

-INDEX-
PRIVATE ACTOR FIAT BAD

A. Interpretation Debaters may only fiat the actions of public actors.
B. Violation Their advocacy uses a private actor.
C. Standards

1. Real World Applicability: Governments are incapable of identifying with 100% certainty that the probability
that other non-governmental actors will act. Thus, its inconsistent with how real policy makers act to allow
them to consider alternatives that garner 100% probability of private actor action. private actors are controlled
in the real world is that they listen to what the government tells them to do, they dont just act randomly. By
fiating that a private actor would do something independent of a governmental mandate the neg is
fundamentally contradicting real world policy-making. Real world applicability is key to education because it
provides actual meaningful application of the skills we learn to the process of deciding policies in actual life,
thereby ensuring that we have the greatest applicability to our educational benefits

2. The affirmative is bound to arguments that use the government as the actor whereas this justifies the negative
picking the maximally advisable actor. This is unfair because the negative gets access to better arguments than
the affirmative. Quality of arguments is necessary to defend the substance of your position. The neg can
specify 1 out of infinity of actors and the aff is bound to the actor of the resolution. This explodes the
affirmative research burden because the affirmative gets to defend against every existent actor.

3. Under-limits. There are literally millions of private actors in the US alone: individuals, businesses, and
organizations. Their interp justifies my grandpa doing the plan. This is the most unpredictable agent
counterplan because there is no agent smaller or more diverse than a private actor. Predictability is the most
important standard to fairness and education because if an argument is unpredictable, there is no debate that
can be had because I have no arguments.

-INDEX-

PRIVATE ACTOR FIAT GOOD
1. Its a mistake to assume that states are the only relevant power holders. Richard Haass20 explains the nature
of current power divisions.
At first glance, the world today may appear to be multipolar. The major powers -- China, the European Union (EU), India, Japan, Russia, and the United States --
contain just over half the world's people and account for 75 percent of global GDP and 80 percent of global defense spending. Appearances, however, can be
deceiving. Today's world differs in a fundamental way from one of classic multipolarity: there are many
more power centers, and quite a few of these poles are not nation-states. Indeed, one of the cardinal features of the
contemporary international system is that nation-states have lost their monopoly on power and in some domains their preeminence as well. States are being
challenged from above, by regional and global organizations; from below, by militias; and from the side, by a variety of nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and corporations. Power is now found in many hands and in many places. In addition to the six major world powers,
there are numerous regional powers: Brazil and, arguably, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Venezuela in Latin America; Nigeria and South Africa in Africa; Egypt,
Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East; Pakistan in South Asia; Australia, Indonesia, and South Korea in East Asia and Oceania. A good many
organizations would be on the list of power centers, including those that are global (the International Monetary
Fund, the United Nations, the World Bank), those that are regional (the African Union, the Arab League, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,
the EU, the Organization of American States, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), and those that are functional (the
International Energy Agency, OPEC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the World Health Organization). So, too, would states within
nation-states, such as California and India's Uttar Pradesh, and cities, such as New York, So Paulo, and Shanghai. Then there are the large global
companies, including those that dominate the worlds of energy, finance, and manufacturing. Other
entities deserving inclusion would be global media outlets (al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN), militias (Hamas, Hezbollah, the
Mahdi Army, the Taliban), political parties, religious institutions and movements, terrorist organizations (al Qaeda),
drug cartels, and NGOs of a more benign sort (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Doctors
Without Borders, Greenpeace). Today's world is increasingly one of distributed, rather than
concentrated, power.
This means we need to consider that non-governmental actors in policymaking because they are influential in
their own right and it wouldnt be educational to exclude them as it would be irrational for other policymakers
to do them same.

2. Its topicalthe resolution does not specify a country, but just says that something is good or bad. Theres
thus no reason the actor must be the state. This also checks back their predictability arguments because they
should be ready on this debateat worst, you shouldnt vote us down for their bad assumptions. Moreover,
this proves that topicality and not theory is the appropriate check on my argument. Private actor fiat is
inherently bad, just some private actors. Force them to use topicality to limit out some of those actors instead
of excluding the entire genre.

3. Solvency advocate checks back we can grant that private actor fiat is unpredictable, but the fact that I have
specific evidence concerning the plan and its actor means that it should stick out like a sore thumb in the lit,
meaning you should have been able to find it. This denies all of their predictability claims.

4. Disad ground defending private actors gives the aff tons of disad ground because every private actor is an
actor for the aff to generate disads off of. Disad ground is key to fairness because it ensures both sides have an
equal chance to generate offense off of a portion of a certain debate.

20 Richard Haass [President, Council on Foreign Relations- NYC]. The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance. Foreign Affairs. June
2008. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html
-INDEX-
5. Depth of discussion forcing the aff defend their actor against another private actor forces in depth
discussion because it requires debaters to go in depth on the benefits and disads to a certain actor and
REQUIRES comparison between those two actors. This makes debates so much better because the aff cant get
away with saying that they have an internal link to their impact, they must weigh those internal links against
those of the counterplan. In depth discussion is key to education because it causes debaters to think critically
about their advocacy and objections to that advocacy.

6. Breadth of research allowing the negative to defend on private actor, and fiat the passage of the plan,
incentivizes debaters to research the benefits of their actor doing the plan and the disadvantages of private
actors doing the plan. . Broad research is a valuable tool because it is constantly required throughout life. In
almost all contexts, research is a necessity. Throughout education, most jobs, and decisions that we have to
make, research plays a central role. The research fostered by debate in invaluable because it makes debaters
effective at locating sources of information and isolating relevant aruments. Moreover, the research itself is
intrinsically valuable because it exposes debaters to a wide array of arguments, information, and perspectives.
By gaining a broader understanding of a wider range of ideas debaters become more effective social advocates
and democratic thinkers.

7. Best policy option. Under policy focus the role of the judge is to vote for the best policy. Denying me any
counterplan prevents them from doing this. This is structurally unfair because it prevents me from achieving
the burden required of me under this paradigm.

-INDEX-
PCCS BAD (CONSULT)

A. Interpretation: The negative counterplan must exclude at least part of the plan.
B. Violation: The counterplan enacts all of the plan after consultation.

1. Under normal- means fiat, we would necessarily consult with all relevant parties before taking the action. The
AC fiat has already assumed that any consultation that should happen has already happened. Since consult-
counterplans can fall under the scope of normal means fiat, they are affirmative advocacies.

2. Consult counterplans are just permutations and are therefore logically affirmative ground. Kerpen[1],
Textual plan-inclusivity is the most immediate and glaring problem with PCCs. A PCC includes the affirmative plan,
verbatim, adding to it only conditions on which it is made contingent. In essence then, a PCC is itself a permutation; it contains the entire
plan. The only escape from this argument for negatives is the claim that text should not be used as the benchmark for competition, but that view is highly problematic. Mechanical
competition, which is the view that the actions advocated in the counterplan must compete with the actions of the plan, is the popular alternative to textual competition. But the
mechanics of plans and counterplans are open widely to interpretation, and ultimately nearly wholly
arbitrary. Most plans (although perhaps this is an error by affirmatives) contain broad catch-all language about
implementation, intent, and guarantees that bracket the specifics of implementation. In fact, the purpose of fiat is to
bracket the specific mechanics of the plan and focus instead on the text and its desirability. If we think of the plan text as a bill being proposed,
the debate focuses exclusively on whether it should be approved. If it should be approved in the context
of larger bill including other language, the affirmative has still proven that it should be approved.

Prefer this interpretation because it is most consistent with real-world decision-making. Real world decision-
making is key to education because the only education that will matter is the education we are able to apply
outside of the round to our everyday lives. Moreover, it is key to fairness because without permutations there
is no way for the aff to contest whether a counterplan is an opportunity cost to the affirmative.

3. Consult counterplans are un-debatable. If they have evidence that the entity that we consult will agree to the
plan anyway, then it is impossible for me to challenge the counterplan on substantive grounds because they get
100% of the plans benefits and the additional benefits of making another agent happy. Debatability is key to
fairness because if I cant engage their position, then it becomes impossible for me to win the round, since
they capture all of my benefits.

4. Consult counterplans are unpredictable. There is an unlimited of private, governmental, and international
actors they could consult and I would have to expect in order to debate. The fact that almost all nations
interact with other nations and organizations in the international arena makes it even more difficult to predict
whom they will argue to consult. Predictability is key to fairness because I need to have a basis from which to
prepare pre-round. They start off way ahead since they knew how to prepare on their own advocacy.

5. Consult debates devolve into generic strategies because no aff can be prepared to debate every how every
country would respond. This means I am forced into generic consult bad arguments, which decreases clash
and topic-specific education. Clash is key to education because it forces debaters to make comparisons, which
occurs everyday in life. And, topic specific education is good thats why we switch topics every two months
so we can learn about a wide variety of topics.

6. Strategic value of the 1ac - Consult CPs moot the AC. Consultation only adds a condition to the aff that
makes it impossible to weigh the AC against the CP. That also amplifies the importance of the predictability
arguments above if you cant use the aff to mitigate the CP your only hope is to have country-specific say
-INDEX-
no evidence and relations turns because any other answers would also link to the aff. This is structurally
unfair as it eliminates half of my speech time and my most valuable source of offense in the round.

7. [if defending whole rez good] That justifies intrinsic permutations. Since LD tests the whole resolution, affs
should only be accountable for the intrinsic results of accepting the resolution if the negatives argument
could be prevented by an additional action that is not mutually exclusive with accepting the resolution, it is not
a reason to vote neg. The counterplan merely adds a condition to the resolution; their relations net benefit is
not an inherent problem with the resolution.

-INDEX-
PCCS BAD (CONDITION)

1. PCCs aren't competitive -

A: PCCs arent textually competitive

Phil Kerpen, debate critic and coach, owner of cross-x.com, The Problem of Plan-Contingent Counterplans,
December 4, 2001, pg. http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2001-December/037077.html/

Textual plan-inclusivity is the most immediate and glaring problem with PCCs. A PCC includes the
affirmative plan, verbatim, adding to it only conditions on which it is made contingent. In essence then, a
PCC is itself a permutation; it contains the entire plan. The only escape from this argument for
negatives is the claim that text should not be used as the benchmark for competition, but that view is
highly problematic. Mechanical competition, which is the view that the actions advocated in the counterplan
must compete with the actions of the plan, is the popular alternative to textual competition. But the mechanics
of plans and counterplans are open widely to interpretation, and ultimately nearly wholly arbitrary. Most
plans (although perhaps this is an error by affirmatives) contain broad catchall language about
implementation, intent, and guarantees that bracket the specifics of implementation. In fact, the
purpose of fiat is to bracket the specific mechanics of the plan and focus instead on the text and its
desirability. If we think of the plan text as a bill being proposed, the debate focuses exclusively on
whether it should be approved. If it should be approved in the context of larger bill including other
language, the affirmative has still proven that it should be approved.

B: PCCs aren't mechanically competitive

Phil Kerpen, debate critic and coach, owner of cross-x.com, The Problem of Plan-Contingent Counterplans, December 4, 2001, pg.
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2001-December/037077.html/

Even on the mechanical view of competition, many PCCs contain the entirety of the affirmative plan, or
so much of it that what is excluded is unspecified and thus insulated from attack. Thus, to the extent
that the counterplan solves the case, it concomitantly fails to compete. For people who would prefer competition to be a purer procedural matter, this is an
unsettling possibility. But it makes no sense to adopt a mechanical view of competition and then try to explain away to ugly reality that it necessitates competition that is on a sliding scale with counterplan solvency; the textual competition view should be clearly
superior to such purists. So, if competitive is viewed mechanically rather than textually, the negative can only
demonstrate competition if they win that less than the entire plan would be enacted under the
counterplan. In practice negative teams have had success claiming precisely the opposite; that the PCC
results in the plan being enacted unchanged, following the advantageous antecedent. Negatives are able
to do this because counterplan debates are typically highly abstracted. Without relying on debate theory
sleight of hand, it would be impossible to explain how a course of action including the actions of the plan
is a reason to reject those very actions. But in typical counterplan debates, the argument is not presented in that simple analytical form. PCCs have presumptive legitimacy, and affirmatives attack them with
permutations. Negatives stock answers to permutations are: 1. The claim that counterplan tests the word resolved in the resolution, and 2. the claim that permutations sever part of the plan or add some new action, engaging in intrinsicness testing. I will deal with
each in turn.

2. Predictable limits. There is no literature on these counterplans. The evidence they read does not compare specific
benefits of making the aff plan contingent on their condition <explain>. Pre-round prep is based on arguments in the
literature against the affirmative, so if the CP isnt in topic lit, its unpredictable. There is a near infinite number of
conditions upon which you could stake your affirmative plan thus it under limits potential negative counter plans by
giving them access to a near limitless number of potential conditional plans. This harm is magnified by my inability to
weigh the general advantages of the affirmative because in many instances, the counter-plan will take that action of
the affirmative.

-INDEX-
3. PCCs are elitist, Kerpen21 writes,

One hypothesis is that supergenerics, and ungrounded abstract theory, are a way of maintaining hierarchy in high school debate. Just as college teams are expanding the possibilities of the debate format, and questioning the rigidities of form, high school debate seems to be retreating into a highly abstract, rigid formalism that allows arguments
like PCCs without any reflection on the consequences they have on the community. The last haven of unprivileged
programs, the last ground they could hope to excel on, is their affirmative cases. To accept PCCs is to steam-roll over those cases, those areas of
specialized knowledge, and replace them with a homogenized ground on which the elites can always maintain their
advantages. This is precisely how consult counterplans are being deployed. Elite programs adopted them as a way to bracket 1AC without confronting any of its
claims. As a consequence of the ethos of these teams and their technical superiority, they were able to compel judges
to vote for PCCs with such regularity, despite their analytical weaknesses, that they moved consensus in their favor. After the judge pool consensus was established, many non-elite
teams began to run PCCs, but they are always already at a disadvantage when they debate elite teams on the ground of
consultation counterplans, because those teams are concentrating much of the material advantage of their privilege on
preparing for debate on that ground.

4. PCCs crush ground and avoid clash, Kerpen

But even if the affirmative has a large number of well-evidenced reasons that the PCC is a bad idea, they have still
suffered a stunning loss of ground. PCCs make 1AC entirely irrelevant and guarantee that the debate will take place
on whatever ground the negative chooses. While some other arguments may have this effect, such as critiques or Plan- PICs, those arguments are analytically sound, and thus inherently limited
in number. That an argument can be applied to every case on every topic, and does not even have to be weighed against the
affirmative case, makes the argument prima facie illegitimate absent compelling arguments in its defense. In the case of PCCs,
there are no such arguments that can justify making 1AC irrelevant. Many PCCs, with antecedents likes studies or consultation, also avoid clash at the level of modifications to
the plan that would be made during the antecedent conditions. Since these modifications are themselves contingent, it
is impossible for the affirmative to even identify them, let alone make offensive arguments against them.

21 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:29:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Phil Kerpen <kerpen@cross-x.com> To:
submit@hsdebate.com Subject: The Problem of Plan-Contingent Counterplans
-INDEX-
PCCS BAD (GENERAL)

1. A modification in the plan should still affirm. Kerpen22
Textual plan-inclusivity is [a] the most immediate and glaring problem with PCCs. A PCC includes the affirmative plan,
verbatim, adding to it only conditions on which it is made contingent. In essence then, a PCC is itself a permutation; it contains the entire plan. The only
escape from this argument for negatives is the claim that text should not be used as the benchmark for competition, but that view is highly problematic. Mechanical
competition, which is the view that the actions advocated in the counterplan must compete with the actions of the plan, is the popular alternative to textual competition. But
the mechanics of plans and counterplans are open widely to interpretation, and ultimately nearly wholly arbitrary. Most plans (although perhaps this is an error by
affirmatives) contain broad catch-all language about implementation, intent, and guarantees that bracket the specifics of implementation. In fact, the purpose of fiat is to
bracket the specific mechanics of the plan and focus instead on the text and its desirability. If we think of the plan text as a bill being proposed,
the debate focuses exclusively on whether it should be approved. If it should be approved in the context of larger
bill including other language, the affirmative has still proven that it should be approved. Textual competition
guarantees that a permutation is always possible--even seemingly contradictory laws could be written on the
books at the same time, the question is what would result. Mechanical competition reduces all competition to
antiquated questions of exclusivity, since actions always compete for scarce resources and desirability arguments
interact with implementation. As the most evocative example, it seems impossible to demonstrate that steal the
funding is not a legitimate argument form under a mechanical standard of competition.

2. The PCC nullifies the AC and allows the negative to win off of small links to disadvantages. Kerpen
The consequences of accepting the severs immediacy argument, and of accepting PCCs in general, is that the 1AC is essentially a
wasted speech. In the world of PCCs, even the smallest disadvantage is a reason to vote negative, because the negative
can always over a PCC that makes passage of the plan contingent on the brink of the disadvantage. Moreover, the
astonishing breadth of potential antecedents for PCCs makes preparation for all of them impossible--the antecedent
could be consultation with any country on the planet, studies by any number of experts, referendums, delays for
any number of causes, etc. If PCCs are acceptable, the negative should always win on the following argument:

3. PCCs grant negatives too much control over ground. Kerpen.
suffered a stunning loss of ground. PCCs make 1AC entirely irrelevant and guarantee that the debate will take place
on whatever ground the negative chooses. While some other arguments may have this effect, such as critiques or
Plan- PICs, those arguments are analytically sound, and thus inherently limited in number. That an argument can be
applied to every case on every topic, and does not even have to be weighed against the affirmative case, makes the
argument prima facie illegitimate absent compelling arguments in its defense. In the case of PCCs, there are no
such arguments that can justify making 1AC irrelevant.

4. PCCs are elitist. Kerpen writes.

One hypothesis is that supergenerics, and ungrounded abstract theory, are a way of maintaining hierarchy in high school debate. Just as college teams are expanding the possibilities of the debate format, and questioning the rigidities of form, high school debate seems to be retreating into a highly abstract, rigid formalism that allows
arguments like PCCs without any reflection on the consequences they have on the community. The last haven of
unprivileged programs, the last ground they could hope to excel on, is their affirmative cases. To accept PCCs is to steam-roll over those cases,
those areas of specialized knowledge, and replace them with a homogenized ground on which the elites can
always maintain their advantages. This is precisely how consult counterplans are being deployed. Elite programs adopted them as a way to bracket 1AC without
confronting any of its claims. As a consequence of the ethos of these teams and their technical superiority, they
were able to compel judges to vote for PCCs with such regularity, despite their analytical weaknesses, that they moved consensus in their
favor. After the judge pool consensus was established, many non-elite teams began to run PCCs, but they are always already at a disadvantage when
they debate elite teams on the ground of consultation counterplans, because those teams are concentrating much of
the material advantage of their privilege on preparing for debate on that ground.

22 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:29:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Phil Kerpen <kerpen@cross-x.com> To: submit@hsdebate.com Subject:
The Problem of Plan-Contingent Counterplans
-INDEX-
5. PCCs crush ground and avoid clash. Kerpen

suffered a stunning loss of ground. PCCs make 1AC entirely irrelevant and guarantee that the debate will take
place on whatever ground the negative chooses. While some other arguments may have this effect, such as critiques or Plan- PICs, those arguments are analytically sound, and thus
inherently limited in number. That an argument can be applied to every case on every topic, and does not even have to be
weighed against the affirmative case, makes the argument prima facie illegitimate absent compelling arguments in
its defense. In the case of PCCs, there are no such arguments that can justify making 1AC irrelevant. Many PCCs, with antecedents likes studies or consultation, also avoid clash at the
level of modifications to the plan that would be made during the antecedent conditions. Since these modifications
are themselves contingent, it is impossible for the affirmative to even identify them, let alone make offensive
arguments against them.

-INDEX-
WORD PICS BAD

1. Word PICs are not educational because they reduce the clash in the round to a single dispute of a single
world of the resolution. This destroys education because a) it denies the importance of the resolution and
instead replaces the meaning of a particular word as the topic for debate, and b) this denies the importance
of research and moots and substantive or political relevance to the topic.

2. Real World Applicability: Decision makers would never stipulate the importance of a single word over a
policy that could effect the life of millions because of the discursive implications of a single word never
outweighing the benefits of an impact on a persons life.

3. Word PICs are uniquely problematic because the rhetoric debaters use is not self created, but instead
given to them by the resolution, and rhetoric of their solvency advocates. Thus, it is unfair to hold debaters
to particular terms over which they have no control. Further, this is a unique harm to the affirmative
because the negative is not tied to any standard of topicality. Thus, it creates a non-reciprocal harm that
always disadvantages the affirmative.

4. Word PICs prevent weighing ground because the only point of dispute between the affirmative and
negative, as argued by the negative themselves in their solvency evidence, is the advisability of 1 word
over another. This means I am incapable of winning any other advantages and weighing them against the
negative. The only possible place I can win is via the advisability of words, which is a debate the negative
will always be more prepared on. Weighing ground is thus key to check back negative preparation.

5. My opponents solvency advocate is not from the resolutional topic area but from philosophical works
generally. This means there is no check via topic literature against his position that it was reasonable to
expect the affirmative to prepare for it. Predictability is key to fairness and education as the quality of
preparation determines both my chance of winning and the quality of the discussion.

-INDEX-
WORD PICS GOOD

My interpretation is that the affirmative gets to criticize the assumptions behind one word [or PIC out of one word] in
the resolution. This is best:

1. This interpretation forces the negative to defend the ground that they were given by the resolution, which
proves that this is core affirmative ground because it is necessary to affirm the resolution.

2. The neg makes the debate about the affit forces you to justify why achieving your plan is a good thing, the
neg doesnt even question your solvency, which means all you have to do is when that your framing of the
world is good. You should love debates on your turf-learn to defend it.

3. Best policy optioncriticizing words in the resolution is crucial to determine the desirability of doing what
the negative advocates vis--vis alternatives. Its key to real world education because it is the method of
logical policymaking.

4. My advocacy is most consistent with the resolution- all we have before the round is the text of the resolution,
which means that we have the ability to prep and understand the assumptions of the resolution pre-round. This
neg is more predictable than parameterized affs or specific disads, which are permitted all the time. This
means they are in a double bind: either a) they exclude all of those arguments or b) include mine.

5. The aff increases the depth and breadth of knowledge. By forcing critical thinking about new approaches to
the topic, my case improves educational benefits by diving into the literature on why particular terms carry
negative connotations. Education is valuable because it is the goal of debate.

6. The word PIC is textually competitive. <insert textual competition good>

-INDEX-
TEXTUAL > MECHANICAL COMPETITION

1. Stable Advocacy. Debaters need to be bound to the text of their plan. Holding them to anything else allows them
to become a moving target in later speeches by re-specifying what the action taken actually is, as the text defines
the action. Shifting advocacies are unfair due to the fact that they keep debaters from crafting strong strategies
against their opponent because their opponent can always change their advocacy mid-round.

2. Words are more important than any kind of mechanical considerations because they form everything we
understand, so textual competition is more important than mechanical competition.

Cassiman, Sociology Professor, 2008. Shawn A. Cassiman, Sociology Professor 2008. Resisting the Neo-liberal Poverty Discourse: On
Constructing Deadbeat Dads and Welfare Queens. Department of Sociology, University of Dayton.
The facts belie the substance of this rhyme. Words do hurt. Words are powerful. A cursory examination of the rhyme hints at the power of words, of discourse, of
the stories we tell, of how we construct our lives and realities. The rhyme also serves the function of a talisman; using some words to ward off the power of others words
will never hurt me. But no matter the talisman, words do have the power to wound. With repetition, they gain a life of their own, impart meaning,
discursively elevate some while sending others to the margins, and have a profound impact upon our lives and on the social
policies most important to us. This essay describes the power of words, of discourse, upon poverty policy and those living in poverty. This contribution to the
discourse is also concerned with encouraging critical reflection of the welfare reform discourse, reflection upon our discursive participation, and issues of social justice.
Discourse of Poverty and Welfare Reform 1691 Discourse What is discourse? Scholars variously describe discourse as speech, an exchange of ideas or as a, ... a
discussion that is representative of... a particular school or epoch, or more broadly ... every kind of symbolic order of intentional processes of
communication and understanding

3. Predictability. The plan is the focus of the debate. The plan text is the most predictable thing in the round because
it is the only stable, distinct advocacy. Therefore, the only possible predictable counterplans are those that
compete textually with the basis of the round. Predictability is key to fairness because it ensures both sides are
structurally equal.

4. Mechanical competition is arbitrary as it can test competition using an infinite amount of factors. We could say
that printing the legislation on a different color paper was competitive.

-INDEX-
MECHANICAL > TEXTUAL COMPETITION

A. Interpretation: The negative is allowed to run counterplans that are mechanically competitive.
B. Violation:
C. Standards:
1. Real world When Congress debates about the bills that should be passed, they debate about how
the bills will function, not the words that are included in the bill. Real world decision-making is a
uniquely important benefit of debate because it is the only skill that we will actually have to use every
day of our lives. Improving our ability to make such decisions is an indispensible benefit of debate and
a skill that can have an impact on our lives.
2. Topic Lit the function of the counterplan is limited by normal means fiat and topic literature.
Authors talk about even the same options with different language, indicating that text is not a relevant
consideration to them. They compare the mechanics of the options. Access to this topic lit is key
because we arent experts or academics on the field of the resolution. Moreover, if it isnt in topic lit
there is no way I could predict and prepare for it. Quality preparation is thus an internal link to both
fairness and education.
3. Textual competition encourages vague plan writing because affs would just write their plan texts
vague enough so that any counterplan would not be competitive. This is unfair because it destroys the
negatives counterplan ground, and its not educational because it promotes an incentive to textually
exclude neg arguments instead of clashing with them.
4. Infinitely regressive any CP could textually compete you could literally rephrase the plan text
and it would function the EXACT same way in the real world, but in debate would be considered
competitive. This removes all aff ground removing clash, hence destroying fairness and education.

-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 6: KRITIK ALTERNATIVES***
NON-EXISTENT ALTS BAD

A. Interpretation: Kritiks must offer an alternative to the assumption they criticize.
B. Violation: You dont have an alternative!
C. Standards

1. Non-existent kritik alternatives destroy reciprocity. If my opponent is able to nit-pick problems with the
affirmative case without providing an alternative or more preferable way to solve, I am put at a structural
disadvantage because I not only have to identify a problem, but have to claim a way I solve it, while the neg only
has to identity a problem. Structural reciprocity is key to fairness because it guarantees equal burdens for both
debaters.

2. Non-existent alternatives are inconsistent with real world policy-making. Policymakers cant just criticize a set of
policies that other policymakers argue are beneficial if they cant provide an alternate way in which to avoid their
own criticisms. Real world decision-making is key to education because it is applied consistently in a way that
influences us every day of our lives, rather than having the influence span only the scope of the debate round. It is
also key to fairness because it is the source of all predictable pragmatic concerns, since most topical arguments are
based on advantages and disadvantages that policymakers debate, giving both sides a more equal way to access
prominent arguments rather than obscure ones.

3. Strategy skew without an alternative there is literally no negative world because there is no alternative to
criticize. This makes it impossible to formulate a coherent strategy against the negative because I literally have
zero idea what they will defend. Strategy formulation is key to fairness because if the neg makes it where its
impossible to formulate a strategy, I am at a structural disadvantage.

4. Even if they win that their kritik doesnt need an alternative you are not voting on the K because at the very least
it means that the K is a non-unique impact. The alternative generates uniqueness, but guess what, you didnt read
one!

-INDEX-
REJECTION IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE

1. Real World Applicability. When making decisions, we cannot decide the optimal action by merely rejecting what
we should not do, but instead take the action that is most advisable. Thus, by failing to provide a more advisable
action, they fail to relate the criticism to any real world application. Governmental policy must be decided in
terms of competing options because there is never an ideal way to meet policy goals, only comparatively better
ways Real world applicability is key to education because it provides actual meaningful application of the skills
we learn to the process of deciding policies in actual life, thereby ensuring that we have the greatest applicability
to our educational benefits

2. Disadvantage and turn ground. Because rejection is nothing more than telling the judge to not affirm, there is
absolutely no way that I can make turns or disadvantages to the alternative. Disadvantage and turn ground are key
to fairness because they are the most effective and qualitatively best way to generate offense on the negative
position. And offense is key to winning rounds. Furthermore, generating offense on the negative is key to
offsetting negative time skew

3. Reciprocal burdens. Rejection decreases the negative burden. Rejection means that the negative debater doesnt
have to specify a solvency mechanism for the alternative. This puts me a structural disadvantage because I still
have to provide a solvency mechanism. Reciprocal burdens are necessary for fairness because, if burdens are
unequal, its easier for one debater to win than the other.
-INDEX-
POLICYMAKING > KRITIK FRAMEWORK

Four reasons why plan focus should be preferred over K focus
Michael Greenstein. [former director of debate at Georgetown University and current Director of Debate at GBN] What should debate be
about? Rostrom, pg 35. November 2009;
The outcome of the plan's enactment should be the focus of the debate, not the entire 1AC or its framing. To
win the debate, the affirmative should have to prove the plan would cause (not justify) a world better than the status quo or a competitive alternative. The negative
should have to prove the plan would cause (not justify) something worse than the status quo or a competitive alternative (of course there is still and should be debate
about presumption, but that is an issue separate from the point of this article). This framework for debate is good for a few reasons. First, it provides a
stable focus for the debate. The plan does not change; it is a stable text. The rest of the 1AC, the first
affirmatives representations, and the way affirmative frames the 1AC is not static, but constantly changing.
The 1AC is only eight minutes long and is by no means a complete or accurate picture of how the affirmative views the world. To hold the affirmative
accountable for something that is unsubstantiated and inexplicit about their advocacy or beliefs seems
unfair and irresponsible. This stable focus, of course, provides the negative with a constant target to
attack throughout the entire debate. Second, alternative frameworks create bad models for quality,
educational decision- making. Not only would an alternative framework allow a judge to reject the affirmative even though he or she knows the
plan is a good idea, but it would also allow a judge to vote for the affirmative even though he or she knows the
plan is bad idea (because the way it was framed was good). This creates irrational decision-making that
would never and should never occur in the real world. Third, this framework allows for critical
arguments. In fact, in this framework, the distinction between critical and policy arguments seems relatively silly; if the argument responds
to the plan and proves why the plan would cause something bad, then it is a relevant consideration for the
ballot no matter what type of argument it is. For example, if the negative could win that the way the affirmative represents something would cause policymakers to
enact the plan poorly, then the judge should evaluate that particular argument. Of course, the specificity of the negative's claim would
likely determine how much weight a judge assigns to a particular argument, so claims like "the plan causes serial policy
failure" would likely not be valued as much as a specific af irmative solvency claim since "serial policy failure" (absent a specific example or more explanation) is
vague and amorphous. Fourth, who cares what the 1AC justifies? Really. During framework debates, many students frequently
argue that the logic and framing of the 1AC is the logic of the Holocaust. Students come up with various reasons that have no
adequate warrant or evidence to support their claims. Some are as absurd as affirmatives try to create the most strategic policy
possible and Hitler created the most strategic Holocaust possible, therefore the affirmative justifies the
Holocaust. People can always find reasons why the logic behind a policy or the framing of it is
analogous to the logical or framing of a bad historical event (especially if judges continue to accept and value these weak
assertions). In any event, these are not reasons why the plan would cause something bad to occur if implemented
and therefore should not be considered by judges when evaluating debates.

-INDEX-
NON-IMPLEMENTABLE K ALTS BAD

A. Interpretation: Kritik alternatives must be implementable.
B. Violation
C. Standards

1. Non-implementable K alternatives contradict real world decision-making. Policymakers dont make statements of
advocacy that they know would be impossible to achieve when debating the merits of legislation. It would be
absurd for congressmen to argue for a policy that they couldnt implement because its their job to propose
meaningful legislation. Real world decision-making is key to education because it is applied consistently in a way
that influences us every day of our lives, rather than having the influence span only the scope of the debate round.
It is also key to fairness because it is the source of all predictable pragmatic concerns, since most topical
arguments are based on advantages and disadvantages that policy-makers debate, giving both sides a more equal
way to access prominent arguments rather than obscure ones.

2. Non-implementable kritik alternatives allow for fiat abuse. They permit the negative to specify an alternative and
assume solvency because no possible alternative exists to check it. In other words, they provide a non-falsifiable
argument and assume it is true. Fiat abuse destroys fairness because I am at a structural disadvantage if I am
forced to prove solvency whereas my opponent is allowed to assume it. And fiat abuse destroys
education. Allowing him to defend a non-implementable alternative means he no longer has to research solvency
mechanisms and research success probability.

3. Non-implementable K alternatives destroy disadvantage ground. If it is impossible to implement a certain policy
that means the chances that there is literature about why the policy is bad are incredibly slim. If there arent
arguments about the pitfalls about the advocacy, then that is bad for fairness because I have an uphill battle to
generate arguments against the position, especially if there is no literature about what the disadvantages would be.
My opponent will stand up and talk about how its valuable to understand the truth claims of the nature of reality
or some other vacuous and meaningless rhetoric, but it will always be less educational and less relevant than my
impact to education because knowledge that does not apply to the world need not even be known. This is
philosophical masturbation.

4. The scope of negative fiat removes the K alternatives as possible ground, Strait and Wallace write:
The theoretical legitimacy of critical frameworks is the second area in which Korcok's (200 1) analysis is
incomplete. Our view that the appropriate scope of negative fiat is the topical agent chosen by the affirmative
would exclude[s] all kritik alternatives, or at the very least increase the level of specificity required in order to
consider them legitimate. This is true because the affirmative's agent, derived from the resolution, has to be an
actor within the United States federal government. The affirmative's actor is not the debate critic. Clarifying this
distinction makes it obvious that for the negative's criticism to have any relevance, they have to ignore the
constraints upon the decision maker's authority. Alternatives that have the judge endorse a nebulous rejection,
rethinking or criticism of a particular axiology, epistemology and or ontology are the exact type of universal
decision-making authority that doesn't exist in the real world. It would be great if every terrorist in the world
rejected violence, every criminal embraced love, or every human being ended their fetish with capitalism, but the
probability that this would ever occur is nil. This is object fiat at its best and as explained earlier, it is devastating
for the affirmative's capacity to develop offense.

-INDEX-
NON-TEXTUAL ALTS BAD

A. Interpretation: Kritik alternatives must have a text.
B. Violation
C. Standards

1. Moving target: Without a text, there is no way to hold the negative to a clearly defined advocacy and thus
when I articulate disadvantages or perms to the alternative, they can simply claim they dont apply as they re-
explain the alt to avoid it. My opponent will claim C-X solves, but it does not for three reasons: a) if C-X
could solve, he should have just written out a plan text during C-X, or else he can always re-explain what he
meant by his cross-X answers; And b) this puts him in a double bind: either I ask him directly in C-X if my
arguments would apply, and thus preview my 1AR strategy, or I dont ask him directly and thus have no way
to guarantee a link to his world, And c) I may come up with new arguments during prep time and I cant verify
they would link to the K as the alt lacks a clearly defined action

2. Perm Ground: Without a text, I am unable to construct a perm that would test the competitiveness of the
alternative with the AC. This is necessary in determining whether or not impact of the critique is truly
happening in the aff world, or if my advocacy could possible solve for it. Perm ground links to fairness
because its a necessary component of the affirmative strategy against alternatives.

3. Turn and Disad ground-When debaters dont write the text down they can no link any turns or disads. There is
no proof what the actual alt said, so the opponent either cant run anything to start with because they know
that the debater who did the alt can simply no link anything they say or after committing a lot of time refuting
or gaining offense off of the alt the opponent can again, no link anything they say. This is key to fairness
because without ground to make arguments, debaters literally cannot win debate rounds

-INDEX-
NON-SPECIFIED ACTOR BAD

A. Interpretation: Debaters must specify the actor that does the K alt
B. Violation: They dont specify an actor
C. Standards
i. Real world decision making. Real world decision making requires specification. No real world decision maker
would ever attempt to make a categorical determination on broad topics. Real world decision makers must look
at the specific context of each situation in order to make the optimal choice. Elmore[1] writes:

The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery
by policy analysts that decisions are not self- executing. Analysis of policy choices matters very little
if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the
question, "What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the
preferred analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that, in the normal case, it was
about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.Hence, in Nelson's
terms, "the core of analysis of alternatives becomes the prediction of how alternative organizational
structures will behave over time." But the task of prediction is vastly complicated by the absence of a
coherent body of organizational theory, making it necessary to posit several alternative models of
organization.

Learning how to make real world decisions has the strongest link into education because we will be learning to
apply the things we learn to the real world and our lives outside of debate. And real-world decision making is
key to fairness because it would be unpredictable to assume that we would discuss a plan differently in a debate
round than the real world

ii. Not specifying an actor destroys affirmative strategy. If I dont know who the actor is there is no way that I
can question the implementation or solvency of the alternative. The actor is critical to determining the actual
success of the alternative. Strategy is key to fairness because if I cant form a coherent plan there is no way that
I can win the round and the affirmative is put at a structural advantage. And strategy is key education because it
is impossible to have a meaningful round if I am forced to approach the round by randomly making arguments
rather than acting with a coherent strategy.

iii. Not specifying an actor destroys disadvantage ground. Virtually all solvency indicts and disadvantages to how
certain actors conduct policies rely on there being an actor for the policy implemented. (Cross Apply Elmore)
That ground is key to fairness because if I cant make specific solvency indicts then they can make vague
statements about how they will achieve their advantages anyway, giving me a much higher burden in terms of
proving that my impacts will occur, structurally disadvantaging.

iv. K alternatives destroy education by implicating alternative agent fiat, as well as object fiat. Strait and Wallace
write:

Negative claims that excluding critical alternatives is detrimental to education fail to be persuasive
when decision-making logic is taken into account.[because] Critical intellectuals and policymakers
both take into account the probability that their actions will be successful. Fiating that individuals
alter their method of thinking circumvents these questions of probability and thus not only destroys
education about policymaking, but offers a flawed approach to activism (or any other purview of
action/philosophy the negative is advocating), Intellectuals and activists have many important
considerations relating to resources, press coverage, political clout and method. These questions all
-INDEX-
are directly related to who is taking action. Alternative debates thus often become frustrating because
they do a poor job of explaining who the subject is. Consider the popular Nietzschcan alternative, "do
nothing." Who is it that the negative wants to do nothing? Does the USFG do nothing? Is it the
debaters? Is it the judge who does nothing? Is it every individual, or just individuals in Africa that
have to do with the affirmatives harm area? All of these questions directly implicate the desirability of
the alternative, and thus the education that we can receive from this mode of debate. Alternatives like
"vote negative to reject capitalism," "detach truth from power," or "embrace an infinite responsibility
to the other" fall prey to similar concems. This inability to pin the negative down to course of action
allows them to be shifty in their second rebuttal, and sculpt their alternative in a way that avoids the
affirmative's offense. Rather than increasing education, critical frameworks are often a mask that
allows the negative to inflate their importance and ignore crucial decision-making considerations.

-INDEX-
RES KS BAD

A) Interpretation: The negative must link their kritiks into something that the affirmative did, not something about the
resolution.
B) Violation: the negative kritik links to the resolution, not just the affirmative case.
C) Standards:

1. Strategy Skew. The K renders the AC useless, because all the offense in the AC is kicked away. This issue is
completely out of my hands since I am bound to write an advocacy that is topical, therefore inherently linking
myself to the kritik. This either makes the kritik unfair becausr it punishes me for a choice I didnt make, or uniquely
justifies severance permutations which prove that the kritik isnt competitive.

2. Clash. The fact that the K links into the resolution, not something that is part of my advocacy, means they
completely avoid making any direct responses to the AC. This kind of strategy destroys clash because they can run
the same generic kritik every round. Clash is key to fairness since it gives me a better chance of winning as I can use
frontlines and extend issues I understand, giving me at worst a toehold on the round. It also gives him an unfair
advantage, as his prior knowledge of the NC makes it so the debate occurs only on home turf. Clash is also key to
education because it forces in-depth discussion of particular issues and avoids the classic two ships crossing in the
night problem.

3. Research Burden. Running the resolution K means that a) he doesn't need to cut specific link evidence, as the
resolution is a constant, b) he isn't forced to stretch himself when encountering a difficult or unfamiliar AC, as he can
use the resolution K as a fallback, and c) research is more difficult for me since the textual issue is so specific. Having
an equal research burden links to education in that we both should be learning about the topic equally.

-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 7: PERMUTATIONS***
PERMUTATIONS NEED A TEXT

1. Stable Advocacy. Without specifying a text for permutation, an affirmative can change their advocacy mid-round
in order to solve back for negative disadvantages and takeouts. They cant be held to the text of their permutation
because it doesnt exist. When debaters dont write the text down they can no link any turns or disads. Stable
ground is key to fairness because if I cannot be sure that the arguments I make will not be applicable in later
speeches Im not able to substantively engage my opponents arguments.

2. Reciprocity. Counter-plans must also have text. Logically, perms also must have text. We have to hold both
debaters to the same standards or else this will create unequal burdens in the round. Reciprocity is key to fairness
because if one debater has more obligations in the round then the other then the round will be inherently skewed
towards the other debater.

3. Weighing Ground. This is necessary for the negative to be able to identify the affirmative perm and therefore
articulate net benefits to the counter plan by being able to explicitly compare the position themselves.
-INDEX-
PERM IS AN ADVOCACY

1. Perms are a statement of advocacy because that is how real world policymakers treat them. When there is a
beneficial piece of legislation, it isnt ignored simply because it isnt competitive with another piece of legislation.
Instead, policymakers suggest that we pass both because it would be beneficial to have both become law. Real world
decision-making is key to education because it is applied consistently in a way that influences us every day of our
lives, rather than having the influence span only the scope of the debate round. It is also key to fairness because it is
the source of all predictable pragmatic concerns, since most topical arguments are based on advantages and
disadvantages that policymakers debate, giving both sides a more equal way to access prominent arguments rather
than obscure ones.

2. Permutations as a test of competition make perms no risk issues. As tests of competition, my opponent can just
throw out 10 permutations and hope that I drop one of them and that it takes out the negative position. Permutations
as an advocacy solve this problem because I can run disadvantages to the permutation. No risk arguments harm
education because they encourage shallow thinking and harm education, because my opponent only has to win one,
whereas I have to answer back every single one and still extend offense.

-INDEX-
PERM IS A TEST OF COMPETITION

1. Permutations as an advocacy destroy negative strategy. If the affirmative can permute the counterplan as an
advocacy, the affirmative is a moving target. I never know what the affirmative will look like considering there
are multiple permutations that occur. Strategy is key to fairness because if I cannot form a coherent strategy I
cannot win the round.

2. Permutations as an advocacy force the affirmative to adopt multiple policy options. Multiple advocacies destroys
predictability because I do not know which plan he will go for. Predictability is key to fairness because my
inability to predict his argument puts me at a disadvantage in the debate round, upsetting fairness.

-INDEX-
SEVERANCE PERMUTATIONS BAD

A. Interpretation: Permutations must retain at least the entire AC advocacy.
B. Violation
C. Standards

1. Advocacy shift: Severance perms allow the affirmative to sever out of the competitive part of their advocacy,
which is where the negative draws their net benefits. All counterplans become non-competitive because the
negative is hindered from creating a stable link to a DA from the affirmative plan. Negatives are never able to
make positional argumentation against the aff b/c their position is consistently changing. Stable ground is key to
fairness because it provides both debaters stable advocacies to generate offense against.

2. Reciprocity If the affirmative straight turns an unconditional CP, the negative is forced to defend their advocacy
and is unable to sever out of the contested part of their advocacy. If the negative straight turns the affirmative, the
aff can now sever out and go for under covered arguments. Reciprocal ground is key to fairness because equal
access to affirming or negating is necessary to determine who the better debater is, not the debater with the
structural advantage.

3. Time skew All the time the negative invested in generating disadvantages to the plan is eliminated by a 15
second permutation in the 1AR. This time trade-off is immense and there is no way to avoid it but this theory
argument because affirmatives can sever out of as many disadvantages they want.

4. Clash Instead of engaging in a substantive debate with the arguments that the negative makes against the
affirmative, the affirmative merely severs out of their advocacy to make all my arguments not relevant. The debate
on the negative case becomes futile and the aff case debate becomes solely the affirmative. This makes the debate
one-sided. Clash is key to education because a) it forces debaters to not make superficial argumentation and avoid
quality arguments the negative makes and b) clash ensures we go more in-depth on topics.
-INDEX-
SEVERANCE PERMUTATIONS GOOD

1. Real World Decision-Making No policymaker is tied down to their advocacy when they introduce a bill into
congress. Through discussions with others, policy makers are consistently revising their plan with feedback from
others in order to provide the best piece of legislation to be passed. Often times, policy makers will remove certain
planks of their bill and add new ones. It is rare to reject the entirety of a plan merely because of one minor
problem. Real world is key to education because decision making transcends the boundaries of a debate round and
will impact us for the rest of our lives. Also, this is a voter for fairness because in the world of policy making, it is
entirely predictable for policymakers to consistently change their proposals as a result of input from others.

2. Severance perms are necessary to provide the affirmative with the right to rejoinder. The negative gets to tailor
their strategy depending on what the affirmative advocates while the affirmative without severance perms is not
aware of the strategy of the negative. Affirmatives should be able to tailor their position to be responsive and
applicable to negative arguments that are commonly minute aspects of the affirmative plan.

-INDEX-
INTRINSICNESS PERMUTATIONS BAD

A. Interpretation: Permutations may derive elements only from the original affirmative and negative advocacies.
B. Violation
C. Standards

1. DA Ground- Allowing intrinsic perms lets the aff answer any disadvantage by adding new planks to the
affirmative plan. This means I can never win any net offense because the affirmative will always be able to solve it
back and I will always lose. DA ground is key to fairness because it is the best way the negative can generate unique
offense in order to access the ballot.

2. Moving target: If my opponent is allowed to constantly add planks to their plan then I am unable to make
arguments to their plan because it is constantly changing. In one speech my argument may apply but in the next one
they will add a plank to their plan that makes it no longer apply. Making sure that they have a stable advocacy ensures
that I am able to educationally answer their positions and have an equal chance at winning.

4. Clash- Allowing intrinsic perms avoids clash because debaters will just say do x to solve the problem instead of
actually engaging in the substance of the counterplan. Without intrinsic perms debaters will be forced to engage the
link story of the counterplan. Clash links into education because it ensures we go more indepth on topics.

5. Research - Intrinsic perms discourage research because innovative counterplans can be circumvented in the 1AR
with little effort. There is little reason to come up with creative arguments if the affirmative can just avoid them in the
next speech. The status quo, on the other hand, cannot be permuted and therefore debaters have an incentive to only
defend the status quo. This prevents education because there will be no introduction of competing policy options,
which are some of the most relevant to the real world.

-INDEX-
INTRINSIC PERMUTATIONS GOOD

1. Intrinsic permutations force debaters to research their arguments better. When the affirmative is allowed to add
planks to the affirmative plan, the negative is forced to make nuanced arguments and conduct research in order to
explain why certain planks will not solve. In depth research and argumentation are key to education, because the
education we receive is how to be better and more intelligent scholars.

2. Intrinsic perms are key to real world decision-making. Policymakers often couple bills together and add planks in
order to make them compatible. A large part of the debate over legislation is what compromises congressmen need to
make to please fellow legislators. They wouldnt throw out a bill because it is incompatible with another policy if it
can be solved simply. Real world decision-making is key to education because it is applied consistently in a way that
influences us every day of our lives, rather than having the influence span only the scope of the debate round. It is
also key to fairness because it is the source of all predictable pragmatic concerns, since most topical arguments are
based on advantages and disadvantages that policymakers debate, giving both sides a more equal way to access
prominent arguments rather than obscure ones.

3. Intrinsic perms are necessary to check back negatives who try to avoid actually talking about the topic and merely
try to find links to certain disadvantages which could easily be solved back for other reasons, and thus arent really
relevant considerations. For instance, the overfishing DA on sanctions is silly because there are other ways to solve
back for overfishing that would be used if sanctions were actually stopped.

4. Equal Access to Solvency: The negative gets to tailor counterplans specific to the affirmative case while the
affirmative has no opportunity to articulate other methods of solvency of negative disadvantages outside of intrinsic
perms. This unfairly skews ground to the negative who has a better chance of solving the other persons harms merely
by the structure of the debate round.

-INDEX-
TIME FRAME PERMUTATIONS BAD

A. Interpretation: Permutations must assume implementation at the original time advocated by the affirmative and
negative.
B. Violation
C. Standards

1. Timeframe permutations are a form of severance, as the plan would otherwise happen immediately. <insert
severance bad>

2. Clash this removes clash, as now the only relevant consideration is when the plan or counterplan happens instead
of whether they are competitive or which is preferable. This destroys fairness because they point of contestation has
been artificially altered. It also kills education because we no longer discuss either issue in depth.

3. Real world decision making- both plans and counterplans operate under the policy-making framework. However,
timeframe permutations are unrealistic as the action taken in the counterplan will 100% lead to the plan. In the real-
world, no policy has 100% guarantee that it will definitely happen. Because timeframe permutations do not consider
the reality, it is uneducational and cant be considered as a policy.

-INDEX-
TIME FRAME PERMUTATIONS GOOD

1. Timeframe permutations are key to test the value of doing the plan. If doing the plan is undesirable after
waiting 3 months then we should be highly skeptical as to whether or not the plan is a good idea in the first
place. But, the only way we would know whether or not the plan was desirable in a few months would be if
timeframe perms were legitimate.

2. Timeframe permutations are real world. Despite what debate has taught us, the passage of policies is not now
or never. Congress delays policies all the time, and this delay allows them to make modifications to plans or
see if a certain plan would work better in conjunction with another one. This is all that a timeframe
permutation is. Adhering to the real world is key as it frames the arguments we have at our disposal as well as
guaranteeing our arguments are politically relevant, increasing education.

-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 8: BURDENS**
SINGLE NIB BAD
A. Interpretation
Burdens must be necessary and sufficient.

B. Violation
The negative/affirmative is running a necessary and insufficient burden [insert explanation]

C. Standards

1. Turn Ground. I have no turn ground with a single necessary but insufficient burden because offense under
their standard is not sufficient enough to merit the ballot. The exact point of a necessary point of the
necessary but insufficient burden is that getting offense on the standard would not be sufficient to win the
round. Turn ground just functions as defense on the necessary but insufficient standards. Theyre going to
say there is only one so I dont lose that much turn ground but a) its not what you do its what you justify
and b) thats still one argument you can win off of and I cant because I cant generate offense. Turn
ground is key to fairness because it provides sides with relatively equal offense and an equal chance of
winning.

2. Time skew. When one debate runs a necessary but insufficient burden, the other debater is put at a
structural disadvantage because they have to cover impacts back to both standards sufficiently, which
means that they have to spend equal time on both arguments, while the other debater can exploit this
advantage, kick one burden, and then spend all of their time on another standard.

3. Reciprocity. All of my arguments in the affirmative are necessary and sufficient. If the negative wins the
biggest impact back to my standard, then they win. Whereas, if I win turns on the necessary but
insufficient standards that just means that I have to beat back more layers of the debate. Even though it is
only one burden, its one more than the affirmative has, which still makes the debate structurally unfair.
Reciprocity is key to fairness because it ensures that both sides have an equal chance of winning.

-INDEX-
SINGLE NIB GOOD
A. Interpretation
1 necessary but insufficient burden can be run.

B.
I meet

C. Standards

1. Checks back AC framework. The AC has ability to include any argument that falls under the realm of
topicality in their framework and thus the ability for the affirmative to preclude or link out the NC
framework needs to be checked back with the negative ability to create multiple outs and avoid
preclusionary argumentation that destroys substantive clash. Clash is key to education because debates are
more educational when in-depth discussion forces debaters to address internal links are specific arguments.

2. Philosophical ground. Without the ability to run a single NIB, I lose the ability to debate any moral theory
that follow from an absolute side constraint, like deontology. These positions are crucial to gaining a
perspective of different philosophical issues that are key to understanding and applying different schools
of thought that pertain to the resolution. The resolution is formulated in order to contain the scope of these
arguments, and thus this type of education based on critical analysis should not be randomly excluded
from possible viable advocacies.

3. Non-Unique. They violate the standard because by running a theory shell, they put into place a NIB that I
cannot win off of without running a competitive counter-interpretation insofar that being fair isnt an
sufficient reason to vote me up in the round, only abuse is a reason to vote me down.

4. Real-world applicability. A single necessary but insufficient burden mirrors the actions taken by real-
world decision maker. For example, US policy makers must make sure any legislation is constitutional, but
the fact that a law can be constitutional doesnt mean it ought be passed. Real world decision-making is
key to education because it is applied consistently in a way that influences us every day of our lives, rather
than having the influence span only the scope of the debate round.

-INDEX-
MULTIPLE NIBS BAD
A. Interpretation
Burdens must be necessary and sufficient.

B. Violation
The negative/affirmative is running multiple necessary and insufficient burdens

D. Standards

1. Strategy Skew. Multiple necessary but insufficient burdens kill my ability to formulate a strategy in my
rebuttals because I have no idea which standard you could go for when I am preparing. Multiple NIBS
uniquely distort ground because debaters must divide their between numerous different layers which places
them in a double bind because they need to cover every issue in enough depth that if a debater chooses to go
all in on that one issue that you can still win while at the same time not spending so much time they
undercover other issues. The use of multiple burdens makes this a mere mathematical impossibility as the time
you have decrease with each burden that is placed on the aff/neg.
2. Reciprocity. There is no way to generate offense off of the burdens. Even if I win all but one, I would still lose
the round. By having multiple advocacies in which they can go for, I have no way of which standards to go for
which creates a massive strategy skew insofar as they can kick the standards even if I am making offensive
arguments against the standards. All of my arguments and burdens are sufficient while their burdens are
necessary but insufficient so even if I meet all of their burdens I can still lose the round. Reciprocity is key to
fairness because it ensures competitive equity.
3. Stable advocacy. NIBS function under different interpretations of the resolution by proving the resolution true
and false independently of each other which provide different metrics for evaluating truth value of claims.
This makes it almost impossible for to answer the arguments by because by indicting one system of
evaluation, Im likely to end arguing for another system, or at least my arguments against different systems
will conflict.
4. Multiple NIBS remove ground for argument comparison because each argument functions to prove the
resolution {true/false] [desirable/undesirable] independent of each other and this if I win offense back to one
standard, the independency of the issues prevents me from comparing between them, this is unfair for two
reasons, a. it allows my opponent to become a moving target because my opponent gets to redefine the
decision calculus partway through the round as each argument claims to function independently. Stable
ground is key to fairness because I need to be able to stick offensive arguments to my opponent to be able to
win the round. B. Their NIBS skew strategy because all AC offense has to link back to their test burdens Ac
strategy because they will never be able to know whether their offensive arguments will still be offensive in
the next speeches due to the extreme negative flexibility. Strategy is key to fairness because I need a way to
win the round in order to do so.

-INDEX-
IMPACT-EXCLUSIVE STANDARDS BAD
A. Interpretation.
If the standard is ends based, debaters must defend standards that do not exclude relevant ends based impacts

B. Violation
Their standards is ________ which is ends based because ____________, but they only defend impacts linking back
to _______________.
C. Standards
1. Impact exclusive standards should not be used in debate. Eric Palmer explains,

Oftentimes debaters will present warrants for a standard which are in truth, impacts to another standard which
they are taking for granted. For example, consider a negative case which makes the following claims: (1) oppression can lead to genocide, genocide is
bad, so the criterion is preventing oppression, (2) affirming allows the construction of threats, which stifles some criticism of the state; (3) not being able to criticize
the state is a form of oppression. Given the supposition that sometimes oppression does lead to genocide, this NC is able
to warrant the criterion preventing oppression. This in turn allows the negative to win off of the tiniest link
to oppression, even if that form of oppression is probably not sufficient to lead to genocide, which is the real
reason why we are supposed to be worried about oppression in the first place, according to this case. This is
clearly a bad result: what this case has done is smuggled in a link to genocide which has virtually no
probability of occurring.
23

2. The criterion is supposed to determine which impacts are relevant, but impact-based justifications generate
new impacts. This allows them to win off of a minimal link to an impact even if they aren't winning a strong
enough link in the contention. For example, if they argue that oppression leads to genocide in the standards
analysis, they would not be able to claim that the oppression of a few people would lead to genocide.

3. Real World Applicability. Government policy is never based on one specific consequentialist
impact. Policymakers must consider all of the relevant harms and benefits of a specific policy. For example,
when deciding whether or not to use military force, leaders consider economics, foreign relations, and the
amount of suffering caused.

4. Reciprocal Impact Ground. Impact exclusive standards allow them to kick out of relevant disadvantages on the
topic that have different ends-based impacts than their standard allows. Thus, I am denied access to most of
the topic literature so I cannot make arguments grounded in the real world. Equitable division of ground is
key to fairness because we both need to be able to generate arguments to have an equal chance to win.

5. Internal link consistency. Impact standards that are ends-based completely contradict their moral basis. Impact
standards assume an ends-based standard, but then exclude relevant impacts to that standard, making them
inconsistent with. This misunderstanding on utilitarianism would have Jeremy Bentham rolling in his grave.
Internal link consistency is key to fairness because if an argument has inconsistencies then I could not possibly
predict how the argument would be extended. Also, its key to education because we can only gain a better
understanding of ethical theories if they are being explained in the correct way, which the aff standard does
not do.

23 Eric Palmer. Truth, Comparison, and Justification in LD Debate. Victory Briefs Daily. April 15, 2008.
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/04/15/truth-comparison-and-justification-in-ld-debate/
-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 9: PARADIGMS***
TAB GOOD

To assume a specific paradigm is problematic. Walter Ulrich states,

To assume that a paradigm should be imposed on all debates from the outside would require that
debate function as a normal science, operating within a paradigm and answering those questions that
evolve from that paradigm. It would also require a wide consensus on the proper way to argue. To adopt
a tabula rasa approach would make debates analogous to revolutionary science, with each experiment
testing both the data and the paradigm used to evaluate the data. This would mean that multiple paradigms
may exist at any given time, each seeking the attention of various external judges. This does not deny the need
to develop standards for evaluating paradigms; rather it suggests that the community should be open to a
variety of competing paradigms instead of imposing one paradigm on all members of a field. The emphasis on normal
science instead of revolutionary science can be undesirable for debate, just as it can be undesirable for science. Popper isolated some of the problems of normal
science.The normal scientist, as described by Kuhn, has been badly taught. He has been taught in a dogmatic
spirit: he is victim of indoctrination. He has learned a technique which can be applied without asking for the
reason way24

Debate, like science, should encourage the seeking of new ways to examine arguments since these new
perspectives could prove to be more productive than past methods of looking at argument. The search
for new paradigms should be conducted both in public forums such as journals, convention programs,
informal conversations, and in individual debate rounds.

Without tabula rasa, there is a disincentive to try new paradigms. Walter Ulrich states,

With standards set higher, no one satisfying the criterion of rationality would be inclined to try out the new
[paradigm] theory, to articulate it in ways which showed its fruitfulness or displayed its accuracy and scope. I
doubt that science would survive, What from one viewpoint may seem the looseness and imperfection of choice criteria
conceived as rules may, when the same criteria are seen as values, appear an indispensable means of spreading
the risk which the introduction or support of novelty always entails. 25

Judges should be open to different paradigms in rounds. Walter Ulrich states,

It may be argued that this formulation of guidelines may lead to an infinite regress; if the criteria used to determine
which paradigm is best are debatable, that merely shifts the issue to how the debate over the criteria be
decided. In many cases this will be irrelevant, since both advocates may agree either on the general goal of the
activity or on the specific guidelines drawn from the goal (although members of the field need to be cautious about letting these
assumptions go unchecked forever). The requirement that the guidelines must be articulated would also rule out some
potential guidelines. Ultimately, the ability to screen out bad paradigms while encouraging potentially useful
paradigms will depend on the attitude of the judge: the judge needs to be receptive to new paradigms and
guidelines, and should possess a degree of self-reflectivenessthe ability to analyze his/her own reasons for
rejecting a paradigm and to eliminate irrational reasons for rejecting a paradigm. A judge should be open to
both various paradigms and alternative ways of evaluating paradigms. Rowland has provided an initial framework for evaluating
paradigms, but these need to be viewed as potential guidelines, open to critical evaluation.26

24 Walter Ulrich Flexibility in Paradigm Evaluation Journal of the American Forensic Association, v18 n3 p151-53 Win 1982
-INDEX-

-INDEX-
TAB BAD

1. Ulrichs paradigm of tabula rasa is an educationally bankrupt paradigm, Lichtman et al writes,

Ulrichs view of the debate judge as a clean slate uncontaminated by any prior knowledge incorporates a trivial truth about advocacy while missing a much more profound one. Ulrich seeks to create a
paradigm for debate by denying the possibility of agreeing on a paradigm independent of the arguments made in
individual rounds of debate. Although Ulrich is, of course, correct that all matters are open to dispute both in the debate forum and elsewhere, he neglects the critical need
for theorists to probe the logical requirements of policy discourse and develop guidelines that can clarify the
responsibilities of judges and debaters. The wheel need not be reinvented in every debate. Ulrichs approach, moreover,
encourages the most frivolous kinds of arguments as well as shallow spread attacks since judges must give equal
credence to every substantive and theoretical claim made by competing advocates. Shazamand that defeats the
case, if unanswered, would be sufficient grounds for a negative victory according to the logic of Ulrichs non-
paradigm. 27

2. Its logically inconsistent. Eric Palmer explains:

One parting thought: some have suggested that there is no reason to have a comprehensive theory of LD 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. I am partly sympathetic to this point: it seems like debaters ought to be able to argue in-round that any judge should set aside some aspect of their default paradigm in order to make space for some particularly unusual sort of argument
(a performance, for example). It is problematic, however, to suppose that we could get by without any fundamental picture of how
arguments should be evaluated at all. How could judges 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. If no norms remain
fixed, if there are no rules for the game at all, then judges would have no resources to use in evaluating proposals to adopt new norms.
Judges must take some principles for granted when they approach rounds, and reflection is needed to determine what exactly those principles should be.28

3. The activity is constantly in flux, it doesnt make sense for the judge to adopt a certain paradigm, Sigel writes,

The retreat from tabula rasa is the wrong response to the ills of debate. It assumes that debaters are incapable of
rationally discussing the goals of debate and advocating positions which serve to deter practices subverting those
goals. It places the judge in a privileged position--he has found the "correct" way to debate and will reject other
approaches. The arrogance of this approach stuns this author: it repudiates the very assumptions of the activity. Tabula rasa has been so attractive because it is grounded in a belief in our ability to rationally discuss theory--as we do policy.

In truth, there is no consensus in the debate community as to the "goal" of debate. Some participants stress the public speaking aspect. Some stress the
research skills that are gained. Others are interested in developing creativity. And others see development of a knowledge of argumentation theory as important.12
Given the wide range of values promoted by debates-which often are in conflict--and the degree to which different
individuals seek different rewards from the activity, it seems selfish for a judge to develop a set of rigid ideas about
what makes for a good debate.29

4. Tab judging doesnt make sense. Eric Palmer writes,

One parting thought: some have suggested that there is no reason to have a comprehensive theory of LD 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. I am partly sympathetic to this point: it seems like debaters ought to be able to
argue in-round that any judge should set aside some aspect of their default paradigm in order to make space for some particularly unusual sort of argument (a
performance, for example). It is problematic, however, to suppose that we could get by without any fundamental

27 Allan Lichtman is Professor of History at American University, and Daniel Rohrer is Associate Professor of Speech
Communication and Theatre at Boston College. POLICY DISPUTE AND PARADIGM EVALUATION: A RESPONSE TO ROWLAND
Allan J. Lichtman and Daniel M. Rohrer
29 The Punishment Theory: Illegitimate Styles and Theories as Voting Issues. Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. 1984 - Waging
War on Poverty
-INDEX-
picture of how arguments should be evaluated at all. How could judges 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. If no norms remain fixed, if there are no rules for the game at all, then judges would have
no resources to use in evaluating proposals to adopt new norms. Judges must take some principles for granted
when they approach rounds, and reflection is needed to determine what exactly those principles should be.

5. Tab leads to mindless debate. Doug Sigel explains,

While the death of punishment and [With] the rise of tabula rasa judging may be healthy, there are excesses reduced by the current approach
to judging debates. Teams who are more articulate at high speeds of delivery can "win" counter-intuitive
arguments that would seem absurd in any other setting. Erik Walker admits this problem when he says
he "abhor/s/ world government, socialism, referendums, anarchy, rights Malthus, Karcuse, symbolism,
and the like, but, inevitably, they are poorly answered, hence I vote on them." Cathy Hennen bluntly
says "I may not philosophically agree with the theoretical position, but if it is clearly defined and
defended, I will vote on it." It often seems that the most successful teams, both in high school and
college, make the stupidest arguments at the highest speeds 30

6. Tab leads to intellectual triviliation. Roger Solt explains that,
But tabula rasa, just a game approaches tend in the end to be intellectually trivializing. They stress narrow
technical skills which have little value beyond the activity. They tend to downgrade the substantive
intellectual content of the academic debate. They encourage a focus on esoteric and ultimately trivial
aspects of debate theory and to make them independent voting issues. In sum, they lead to the
punishment approach, which it has been the burden of this article to criticize. 31

7. A tab paradigm is impossible because when evaluating a claim, we must recognize our subjective nature and not try
to evaluate it objectively. Thomas Nagel explains

In the pursuit of this goal, however, even at its most successful, something will inevitably be lost. If we try to understand experience from an objective
viewpoint that is distinct from that of subject of the experience, then even if we continue to credit its perspectivial nature, we will not be able to grasp its most specific qualities unless we can imagine them subjectively. We will not know exactly
how scrambled eggs taste to a cockroach even if we develop a detailed objective phenomenology of the
cockroach sense of taste. When it comes to values, goals, and forms of life, the gulf may be even more
profound. since this is so, no objective conception of the mental world can include it all. But in that case it may be asked what the point is of looking for such a conception.
The aim was to place perspective and their contents in a world seen from no particular point of view. It turns out that some aspects of those perspectives cannot be fully understood in terms of an objective concept of mind. But if some aspects of reality cant be captured in an objective conception, why not forget the ambition of
capturing as much of it as possible? the world just isnt the world as it appears to one highly abstracted point of view that can be pursued by all rational beings. And if one cant have complete objectivity, the goal of capturing as much of reality as one can in an objective net is pointless and unmotivated. I dont think this follows.
The pursuit of a conception of the world that doesnt put us at the center is an expression of philosophical realism, all the more so if it does not assume that everything real can be reached by such a conception. Reality is not just objective reality, and
any objective conception of reality must include an acknowledgment of its own incompleteness. (this is an important qualification to the
claims of objectivity in other areas as well.) even if an objective general conception of mind were developed and added to the physical conception of objectivity, it would have to include the qualification that the exact character of each of the experimental and intentional perspectives with which it deals can be understood only from
within or by subjective imagination. A being with total imaginative power could understand it all frominside, but an ordinary being using an objective concept of mind will not. In saying this we have not given up the idea of the way the
world really is, independently of how it appears to us or to any particular occupant of it. WE have only given up the idea that this
coincides with what can be objectively understood. The way the world is includes appearances, and there is no
single point of view from which they can all be fully grasped. An objective conception of mind acknowledges
that the features of our own minds that cannot be objectively grasped are examples of a more general
subjectivity, of which other examples lie beyond our subjective grasp as well.

30 Doug Sigel The Punishment Theory: Illegitimate Styles and Theories as Voting Issues DS
31 Roger Solt Theory as a Voting Issue: The Crime of Punishment DS
-INDEX-
OFFENSE-DEFENSE > TRUTH-TESTING

A. Interpretation Both debaters must adhere to the offense-defense paradigm: the aff must present an advocacy, the
neg must defend not doing that advocacy or doing some competitive advocacy, and the judge chooses between those
advocacies on the basis of reasons provided in the debate.
B. Violation You dont provide an advocacy. Your arguments just conclude that the resolution is true or false.
C. Standards

1. Truth testing denies debaters the ability to test the legitimacy of arguments with theory because it says that
those arguments do not deal with the truth or falsity of the resolution. Theory is good because it allows both
debaters to start off with an equal chance of proving the resolution true or false. , the focus on abuse causes a
race to the bottom because it creates an incentive for debaters to decrease fairness and education just enough
to still evaluate the truth or falsity of the resolution. The impact is that debate becomes less fair and less
educational, and that the threshold for abuse goes down as participants become desensitized to illegitimate
practices.Offense-defense solves because a theory interpretation constitutes an advocacy so long as it
generates uniqueness through the interpretation and a link through the violation.

2. Metaethics truth testing assumes that statements are truth functional or that they can be proven true or
false, this is how the burdens for both sides are derived. This means that it flows from the ethical theory
cognitivism. But, regardless of whether or not cognitivism is true or false, the negative should have the ability
to run noncognitivism, which says that moral statements are truth functional. This is precluded by truth
testing, which is bad because its a) core philosophical literature and b) teaches students how to maintain.
Chrisman:

The most prominent anti-realist program in recent metaethics is the expressivist strategy of treating ethical
claims as expressing not beliefs but noncognitive attitudes of some sort. Its popularity stems in part from the fact
that, by construing ethical claims as expressing noncognitive attitudes rather than beliefs, one can
reject a realist ontology of morality without rejecting moral discourse wholesale. For, if the function of ethical claims is to express noncognitive states in the project of
coordinating feelings and actions in community rather than to express beliefs in the project of cognizing and describing the world, ethical discourse may be perfectly legitimate even though there is no area of reality that it describes. At least, thats what I take to be one of the principal theoretical aspirations of the expressivist strategy.32

3. Fictionalism: truth testing prevents the affirmative from making arguments that even if moral statements do
not exist, we should act as if they do because that would be good. This is no longer anyones ground under
truth testing because it neither proves the resolution true or false. Fictionalism is key aff ground to check neg
skepticism and is important for education to defend our ordinary normative practices. Joyce:

Since this paper has presented no arguments in favor of a moral error theory, discussing the prospects of moral fictionalism may seem premature. I agree that the preferred strategy must always be to do our utmost to show that moral discourse is not really flawed at alland I dare say that nearly all readers
believe this battle still to be worth fighting. But the viability of moral fictionalism should be of more than academic interest even to
those who are not error theorists, for I suspect that those eager to repudiate the error theoretic position often
derive their concern in part from worries about what might happen if the theory were to become
widely accepted as true. It is viewed not merely as counter-intuitive, but as a genuinely threatening and
pernicious doctrine. David Brink, for example, once suggested that we should learn to live with whatever metaphysical queerness is entailed by moral realism if the only alternative would undermine the nature of existing normative practices (1989: 173). But if this
kind of concern is unjustifiedas the possibility of moral fictionalism suggests it may bethen the motivation for resisting a moral error theory is in need of re-examination.33

4. Truth testing encourages the neg to disprove the resolution in ways that are necessary but not sufficient for
the aff. The neg has this strategic incentive because any statement has multiple truth conditions, and each of
those truth conditions is necessary for an affirmation. No-risk issues hurt education because they discourage

32 Matthew Chrisman [University of Edinburgh], A Dilemma for Moral Fictionalism, A Dilemma for Moral Fictionalism.
Philosophical Books 49 (1):4-13, 2008.
33 Richard Joyce, Moral Fictionalism, Penultimate draft of the paper appearing in M.E. Kalderon (ed.), Fictionalism in Metaphysics
(OUP: 2005) 287-313.
-INDEX-
impact comparison. There is no impact to these arguments other than the descriptive truth or falsity of a
statement, so the aff cant weigh against them. This creates an even stronger incentive for the neg to avoid
impact comparison, thereby exacerbating the problem. Impact comparison is key to education because it is
necessary to make decisions in the real world. We choose our actions among alternatives by asking which
actions are better or worse. Real-world decision-making is key to fairness because it prevents one side from
garnering utopian advantages, and its key to education because argumentation in debate is just a competitive
model for argumentation outside debate. And, Offense-defense solves because no-risk issues do not prove
that one side is better than another.

5. Irresolvable Debates. Truth testing leads to irresolvable debates. Michael Mangus explains,

Instead of reaching a sort of strategically-skewed synthesis, these two forces instead [It] create debates that leave judges dumbfounded.
The affirmative will drop an overview that proves the resolution contradictory while the negative will drop a
spike that proves the resolution tautological. If the judge is lucky, one of these arguments will somehow respond to or undermine the other
and a decision can be rendered with some degree of fairness. Oftentimes, however, there is no comparison between the arguments
and no obvious interaction between them. Even in the first case, this is not the pinnacle of substantive debate.
in the latter case, it is a direct invitation for judge intervention. This is not isolated to the lower brackets of
tournaments either many high-powered prelims and elimination rounds [have] feature[d] these strategies.34

Irresolvable debates are both uneducational because nothing gets accomplished in rounds and unfair because
they require judge intervention, which necessitates the implementation of implicit biases that judges have.

6. Intent of debate. Adam Nelson explains that truth-testing is not conducive with the NFLs rules, which
were made to frame the aims of debate. He states,

But the NFLs new Lincoln Douglas Debate Event Description [states that] explicitly repudiates such a model by placing parallel
burdens amongst one of the hallmarks of the activity.
No question of values can be determined entirely true or false. This is why the resolution is desirable.
Therefore neither debater should be held to a standard of absolute proof. No debater can realistically be expected to prove
complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general
principle. And the truth-statement model of the resolution imposes an absolute burden of proof on the affirmative.
if the resolution is a truth-claim, and the affirmative has the burden of proving that claim, in so far as
intuitively we tend to disbelieve truth-claims until we are persuaded otherwise, the affirmative has the burden
to prove that statement absolutely true. Indeed, one of the most common theory arguments in LD is conditionality, which argues it is inappropriate
for the affirmative to claim only proving the truth of part of the resolution is sufficient to earn the ballot.35

Therefore, truth testing is uneducational.

34 Michael Mangus The Value-Comparison Paradigm: A Turn Away from Truth-Testing DS
35 Adam Nelson Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Lincoln-Douglas Debate DS
-INDEX-
POLICYMAKING > TRUTH-TESTING

A. Interpretation: The resolution is a statement of policy. The aff must defend a topical policy
action, and the neg must defend the status quo or a counter-plan.
B. Violation: You dont present a policy action. Your arguments only conclude that the
resolution is true or false regardless of its policy implementation.

1. Real World Decision Making: decision-makers in the real world do not act off statements of truth; instead,
they act off what they determine they should do. Furthermore, truth-testing has no value in the real world
because mere evaluations of facts never help us prescriptively decide what action to take. Policymaking better
provides for real world decision-making by forcing us to advocate policy actions and actively engage each
others advocacies rather than just responding to the truth of the resolution. Real 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.

2. Depth of Discussion: The plan narrows the debate to one issue whereas truth testing is all over the place and
spends its time developing blippy answers. Under truth testing we never engage in a depth of discussion on the
topic because all I have to do is prove 1 example false and I win. This spreads the debate out, but policy
making solves this back by allowing the aff to focus on a specific plan and provide specific research and
arguments in support. Depth 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.

3. Policy discussion, specifically the advocacy of specific policy options is the hallmark of the critical thinking
skills that allow us to become more affective real world activists

Keller, Whittaker, and Burke 01
[Thomas E., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, James K., professor of Social Work, and Tracy K., doctoral student School of
Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education,
Spr/Summer]

Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation,
or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such
as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy
proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing
and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to Jansson (1984, pp. 57-58), social
workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities: * value-clarification skills for identifying and
assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions; * conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits
of different policy options; * interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point
of view in a convincing manner; * political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and *
position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy. These policy practice
skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of
critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of
thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection
(Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying
policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its
adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for
critical thinking.

-INDEX-
BEST JUSTIFICATION > TRUTH-TESTING

1. Truth-testing allows the neg to win independent of offense, since they just need to disprove the resolution in order
to negate. Best-justification solves this problem because it requires that both sides justify their positions. Eric Palmer
explains:

Another advantage of the best justification paradigm over traditional truth-testing is that it preserves something like the
offense/defense distinction employed in Policy. If the negative is not providing proactive reasons for thinking that the
resolution has got to be false, then there is no reason not to accept the affirmatives argumentation. The same more or
less holds true for particular arguments. An argument may provide a good justification for some claim even if there
are standing reasons for thinking that argument might be false in the event that the initial justification is more
powerful than the reasons standing against it.36

2. Best justification doesnt have to deal with the problems associated with prestandards arguments. Eric Palmer
writes,

There are two basic advantages of this account over traditional truth-testing. For one, truth-testing generates the problem of wayward pre-
standards arguments. If, for instance, some argument which claims that the resolution is self-contradictory is
dropped, truth-testing requires a negative verdict because the dropped argument entails the falsity of the resolution.
On the best justification picture, however, the fact that the dropped argument entails the falsity of the resolution
merely provides some evidence that a belief in the resolution is unjustified. How strong that evidence is depends on
how strong the dropped argument was. If the argument was particularly well-developed, this may warrant a negation,
but if the argument was a mangled blip, then it may be better to hold that the arguments developed by the affirmative
are sufficient to justify the resolutions truth in spite of the drop. To get a better grip on how this is supposed to work,
consider a mundane case. My friend drives me to work one day in a Volvo. Suppose I have every reason to believe
that she owns this car: Ive seen her drive it many times, her family members all say it belongs to her, and I have seen
her registration papers. On the basis of this evidence, I infer the proposition my friend owns a Volvo. Now suppose
that someone else tells me that in fact she does not own that car; she was just borrowing it from her brother. For the
sake of the example, assume that I have no way of discounting this evidence. Now, if true, my evidence that my
friend was just borrowing the Volvo entails the falsity of my belief that my friend owns a Volvo, but given my
preponderance of evidence to the contrary, it seems plausible to assume that I am better off retaining my belief and
discounting the conflicting evidence. We can treat underdeveloped skeptical or other pre-standards issues in much
the same fashion (note, however, that I do not want to exclude skeptical arguments altogether; if you want that result
then find another paradigm).37

36 Eric Palmer. Truth, Comparison, and Justification in LD Debate. Victory Briefs Daily. April 15, 2008
37 Eric Palmer. Truth, Comparison, and Justification in LD Debate. Victory Briefs Daily. April 15, 2008
-INDEX-
OFFENSE-DEFENSE > POLICYMAKING

A. Interpretation Both debaters must adhere to the offense-defense paradigm: the aff must present an advocacy, the
B. Violation You force debaters to present policy actions. My paradigm would let debaters present advocacies that
are not necessarily policy actions.
C. Standards

1. There is no reason why policymaking is unique in comparing policies. Robert C. Rowland writes:

While Lichtman and Rohrer are quite right, that debate has focused on policy questions, there is no necessary
reason that those policy questions must be evaluated through the specific policy making model which they
advocate. For example, Charles Lindblom and other incrementalists defend a method of resolving policy
disputes which bears some likeness to the stock issues debate paradigm. Even hypothesis testing could be
viewed as a method for resolving policy disputes. Perfectly rational policy scientists could mirror the
hypothesis testing model by requiring the proponents of policy change to both iefute all feasible alternative
policies and identify the motives which prevented action in the present system. Debate may inherently be a
form of policy-making, but it need not be the form described by Lichtman and Rohrer. Thus, coherence to the
policy model is not a useful standard for evaluating debate paradigms.

2. Policy making assumes that the resolution is seen as either a statement of policy, or a starting place to draw
policies from. This ignores the fact that when we set on a course to enact policy, we are stating a belief that the
policy should be taken. Since this statement is a belief, access to moral skepticism arguments is relevant
ground because we need to question if its possible to have these beliefs even under the policy-making view of
the resolution. But, the policy-making paradigm denies access to this relevant ground of its view of the
resolution.

3. Policy making ignores pre-fiat arguments because a) policy making inherently deals with only post-fiat
implications of comparing worlds, and b) policy making forces each debater to advance a policy, but not all
kritik alternatives do this. My argument is not that pre-fiat impacts are good, but merely that their relevance
should be a possible option. Debaters should have at least the ability to ask for the ballot against an opponent
who uses racial slurs, and they should be able to explore Kritik options if those arguments are important to
them or to the community.

4. Offense-defense interpretation is that the aff must defend an advocacy, the neg must defend not doing that
advocacy or doing a competitive advocacy, and the judge chooses between those advocacies on the basis of
reasons provided in the debate. This gets all the benefits that could happen from specific comparison on the
level of impacts and from each debater advancing a policy because both of these actions can take place under
an offense-defense paradigm

-INDEX-
BEST JUSTIFICATION > POLICYMAKING

1. Proving the truth of a statement comes logically prior to advising agents to act on that maxim. Eric Palmer writes:
Now one might naturally ask why I have implied that the comparativist should hold that agents ought to act as though the resolution is true. There
is a straightforward route to this conclusion. Manguss [the] claim that the resolution should be affirmed if it would be a
good maxim to follow may be interpreted as stating that the resolution should be affirmed if it would be good
for us to believe. This is because of the action-guiding character of beliefs: when we accord with a principle in
action, it is presumably because we believe [it] that principle to be true. If I pull a drowning child from the water
and say that I did so because I accept the principle save innocent lives, my action and my avowal of the
principle guiding my actions are (at least in normal circumstances) to be explained by my belief that I should save
innocent lives. Now, one functional characterization of what it is to have a belief runs as follows: an agent believes a proposition p
only if that agent acts as though p is true. To see why this is so, consider the previous example: I am credited
with believing the proposition one should save innocent lives because I act as though that proposition is true. I
prevent kids from drowning, and I assert things like one should save innocent lives.38

2. Policymaking presumes utilitarianism, but this should not be the only ethical theory used. Eric Palmer writes:
I turn now to the issue of direct comparison of impacts. As I understand it, the idea works something like this: the affirmative says that acting as though the
resolution is true leads to some good result x, the negative says that doing so would lead to some bad result y. The affirmative argues that x outweighs y. Now, this
basic schema [direct comparison of impacts] works well in Policy Debate, but this is because Policy generally
presumes a form of utilitarianism (at least until this is challenged with some critical framework). One can say that extinction due to
environmental collapse is worse than genocide, or vice versa, in utilitarian terms simply by comparing the
expected utility of the two impacts. Expected utility is given by magnitude of effect multiplied by the probability of those effects occurring. Now,
utilitarianism lets us state all impacts within the framework of expected utility because it supposes that all
impacts are reducible to a common metric of evaluation in which all outcomes can be compared: outcomes are
good if they cause more pleasure than pain, and outcomes are bad if they cause more pain than pleasure. If we
do not assume that all values are commensurable, and that all values are measurable, then no such metric is
readily available. Regardless, there is no reason why we ought to proceed in lockstep with our policy brethren and
presume that utilitarianism is true, because as every debater knows by now, there are many good reasons to think that it
may not be (at least in its crudest form).39
3. Plans in the real-world require more explanation and solvency than we have to explain in a case that is six
minutes maximum. This makes for underdeveloped plans that jump to the conclusions of large impacts like nuclear
war and extinction without completely explaining their efficacy. Best justification avoids this by focusing on
philosophical positions that can be fully developed within the time constraints of LD.
4. A policymaking paradigm is antithetical to education because it forces us to only try to find the plan that has the
largest impact meaning that the debate becomes centered around impacts of body count that are completely unrealistic
and forces us to forget about other arguments on the topic that have smaller impacts but are still relevant.
5. (On resolutions without an actor) Policymaking is nonsensical unless the topic has an actor because a) adding an
actor inserts words into the resolution making arguments with actors completely unpredictable as there is no
reasonable basis to presume the resolution is discussing that specific actor b) even if debaters argue that the resolution
should be adopted by all governments, this allows them to fiat solvency for ALL governments taking the action which
no author writes about, and it allows them to over-claim impacts since the banning of an action by all governments
would never occur.

-INDEX-
TRUTH-TESTING > POLICYMAKING

1. Policymaking ignores relevant philosophical literature such as deontological side constraints because they dont
link back to some concept of desirability. Further, many philosophical theories are limited to the evaluation of
actions and not of worlds, thus comparative world based paradigms, by placing value on states of affairs
prevents substantive philosophical debate. This is the most educational impact in the round for a)
philosophical discussion has been debated for millennium. There will always be better, well researched,
substantive arguments leading to better debate when we can tap into the vast reservoirs of intellect and
learning. AND B) Philosophical literature defines the relevance of all other types of worldview-based
comparisons by establishing from where states of affairs derive value. AND c) philosophical literature is key
to real world decision making because desirability paradigms exclude relevant considerations that people
make when deciding policies and actions they take in everyday life. Would you unplug yourself from the
violinist?

2. Truth testing is preferable because unlike policy making, its internally consistent. To prove a statement true has
objective meaning behind it while to meaning to prove an action desirable begs the question of what is
optimal. However, to prove an action desirable requires an external metric that comparative worlds does not
provide.

3. Comparative worlds collapses into truth testing. The only possible metric for what is desirable is what we ought
to pursue, but this collapses into a question of truth testing because how one ought to act is a truth claim. All
my opponent does is take the truth claim second order question rather than a first.

4. Always prefer impacts to truth testing over impacts to policymaking for two reasons.
a. Truth testing is more inclusive because it allows for policymaking like arguments as well as
philosophical arguments if you justify a consequentialist ethic.
b. The dominant paradigm in policy debate is policy comparison, and therefore people can do policy
debate if they value those ends. This means you prefer my impacts because diminishing marginal
utility theory states that any incremental increase in a value has less value if there is a greater
numerical quantity of that value in existence. Thus, we should always try to ensure that we allow for
the most types of benefits as an increase in having both will lead to greater value than maximizing any
one.

-INDEX-
TRUTH-TESTING > OFFENSE-DEFENSE

1. Offense defense is infinitely regressive. There is no established metric as to what debaters appeal to, so all claims
of preferable advocacies become vacuous and regressive. A paradigm must provide some absolute standard to which
we appeal, which is provided by truth testing by appealing to the truth of the resolution. This comes before any other
claims about the perferability of a paradigm, because all of those would need to appeal to some external standard,
thereby proving the harm my argument claims.

2. Truth testing ensures debate about the topic. Under an offense-defense paradigm, debaters may run other arguments
external to the topic, both on the affirmative and the negative which is bad for two reasons.
a. First, it prevents switch-side debate because debaters can advocate an advocacy on either side as long as
they win its legitimate. Switch-side debate is key to teaching skills for participation in a deliberative
democracy that values tolerance. Greene writes,

In the contemporary field of political and social theory, Days universal norm of free and full expression and Muirs
investment in moral education work in tandem. When we read Muir and Day alongside one another, debating both sides
transforms itself into a mechanism to generate the moral subject akin to the demands of a
communicative ethics and a deliberative democracy.13 Debating both sides generates an ethical stance
that allows debate to best secure the political norms of tolerance and pluralism while authorizing and
legitimating moral and political judgments from the foundation of a[n] dialogic encounter with other
perspectives. Muirs defence of the game status of debate emerging in the aftermath of the Cold War re-codes debating both sides as a game of
freedom instantiating the moral education required for liberal citizenship. Reading Muir alongside Dennis Day, we can appreciate the explicit
transformation of debate into an ethical pedagogy. Debate training, without the requirement to debate both sides, locates
the act of public argument too closely to the personal convictions of the speaker. The gap created by
debating both sides between the embodied speech act and his/her convictions makes possible the
emergence of debate as the proper method of adjudicating disputes in a democratic culture. Debating
both sides transforms the student-debater by developing a post-conventional morality / one capable
of making moral judgments based on reason and not authority or personal convictions. In this way, the
debating both sides controversy pre-figures how a deliberative theory of democracy requires a moral
theory of the subject to prepare that subject for the transformational potential associated with the
gentle force of the better argument.14 40

b. This prevents debaters from predicting the other sides advocacy which leads to less substantive debate
because we will never be able to engage our opponents position with the same level of preparation as him.
This prevents substantive debate both within his advocacy and with regards to the legitimacy of his
advocacy.

40 Ronald Walter Greene Lost Convictions: Debating Both Sides and the Ethical Self-fashioning of Liberal Citizens Cultural Studies
Vol. 19, No. 1 January 2005, pp. 100/126 ISSN 0950-2386 print/ISSN 1466-4348 online 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http://www.t andf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/09502380500040928
-INDEX-
BEST JUSTIFICATION > OFFENSE-DEFENSE

1. Offense-defense relies on a mechanism of justifying preferring one advocacy that is lacking. Eric Palmer writes:

Adam Nelson suggests what may be an alternate tack. He backs up his recommendation to switch to direct comparison of impacts with the claim that in our
everyday lives, we often give weight to both deontological and utilitarian considerations. This may or may not be true. If it is true [that we consider
deontological and utilitarian concerns in real life], then there are at least two explanations for that fact. It may be
the case that in general, people do not have any form of systematic ethical theory in mind when they deliberate. If
this is true, so much the worse for people in general, since this means that their decisions are motivated by disparate and
incompatible justifications. There is no need for debate to cater to that fact. Alternately, it might turn out that
there is an ethical theory which gives weight to both utilitarian and deontological considerations (such as Tim
Scanlons Contractualism or Sam Schefflers hybrid theory) which can account for all of the average persons seemingly
disparate moral beliefs. If this explanation is right, then it seems like what is happening when one directly
compares impacts is tacitly relying on an ethical theory, but without the aid of an explicit version of that
account for the purposes of correcting errors in moral judgment. So it seems like Nelsons alternative results either in adopting a
fragmented picture of how to evaluate impacts, or an under-theorized version of something which could actually be made explicit as a standard.

2. Offense-defense needs a mechanism of weighing between advocacies. It claims to include non-consequentialist
position but inherently presumes an ends-based calculus when determining which advocacy is preferable. This
means that there is no incentive to run a non-consequentialist position since it will be easily outweighed by a large
impact. Thus, offense-defense excludes philosophical positions which is problematic because a) it harms
education as it solely educates debaters on current events. Best justification allows for topic specific
argumentation grounded in the real-world AND philosophical literature b) debaters will attempt to find cards with
the largest body count excluding topic literature that is not written from an ends-based perspective.

3. Offense-defense excludes well-developed positions about skepticism and error theory. These positions are
educational because they expand the philosophical knowledge of debaters beyond the common claims of
"suffering is bad." Also, best justification ensures that skeptical arguments are not short strategc ways to win the
round as they must be well-explained to justify a ballot which forces the debate to result in an in-depth discussion
of philosophy.

4. Impact comparison in offense-defense is incomprehensible because it allows debaters to select two unrelated
impacts of specific scenarios and compare them. This type of weighing excludes relevant harms and benefits of a
side so debates under offense-defense are not an accurate reflection of the harms and benefits of the resolution.
Clear adjudication is prevented since these impacts are not truly comparable which is key to education as real
decision-making processes include a clear explanation of how we derive outcomes from deliberation. (only read
if not running a plan)

5. Best justification allows for warrant-comparison which is the best form of weighing because a) it incentivizes
debaters to research for the best quality evidence rather than cards with huge impacts b) it avoids the
incomprehensible nature of impact comparison under a consequentialist framework c) it forces debaters to think
of creative ways of argument comparison rather than the redundant standards of magnitude and probability.
Argument innovation is key to education because it fosters critical thinking in response to unfamiliar arguments.

-INDEX-
POLICYMAKING > BEST JUSTIFICATION

1. Real World Decision Making: decision-makers in the real world do not act off statements of truth; instead,
they act off what they determine they should do. Furthermore, best justifying the truth of a resolution has no
value in the real world because mere evaluations of facts never help us prescriptively decide what action to
take. Policymaking better provides for real world decision-making by forcing us to advocate policy actions
and actively engage each others advocacies rather than just responding to the truth of the resolution. Real
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.

2. Depth of Discussion: The plan narrows the debate to one issue whereas best justification is all over the place
and spends its time developing blippy answers. Under best justification we never engage in a depth of
discussion on the topic because all I have to do is prove 1 example false and I win. This spreads the debate
out, but policy making solves this back by allowing the aff to focus on a specific plan and provide specific
research and arguments in support. Depth 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.

3. Policy discussion, specifically the advocacy of specific policy options is the hallmark of the critical thinking
skills that allow us to become more affective real world activists

Keller, Whittaker, and Burke 01
[Thomas E., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, James K., professor of Social Work, and Tracy K., doctoral student School of
Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education,
Spr/Summer]

Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation,
or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such
as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy
proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing
and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony. According to Jansson (1984, pp. 57-58), social
workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities: * value-clarification skills for identifying and
assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions; * conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits
of different policy options; * interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point
of view in a convincing manner; * political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and *
position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy. These policy practice
skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of
critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of
thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection
(Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying
policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its
adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for
critical thinking.

-INDEX-
OFFENSE-DEFENSE > BEST JUSTIFICATION

I. Interpretation Both debaters must adhere to the offense-defense paradigm: the aff must present an advocacy, the
II. Violation You dont present an advocacy. Your arguments just affect the justifications for or against the
resolution as a truth statement.
III. Best justification is under-inclusive.

A. Metaethics.
(1) Noncognitivism. Best justification assumes that moral statements are truth-apt propositions because it is
impossible to compare the strength of reasons in favor of or against the resolution if no such reasons exist. Also, the
neg burden is to prove that the statement, It is not the case that [the resolution], is better justified than the statement
of the resolution, which assumes that the resolution can or cannot be the case. Regardless of whether cognitivism is
true, noncognitivism should be an option. This option is key to fairness because it checks neg skepticism ground, and
its key to education because (a) its core philosophical literature, and (b) it teaches students how to maintain their
ordinary normative practices. Chrisman:
The most prominent anti-realist program in recent metaethics is the expressivist strategy of treating ethical
claims as expressing not beliefs but noncognitive attitudes of some sort. Its popularity stems in part from the
fact that, by construing ethical claims as expressing noncognitive attitudes rather than beliefs, one can reject a
realist ontology of morality without rejecting moral discourse wholesale. For, if the function of ethical claims
is to express noncognitive states in the project of coordinating feelings and actions in community rather than
to express beliefs in the project of cognizing and describing the world, ethical discourse may be perfectly
legitimate even though there is no area of reality that it describes. At least, thats what I take to be one of the
principal theoretical aspirations of the expressivist strategy.41

(2) Fictionalism. Best justification is about whether the resolution is or is not the case. This precludes arguments for
why we should pretend that the resolution is the case even though it is not the case, because if the aff concedes the
resolution is false, they lose. Offense-defense preserves fictionalism because it proves that it would be good if we
believed the resolution, which is a legitimate aff advocacy. This ground is equalized by the negs ability to derive
non-moral impacts from error theory, namely that it would violate the law of non-contradiction to believe a false
statement. Fictionalism is key aff ground to check neg skepticism and is important for education to defend our
ordinary normative practices. Joyce:
Since this paper has presented no arguments in favor of a moral error theory, discussing the prospects of moral
fictionalism may seem premature. I agree that the preferred strategy must always be to do our utmost to show
that moral discourse is not really flawed at alland I dare say that nearly all readers believe this battle still to
be worth fighting. But the viability of moral fictionalism should be of more than academic interest even to
those who are not error theorists, for I suspect that those eager to repudiate the error theoretic position often
derive their concern in part from worries about what might happen if the theory were to become widely
accepted as true. It is viewed not merely as counter-intuitive, but as a genuinely threatening and pernicious
doctrine. David Brink, for example, once suggested that we should learn to live with whatever metaphysical
queerness is entailed by moral realism if the only alternative would undermine the nature of existing
normative practices (1989: 173). But if this kind of concern is unjustifiedas the possibility of moral
fictionalism suggests it may bethen the motivation for resisting a moral error theory is in need of re-
examination.42

41 Matthew Chrisman [University of Edinburgh], A Dilemma for Moral Fictionalism, A Dilemma for Moral Fictionalism.
Philosophical Books 49 (1):4-13, 2008.
42 Richard Joyce, Moral Fictionalism, Penultimate draft of the paper appearing in M.E. Kalderon (ed.), Fictionalism in Metaphysics
-INDEX-

B. Impact Turns. If the resolution says, X is just, best justification precludes neg arguments that justice is bad. If the
neg concedes the link but turns the impact, it does not matter if justice is good or bad it only matters that X is just.
There are three impacts:
(1) The neg loses impact-turn ground, which hurts education because we lose the opportunity to critically analyze our
moral presuppositions.
(2) Negs compensate for the loss of impact turns through defense-heavy strategies, which hurt fairness because the
neg enjoys presumption.
(3) Best justification assumes that our reasons must bear on the question of the resolution. This precludes aff reasons
that weigh in favor of the resolution but do not bear on the question. The neg should have to prove that such reasons
are reasons of the wrong kind, but this assumption is built into the paradigm. Offense-defense preserves this rich
debate in moral philosophy and is key to the affs ability to weigh against purely defensive reasons.

C. Theory. Best justification excludes any consideration that does not relate to the truth or falsity of the resolution. To
allow theory, the neg must give a consistent, non-arbitrary provision in its counter-interpretation that explains the
necessary and sufficient conditions for voting either side. Even if they provide such conditions, they would not obtain
for two reasons:
(1) Theory might be relevant under extreme circumstances wherein abuse is so bad that the resolutions truth or falsity
has been skewed. But it is impossible to know that one side would have won were it not for the abusive argument, so
these circumstances are not only rare but also indeterminate. And, this scenario assumes that theory should only cover
in-round abuse, but theory is a tool to improve debate. If education and fairness are valuable, we ought to promote
them because it is irrational to decrease the prevalence of a good thing. And, the focus on abuse causes a race to the
bottom because it creates an incentive for debaters to decrease fairness and education just enough to still evaluate the
truth or falsity of the resolution. The impact is that debate becomes less fair and less educational, and that the
threshold for abuse goes down as participants become desensitized to illegitimate practices.
(2) Even if theory could be relevant without in-round abuse, it would only be a reason to exclude arguments, not to
vote. This decision rule, however, creates a perverse incentive for debaters to run illegitimate arguments and kick
them to leverage the time tradeoff against theory. Also, this creates an incentive not to run theory against illegitimate
arguments because they wont have direct access to the ballot. This incentive hurts fairness by increasing the reward
for unfair arguments, and it hurts education because theory is good. Theory teaches debaters how to apply their
argumentation abilities to debate itself, and it teaches debaters how to become advocates for their vision of debate,
thereby encouraging debaters to take ownership of their experience.
Offense-defense solves because a theory interpretation constitutes an advocacy so long as it generates uniqueness
through the interpretation and a link through the violation.

D. Pre-Fiat Impacts. Best justification is only concerned with the resolutions truth or falsity, so pre-fiat impacts of
the debaters discourse or mindset are irrelevant. My argument is not that pre-fiat impacts are good, but merely that
their relevance should be a possible option. Debaters should have at least the ability to ask for the ballot against an
opponent who uses racial slurs, and they should be able to explore Kritik options if those arguments are important to
them or to the community.

E. Offense-defense preserves open-mindedness. Even if the arguments above are not independently good, the
existence of options is key to fairness because they preserve strategic flexibility in a time-crunched debate round
where neither side knows the others arguments with 100% certainty. Arbitrarily excluding options hurts open-
mindedness because debaters lose the opportunity and incentive to question arguments that are considered irrelevant.
Open-mindedness is important because (1) we are not fallible, (2) the marketplace of ideas increases the quality of
argumentation, and (3) dogmatism impedes reform towards both fairness and education. Offense-defense does not
arbitrarily exclude any argument because its exclusion is based on the principle that arguments require impacts.

(OUP: 2005) 287-313.
-INDEX-
Because there is a reason behind its exclusion (namely, that impacts are key to fairness and education as per Section
2), the exclusion is not arbitrary.
Also, any argument that the resolution is false is relevant under offense-defense if and only if the aff advocacy is that
some agent should believe the resolution. The neg just has to prove that the law of non-contradiction outweighs the
advantages of the false belief. This preserves argument inclusion while letting the aff open its own Pandoras Box of
skepticism, which maintains fairness. Topicality checks neg ground loss because they can say the most predictable
reading of the resolution would have the aff defend a belief, not an action.

-INDEX-
AFF FRAMEWORK CHOICE GOOD

1. We need to respect AFC or else the AC will be rendered meaningless. ODonnell:
And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate. Timothy M. ODonnell.
Director of Debate. University of Mary Washington.

There are several reasons why the affirmative should get to choose the framework for the debate. First,
AFC[affirmtive framework choice] preserves the value of the first affirmative constructive speech. This
speech[which] is the starting point for the debate. It is a function of necessity. The debate must begin somewhere if it
is to begin at all. Failure to grant AFC is a denial of the service rendered by the affirmative teams labor when they
crafted this speech. Further, if the affirmative does not get to pick the starting point, the opening speech act is
essentially rendered meaningless while the rest of the debate becomes a debate about what we should be debating
about. History is instructive here. The brief and undistinguished life of both counter warrants and plan-plan have
amply demonstrated the chaos that results when the negative refuses to engage the affirmative on its chosen starting
point.

2. AFC ensures competitive equity. ODonnell:
AFC ensures competitive equity. Leaving the framework open to debate puts
the affirmative at a significant competitive disadvantage. When the negative has the option of changing, or
even initiating, the framework discussion, the first affirmative constructive speech is rendered meaningless. This hurts
the affirmative for two reasons. First, it gives the negative a two-to-one advantage in constructive speech time for
making framework arguments. Second, the first affirmative framework choice (or lack there of) locks the affirmative
into defending their opening speech act against an entirely different framework from the one it was designed to
address. Not only does AFC solve these[s] problems, it also gives every debater an opportunity to have debates in the
framework of their choosing. Allowing the first affirmative constructive speech to set the terms for the debate ensures
that teams get to choose to debate in their framework half of the time. For example, if one team wanted to have a
policy debate, AFC would allow them to do so when they are affirmative. Similarly, if another team wanted to have a
performance debate, AFC would give them a similar opportunity when they are affirmative. This means that every
team would have an equal opportunity to have fulfilling and engaging debates on the issues they choose to discuss
half the time.

3. A) AFC promotes education by forcing debaters to argue under multiple fraeworks.
ODonnell:
Third, AFC has substantial educational benefits. To begin with, it would force teams to debate in multiple
frameworks. Too few teams at both the high school and college level have true argument flexibility. It is an
undeniable fact that the debate enterprise would be a more educational undertaking for all involved if teams had to
prepare to debate a variety of different frameworks. AFC solves this problem because the framework, like the
case, would be determined at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, 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. When the negative is permitted to shift the framework, affirmative teams
are denied the opportunity to debate in the framework that they selected. Ceding framework selection to the
affirmative creates a permanent space for the exploration of multiple frameworks. Indeed, it would allow them to
flourish. The fact of the matter is that the creativity which stands behind the wide variety of argument strategies in
contemporary debate ensures that a diverse set of frameworks would continue to be explored. AFC aims to break the
idea that teams should debate only one way. Instead, it empowers alternate perspectives on debate and gives each an
equal
footing.

-INDEX-
B) AFC forces debaters to go more in-depth on substance. ODonnell:
In addition, AFC would have the educational benefit of promoting argument
development. If widely accepted, it would have the effect of bracketing framework discussions. Such a move would
necessarily focus the debate on issues germane to the framework selected by the affirmative. This would provide
more time to explore these issues in greater complexity. Recall for a moment many of the diverse negative strategies
deployed at the 2004 NDT. Now ask, how much more intellectually rewarding would those debates have been if the
framework discussions were removed from consideration? AFC creates a situation where this is possible.

4.AFC prevents schisms from being created in the debate community. ODonnell:
Fourth, AFC creates a compromise that allows different perspectives on the question of the debate to coexist. The
problem with leaving the framework open to debate is that it makes a schism in the community inevitable. Such a
split, if it were to happen, would have serious long term consequences for the existence of competitive
debate. Unfortunately, the history of intercollegiate debate is a history marked by fissures that have seen groups of
like minded people peel away from the larger community because of their disagreements about what counts as
excellence in debate.7 This process has happened before and it is likely to happen again. Indeed, I 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. AFC is a compromise position
that gives everyone an equal stake in the game.

5. AFC prevents judge intervention. ODonnell:
Finally, AFC, if widely accepted, has the potential to change the nature of judging and would put debating back into
the hands of the debaters. If one considers the wide variety of claims that judges today make in their judging
philosophies about what they will and will not tolerate, it is clear that there are significant cleavages in the judging
pool. The reason for this is that judges (my self included) have different dispositions toward the question of the debate
and they are often willing to impose those views in the debate in a variety of ways. AFC envisions a situation in
which judges could mutually agree to disarm.

-INDEX-
AFC FRONTLINES
A2 Destroys Ground
AFC doesnt destroy ground for 5 reasons. ODonnell:
First, ground is not an all or nothing issue. The affirmatives choice of framework provides plenty of negative ground.
If the affirmative chooses a policy framework, then the negative gets policy ground. If they choose a performance
framework, then the negative gets to critique their performance and offer a counter performance. Second, the problem
of negative ground exists in the status quo. Given the wide variety of frameworks advocated in affirmative
constructive speeches today, negative teams already have to be prepared to debate multiple frameworks. This
proposal would not impose a larger burden on the negative than already exists. Third, framework debates themselves
are not critical to negative ground. If the negative is only prepared to engage in framework debates, then they are
obviously not well prepared to be negative. Fourth, it could be argued that the negative has too much ground in the
status quo. Affirmative framework choice levels the playing field. Given the expansive range of generic negative
strategies that the negative has at its disposal, it is not an exaggeration to say that negative teams today clearly have
the upper hand. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the ground loss under the present system is worse for the
affirmative. In situations where the negative shifts the debate to its desired framework, the affirmative is at a much
greater disadvantage because they have made time allocation and advocacy choices that are not easily rectified.

A2 Harms Education
ODonnell:
In the status quo, the team that wins the framework debate wins the debate. The problem is that so much precious
speech time is spent on the framework debate that many debates never get to the intellectually and pedagogically
valuable discussion of the issues themselves. More importantly, affirmative framework choice captures all of the
benefits of framework debates with none of the downside. Different affirmative teams will advocate different
frameworks which means all of the questions that currently get asked would inevitably get asked.

b. My framework is reasonable because it is topical, educational, debatable, and fixed. These
serve as a check to ensure a good debate.
ODonnell:
First, the framework should be predictable. The negative needs to be able to have some basis for preparing to debate
the range of possible affirmative frameworks. Since the resolution is the only stable indicator of what the negative
needs to prepare to debate, it seems that a reasonable expectation is that the affirmatives framework should be
germane to the resolution. That is to say, the resolution should function as a generative tool not only for a list of
affirmative cases, but also a list of affirmative frameworks. Second, the framework should be educational. The
framework chosen by the affirmative ought to be educationally beneficial. At a minimum this implies that the
possibility for critical thought resides in the framework. Third, the framework should be debatable. This is another
way of saying that the framework should be competitively balanced or equitable. There has to be a reasonable
possibility that the negative can win. To this extent, the burden of explaining what the negative needs to do to win
rests with the affirmative.They ought to be able to offer a clear rationale or set of conditions in which the judge would
vote negative. Finally, the framework should be fixed. Once the affirmative introduces its framework into the debate,
they should not be permitted to alter or change it in any way. The appropriate theoretical analogs here are the reasons
why affirmative conditionality is illegitimate.

A2 Neg Cant answer AFF Framework Ever
a. ODonnell explains the ways in which a negative can challenge the AFF:

First, not necessarily. The negative would still have ground to critique the assumptions embedded in the framework
advocated by the affirmative team. For example, if the affirmative advocated ceding political control in Iraq to the
-INDEX-
United Nations through a policy framework, the negative could still question all of the policy assumptions which
speak to the plans desirability. AFC only constrains the negative to the extent that they are limited to the starting
point selected by the affirmative. This means that the negative would be forced to bracket questions regarding the
desirability of the affirmative with respect to its language, its representations, its politics, its performance, its
philosophy, etc. Similarly, if the affirmative advocated ceding political control in Iraq to the United Nations through a
performance framework, the negative could question all of the assumptions behind their performance in addition to
topically derived core negative arguments (although those arguments would have to be adapted to the framework
advanced by the affirmative). In such situations, ground loss would be minimal because the ground that the negative
loses would not be germane to either the resolutionally derived question or the affirmative framework. Thus the only
thing that the negative loses under AFC is the ability to shift the question of the debate through critiques of the
affirmative framework. Viewed this way, the negatives complaint is that they dont get to talk about everything but
the affirmative. But why should they?

Second, the benefits gained by adoption of AFC outweigh what would be lost.
Limiting negative ground focuses the discussion and generates richer debates within the framework chosen by the
affirmative. There is no substantial benefit to allowing the negative to question every assumption since the emergence
of critical affirmatives ensures a place at the table for these types of arguments.

Third, the negative does not have a right to question every assumption. Infinite preparation time for the affirmative is
a myth. Affirmative teams, only have a fixed amount of time to prepare to debate. If they are forced to defend any and
all assumptions that they are heir to by virtue of their existence at the end of thousands of years of prepared to debate.
The 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. Such a situation is anathema to any cooperative learning enterprise. If learning is to be
maximized, participants must have a reasonable expectation about what to prepare for. This is, after all, why everyone
who participates in two-person policy debate thinks there ought to be a topic. Yet, while we seem to agree that there
should be limits placed on the affirmative, the same thinking does not always seem to apply to the
negative. AFCmerely recognizes that both sides need to give something up to have a debate.

-INDEX-
AFF FRAMEWORK CHOICE BAD

1. Research burdens - AFC allows affirmatives to pick one framework and do tons of research impacting back into
it. The affirmative will have much better evidence compared to the negative who has to be prepared to debate under
every single possible framework the affirmative could run. This destroy fairness because affirmative debaters will be
prepped to debate under their framework while the negative must be ready for any possible framework.
2. Ground to Attack Their Framework- This destroys ground because Im not allowed to challenge their
framework. This is key negative ground because if Im not allowed to attack their framework the affirmative will win
most round. For example on the sanctions topic people would run really long frameworks and then have one card
about how sanctions harm people. This destroys fairness because it leaves me with no good ground to attack.
3. Depth If we arent allowed to discuss the framework beyond the AC, then we dont learn in depth about the
issues brought up in the framework. Even though the issue may be brought up by the affirmative, there wont be any
clash and we wont actually learn about the topics.
4. Reciprocal Burdens- This allows the affirmative to choose abusive frameworks in order to skew the round in
their favor. They will choose burdens which make it much easier for themselves to access the ballot, making the
ground inherently skewed against the negative.

-INDEX-
TRUTH-TESTING FRONTLINES

A/T Skepticism
1. Turn Skeptical literature is important negative ground to increase the educational value of debate.
a. Skeptical challenges are key to test the reliability of meta ethical analysis. To test a meta ethical theory
you must be able to defend that it is actually true and has normative weight behind action. However the
inability to skepticism thus removes major aspects of philosophical literature that criticize meta,
normative and even applied ethical issues.
b. This is a major component of philosophical literature. To exclude skepticism merely because it has no
impact is to first be unrealistic to actual philosophical issues which consider skepticism as a very
viable ethical theory. Further we lose access to one of the most educational aspects of philosophy
because it teaches us to think critically about these different issues and learn to question common
assumptions about how we should act.
c. Skepticism encourages the use of meta ethical analysis in order to hege against these impacts. The
threat of skepticism encourages actual substantive basis for your moral theory so that ethics cant just
no warrant your moral arguments. Meta ethical analysis is important for debate To make and ground
normative ethical claims you need to be able to provide the filter to determine what functions as a
relevant warrant. Meta ethics provides this filter by functioning as a standard for normative ethical
claims. This strait turns any opposing standard discussing the value of other forms of thought, because
the only way to provide meaningful debate in those other areas is to first ground them metaethically.
This means I have the strongest link possible back to the educational value of debate, by
contextualizing and creating relevance for all other educational benefits. T
2. Turn: This is unfair debater who are interested in the skeptical literature, other forms of debate exclude
skeptical considerations like policy and public forum, LD is the one forensics outlet for debate on these issues
and thus it ought to be preserved.
3. The impact is non unique, any claims by other paradigms also bite into the harms of skepticism. For instance
all appeals to desirability or preferability of a world or advocacy assume some standard of good that we appeal
to, which skepticism takes out.
A/T Excludes theory- Competing interps
1. This argument merely begs the question because it assumes that standard of absolute fairness is important, but
truth testing indicates that fairness is only instrumentally valuable in preserving the adversarial system. Thus
they are assuming an alternative paradigm to indicate the importance of their claim.
2. This is simply not true, debater can make arguments as to why under an adversarial system we need to
establish a set of norms because it unfair to except people to appeal every possible objection. For instance in
our adversarial court system we exclude evidence obtained without a warrant even if there is no actual
unfairness that occurs.
3. Just make reasonability good arguments
-INDEX-

A/T Excludes theory- drop the argument
1. My opponent is in a double bind, either a) dropping the argument is sufficient to check back all abuse and thus
it solves back for the reasons you drop the debater or b) dropping the debater is the only sufficient way to
solve back abuse in the adversarial system and thus we would need to drop the debater because the one
debater has prevented any access to the truth of the resolution.
2. You need to drop the debater because the time has already been skewed allowing us to just drop the debater
would fail to rectify the abuse as there is a huge time disadvantage to run theory. Thus dropping the argument
means the round is still skewed and the other debater is still undermining the adversarial system.
A/T: No risk issues
1. No risk issues can be checked back by theory under truth-testing. The theory argument must be impacted to a
fairness voter that establishes the importance of fairness in the adversarial system. An adversarial system
presupposes fairness since structural disadvantages prevent an accurate evaluation of truth.
2. This argument presupposes that only one side can run no-risk issues, but both sides can run them so there is no
structural disadvantage.
3. By constructing better strategies, debaters can avoid linking into no-risk issues or think of good responses
against them. Debaters can generate a few good responses to common no risk issues to counteract this
strategy. Thinking of creative strategies links to education because it enhances critical thinking.

A/T: Defense only
4. Truth-testing does not exclude offense, offensive arguments can still prove the resolution false. Offense is
more strategic for the negative because all defensive arguments do not negate. Some defense just denies the
truth of one argument in the AC, but not the entire truth of the resolution.
5. In the real world, defensive arguments such as solvency deficits and denying the truth of an impact are
sufficient to reject a policy. Real-world decision making is key to education because it is the basis for
applications of debate skills to the future.
6. This argument begs the question of why offense is preferable. They need to be winning a proactive reason
why comparative worlds is preferable to win this argument.

A/T: Presumption
1. This argument begs the question of why it is bad not to have offense but they need to be winning a proactive
reason for why we prefer proactive reasons.
2. Affirmatives can prevent the problem of presumption by crafting strategies that preclude negatives from
winning without having offense.

A/T Discourse, K, Impact Turn

1. Turn: Advocacies like discourse/generic impact turns/etc. dont function only on the one side of the resolution,
meaning that they deny switch-side debate. Empirically, switch-side debate is uniquely valuable to developing the
education necessary to develop coherent advocacies. Dybvig and Iverson write,

Not all debate research appears to generate personal advocacy and challenge peoples' assumptions. Debaters
must switch sides, so they must inevitably debate against various cases. While this may seem to be
inconsistent with advocacy, supporting and researching both sides of an argument actually created stronger
advocates. Not only did debaters learn both sides of an argument, so that they could defend their positions
-INDEX-
against attack, they also learned the nuances of each position. Learning and the intricate nature of various
policy proposals helps debaters to strengthen their own stance on issues.43
2. They can define terms in the resolution differently in order to gain access to their impacts. For example, rather than
just arguing that justice is violent, they can argue that definitionally and therefore get access to whatever such
arguments they want access to.
4. They have the ability to argue that arguments like discourse or impact turns function to prove the resolution true
or obscure the ability to determine the truth of the resolution. Either way, they can still have access to the ground
they want because it can impact directly to the truth or falsity of the resolution.
5. This begs the question of whether or not concerns external of the resolution are valuable anyways. My arguments
prove that arguments addressing the truth of the resolution are uniquely valuable, whereas their claims about the
value of arguments external to the truth of the resolution are simply circular.
6. Claiming the value of these arguments in round is infinitely regressive because they need to appeal to something
in order to have relevance to the ballot. However, there is no standard for such appeals, making the debate over
their relevance irresolvable. Thus, truth-testing is more coherent since it provides an external metric to which both
debaters can appeal.

A/T Exclude Metaethics

1. Turn: they exclude a lot more philosophical considerations than I do. For instance, claiming that we need a
comparison of (worlds/advocacies/etc.) excludes any skeptical arguments. These are more educational
because they are more unique in their character. There exist other parts of meta-ethics like cognitivism,
whereas they exclude the entire field of skepticism.
2. The ability to make prescriptive claims relies on the presupposition of truth claims. All claims about how
people ought to act prescriptively still are derived from descriptive statements about the world and moral
agency. Therefore, truth considerations logically precede metaethical concerns.
3. They are in a double-bind. Either a) their argument is incoherent because it fails to actually say that it is
true that we act out of respect for (fictionalism/emotivism/etc.) or b) it does say that it is true that we act in
this way in which case it would work under truth-testing.

43 Kristin Dybvig and Joel Iverson. Can Cutting Cards Carve into Our Personal Lives: An Analysis of Debate Research on Personal
Advocacy, http://debate.uvm.edu/dybvigiverson1000.html
-INDEX-
POLICYMAKING FRONTLINES

AT Multiple Policy Options Make Debates Worse, Lichtman writes

Rowland 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 analyzed in a single debate.
1
This 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. We also require sufficient
development of counterproposals for accurate policy comparison. In this context, the multiple policy option might
actually serve to raise the standards of argumentation in academic debate. Negative advocates would be well advised
to take the time necessary for presenting new policy systems only when their sustaining arguments are of high enough
quality to offer compelling alternatives to affirmative cases.

Allan Lichtman is Professor of History at American University, and Daniel Rohrer is Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Theatre at
Boston College. POLICY DISPUTE AND PARADIGM EVALUATION: A RESPONSE TO ROWLAND Allan J. Lichtman and Daniel M. Rohrer

AT Policy-making biased in favor of Aff, Lichtman writes,

Second, Rowland maintains that the policy-making model is biased for the affirmative because it is easier to identify advantages than disadvantages of
policy change.
2

Yet Rowland fails to show why this problem uniquely applies to our model of debate; whatever the prevailing
theory, someone must propose a policy change and someone else must seek to oppose it. Moreover, Rowland 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. Rowland further suggests that our
model is biased toward the affirmative because it downplays problems of implementation.
13
Yet we have pointed out that problems
of implementation (with the exception 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.14

Allan Lichtman is Professor of History at American University, and Daniel Rohrer is Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Theatre at

AT Policymaking in Debate Skews Vision of Real Policymaking
Allan Lichtman is Professor of History at American University, and Daniel Rohrer is Associate Professor of Speech Communication and
Theatre at Boston College. POLICY DISPUTE AND PARADIGM EVALUATION: A RESPONSE TO ROWLAND Allan J. Lichtman
and Daniel M. Rohrer
Third. Rowland argues that the policy systems model produces a skewed view of the policy environment that deifies quantification, ignores
soft variables, and submerges human values.
15
Here Rowland mows down an army of straw soldiers as he attacks an oversimplified view of policy-systems analysis. Although Pentagon planners and other officials have sought to devise a form of pseudo policy science that banishes
questions of value and counts only that which is countable, our own approach emphasizes that policy systems analysis places matters of value at the forefront of analysis, incorporates soft variables, and avoids the mechanical computation of exact numerical functions. As we
observed in a 1979 article devoted to the very issues raised in this objection, the policy-systems model actually paves the way for direct clashes over the ideology [a necessary component of any policy system] that implicitly or explicitly 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. Rowland lampoons value debate, noting the absurdity of arbitrarily assigning justice a numerical importance 7.3 with freedom slightly higher
at 8.4 Such a quantitative measure of value, he adds, reflects only the raters intuitive evaluation of the importance of the value.
8
Never do we advocate inflexible and arbitrary assignments of
weights to core values like freedom and justice. Instead 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. It is Row~ land, not us, who disparages the possibilities of debating human values. Rejecting Rowlands positivistic viewpoint that dismisses values dispute as inherently intuitive and thereby meaningless, we maintain that debate over ideology is especially
important for a society experiencing rapid technological change. By drawing on humanitys rich historical tradition and examining alternative views on the nature of man, advocates may well be able to suggest non-arbitrary weightings of even highly abstract values. To abdicate this
responsibility is to permit our technology to define our values for us.
19
Instead of ignoring soft variables that defy inclusion in a quantitative comparison of
costs and benefits, we explicitly incorporate them in the policy.making process. Policy comparison, we have noted, may not
always accommodate the smooth exchange of benefits and costs.2 Certain fundamental rights of human beings, for instance, may be given absolute priority over other in~ terests. Thus
policy debaters could legitimately contend that the examination of particular costs and benefits must take place within
boundaries that cannot be crossed irrespective of circumstance.
2
Policy analysis also takes into account the process by which decisions are reached, encompassing Rowlands concern for
questions of responsibility.
22
Considerations 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.23 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 required for warranting a choice among competing systems of policy:
-INDEX-
advocates cannot simply accumulate quotations and contentions without explicitly showing how they relate to the task
of policy comparison. We also warn against simplistic assumptions about the numerical exactitude 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 technique. Even practitioners of the natural sciences often work comfortably with ranges of probability and estimates of varianca
24
Rowland cites our stricture to be as precise as possible as though it were a sin;25 but without such an effort, the
only alternatives are ambiguity, imprecision, argument by anecdote and innuendo.

AT Encourages bad arguments

Allan Lichtman is Professor of History at American University, and Daniel Rohrer is Associate Professor of Speech Communication and
Theatre at Boston College. POLICY DISPUTE AND PARADIGM EVALUATION: A RESPONSE TO ROWLAND Allan J. Lichtman and
Daniel M. Rohrer

Fourth, and finally, Rowland claims that the policy systems paradigm produces bad argument by encouraging debaters to
present catastrophic impact arguments even when the chances of catastrophe occurring are minute, Debate, he observes, would do well to
copy other disciplines - . . and reject arguments which do not meet a minimum standard of proof, adopting perhaps the .05 significance level.
26
Yet low probability, high-impact arguments are not
necessarily bad arguments. Authorities in some fields such as epidemiology and nuclear power regulation realize
the critical importance of including in their analyses assessments of even small probabilities of catastrophic events. Their
work demonstrates the sophistication of the investigations required for establishing the likelihood of catastrophic occur-
rences. Rowland also misrepresents the process of probabilistic reasoning in a comparison of policies context, thereby conjuring false dangers to debate, The import of a catastrophic outcome argument
comes not from demonstrating at some level of probability that policy Y may produce catastrophic result X, but from
showing that the probability of catastrophe X occurring is greater under policy Y than under alternative policy Y (which
may, of course, be the present system). Even if it were true that one could readily show some small probability that catastrophic outcome X would result from adoption of policy Y, it decidedly does not follow that one could readily show that the probability of X given policy Y is
greater than the probability of X given alternative policy Y, i.e, that P (X/Y) > P (X/Y). An advocate could argue, for example, that deployment of the MX missile system
risks nuclear war by destabilizing the current balance in strategic weaponry. But a defender of the MX could respond
that failure to deploy the system risks nuclear war by giving the Soviets an opportunity to destroy Americas ground-
based deterrent. The resolution of this controversy (i.e., the determination of whether P (X/Y) > P (X/Y) or P (X/Y) < P (X/Y) or P (X/Y) = P (X/Y)
would involve highly complex 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. Competing paradigms that slight the comparison of policy systems offer no such protection.

-INDEX-
OFFENSE-DEFENSE FRONTLINES

AT WTF IS OFFENSE DEFENSE

1. Its simple, buddy. The aff must defend an advocacy, the neg must defend not doing that advocacy or doing a
competitive advocacy, and the judge chooses between those advocacies on the basis of reasons provided in the debate.
2. CX checks. If you have no idea what it is, I will answer any and every question you have as thoroughly as possible.
3. Out of round discussion checks. Approach me, ask me about offense-defense. There have been discussions online.
You know that people defend this paradigm, ask them about it.

AT Offense-Defense excludes skepticism
1. Also, any argument that the resolution is false is relevant under offense-defense if and only if the aff advocacy is
that some agent should believe the resolution. The neg just has to prove that the law of non-contradiction outweighs
the advantages of the false belief. This preserves argument inclusion while letting the aff open its own Pandoras Box
of skepticism, which maintains fairness. Topicality checks neg ground loss because they can say the most predictable
reading of the resolution would have the aff defend a belief, not an action.
2. You need to be justifying why excluding skepticism is uniquely bad. Your paradigm excludes topical counterplans,
theory, and other relevant, educational arguments. If you are right that I exclude skepticism, which you are not, WHY
IS SKEPTICISM UNIQUELY NECESSARY?

AT Negs dont win that much, so no need for offense-defense

1. Neg win rate is high now. Chand Henson and Paul Dorasil write,

In order to examine negative side advantage, we segment debaters across skill levels and across time. In order to segment debaters across time, we provide the negative win percentages for
each of the past six years at the TOC. In order to segment debaters by quality, we aggregate the six years and provide the percentages of losses incurred by affirmative debaters
among all debaters who won at least one round and lost at least one round. Finally, to indicate the influence negative side advantage has on break rounds at the TOC, we identified down-2
Round 7 losses as Mustwin, and found the percentage of dropped break rounds debated on the Affirmative. These tables provide the results.
As Table 1 indicates, negative debaters won the majority of rounds in each of the past six years. In addition, there is a
statistically significant (p < .1) increase in this likelihood between each of the first three years of the sample and
each of the last three years, indicating that this advantage became more extreme between 2006 and 2007.
As Table 2 indicates, debaters who won six rounds over the past six years were most likely to have lost that round on
the affirmative over 80% of the time. Debaters with five wins incurred 65% of losses while on the
affirmative, and debaters with four wins incurred almost 60% of losses on the affirmative. Initially, we suspected that the
difference between a 4-3 (non-breaking) debater and a 5-2 (breaking) debater was the side assignment in round 7. Fortunately, it turns out that overall, there is only a 1% difference in the
number of negative rounds debated by 5-2 competitors and 4-3 competitors. Among down-2 debaters in Round 7, where the winner would clear to elimination rounds and the loser would
not, 58% of losses were incurred by affirmative debaters.
In summary, negative debaters win 56% of rounds. The advantage enjoyed by the negative is pervasive, getting worse,
disproportionately disadvantaging the most successful debaters, and likely affecting the results of break
rounds. We say this with one major caveat: this study reports descriptive statistics, and does not say that there is a statistically significant advantage to debating on the negative after (or
before) controlling for other variables. What do you believe is responsible for this, and what (if anything) should be done about it?44

44 Chad Henson and Paul Dorasil, Side Bias: An Overview, Debate by the Numbers, January 2010,
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2010/01/26/side-bias-an-overview/
-INDEX-
POLICYMAKING BAD

Policy-making is a defunct paradigm, Rowland writes,
First, Lichtman and Rohrer misunderstand my objections to the policy making paradigm. For example, they all but ignore my explanation of how the pre. suppositions of the
policy making perspective inevitably lead policy makers to downplay or even ignore non-quantifiable issues.~ Even more seriously,
they misrepresent several of my arguments. For example, Lichtman and Rohrer claim that by objecting to big impact disadvantages I 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 because policy
making lacks minimum standards for evaluating arguments, both affirmative and negative debaters are encouraged to
present 6ythgfnbenormous impact arguments in situations where they do not apply.
7
On a related issue, Lichtman and Rohrer accuse me of inconsistently objecting to the emphasis in
policy making on quan. tification, while at the same time suggesting use of the .05 significance standard as a numerically precise measure of the minimum proof level which all arguments should meet before being considered,
8
Lichtman and Rohrer then express surprise that I would defend such an obviously inconsistent position. Actually, I never
defended the position which they describe. Instead, I referred to the .05 significance test and minimum proof standards used in science and the humanities in order to dispute the position of policy makers that all arguments should be evaluated probabilistically regardless of the supporting evidence. It is very clear in the context of the essay that I would
never advocate the use of a numerically precise minimum burden of proof standard. It is also hardly fair of Lichtman and Rohrer to claim that I dismiss values dispute as inherently intuitive and thereby meaningless. My point is that the attempt by policy makers to
quantify the importance of all problems often fails and may lead to a misstatement of the importance of a problem. Lichtman
and Rohrer ignore or misrepresent many of the substantive objections to the policy making model.45

Policy-making completely ignores issues of implementation, Rowland writes,

A second problem with the defense of policy making by Lichtman and Rohrer is that rather than defeating objections to the model, they tend to simply define those objections as irrelevant. For example, they claim that the real world
experience with cost benefit analysis, PPBS, and other forms of policy making is not relevant to an evaluation of the policy making debate
paradigm.1 This position is most unsatisfactory. It is not at all clear why the experience with real world forms of
policy making, which are built on the same assumptions as the policy making debate paradigm, is not relevant to
analysis of that debate paradigm. It is very easy for Lichtman and Rohrer to characterize real world policy analysis as
an oversimplification.
12
However, since they do not identify the fundamental philosophical differences between this
oversimplification analysis and their own system, there is every reason to believe that the problems which plague
real world policy making might also plague the policy making debate model. Real world policy makers do not
purposely ignore questions of value or problems of implementation. Those policy scientists do their best to take into
account all of the relevant issues, but the assumptions of their paradigm lead them into error. The same could well be
true of the policy making debate paradigm. l.46

Policy-making is hella vague, Rowland writes,

The final objection to Lichtmans and Rohrers position is that policy making paradigm, which they defend, has become so vague as to be all things to all people. Lichtman and
Rohrer now allowthe negative to defend multiple policy positions as long as those positions are adequately defined and consistent.3 However, they do not explain why the negative may not defend inconsistent policies as long as
those positions are independent policy systems. The op. ponents of the AWACS sale argued both that Saudi Arabia is so strong that the planes are not neededandsoweakthat the planes woulddonogood. The requirement that the policy positions be
adequately defined is also essentially meaningless. Few judges will vote for positions which they believe are in-
adequately defined. The policy making paradigm is becoming increasingly vague in other areas as well. Lichtman and
Rohrer now argue that the policy maker should not require debaters to quantify all harms, and should in some
instances give special attention to qualitative or value related hanns.14 In addition, they add ambiguity to the model by admitting that Certain fundamental rights of human beings, for instance, may be sub-set of argumentation which serves as a model for all of argument.l8 As I understand his position, Zarefskybelieves that debate is afieldof 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. Zarefsky 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. In addition, Zarefsky argues that since debate serves as a model for argument,
theoretical questions should take precedence over practical matters in the evaluation of paradigms. l.47

45 THE PRIMACY OF
STANDARDS FOR PARADIGM EVALUATION: A REJOINDER Robert C. Rowland
46 THE PRIMACY OF
47 THE PRIMACY OF
-INDEX-
HYPOTESTING BAD

Hypotesting is a terrible way of evaluating debates, Lichtman48 et al writes,

Zarefskys approach,
4
founded on a rough analogy to scientific discourse, ignores the distinction between factual propositions that turn on
assessments of probability and policy resolutions that necessarily fuse fact and value. This fundamental error generates a host of difficulties many
of which are discussed e1sewhere.~ To list but a few examples, the model imposes an arbitrary presumption against the resolution irrespective of the risks of change entailed in negative counterplans. It attempts to focus
debate on the essence of a resolution rather than particular proposals without clarifying how to define this
elusive concept. The hypothesis testing model ignores the inherently comparative process of policy analysis,
thereby encouraging meaningless justification arguments and fostering the illusion that straight refutation
alone is a viable negative option,
Indeed, the hypothesis testing model reverses the proper assignment of the null hypothesis and the research
hypothesis. For Zarefsky, the null hypothesisthat which is protected by a presumption in scientific procedureis a composite hypothesis comprising every
alternative to the debate resolution; whereas, the research hypothesis is the resolution itself. In scientific
practice, however, the null hypothesis cannot be a composite hypothesis. It must be specified exactly in order to
form a probability distribution around the expected results of that hypothesis to reveal the likelihood of
obtaining various sample results, assuming the null hypothesis is true. Thus, one could plausibly argue for reversing affirmative and negative burdens that Zarefsky
assigns by analogy to hypothesis testing.

48 Allan Lichtman is Professor of History at American University, and Daniel Rohrer is Associate Professor of Speech Communication and Theatre at
-INDEX-
***CHAPTER 10: MISCELLANEOUS***
CITING WITHOUT PERMISSION BAD
A. Interpretation
Debaters must present proof of an authors permission to cite a working paper when the author explicitly requests
permission.

B. Violation
You dont have proof of permission.

C. Standards

1. Competitive equity - Not asking permission disadvantages those who wish to respect the authors wishes and
not cite the article without asking position. These debaters are disadvantaged because it is possible that the
author would say no, so honest debaters would not have access to that evidence, while people who went
against the authors request would have access to that card. And even if the author might have given you
permission this is a) not verifiable and b) irrelevant because its not what you do, its what you justify. This
destroys competitive equity because it means that certain debaters have unequal access to arguments. And
competitive equity is key to fairness because it ensures both debaters have a structurally fair chance of
winning.
2. Evidence ethics Allowing the aff/neg to cite authors without permission it means that debaters can ignore the
evidence ethics that are pervasive throughout the scholarly community. People ask for their papers not to be
cited for a reason, who are you to ignore this request? And, ignoring authors request is essentially saying that
what they actually say is irrelevant would justify taking the word not out of evidence. Even if you arent
doing this, thats irrelevant because its not what you do, its what you justify. Moreover, the reason that
authors request that their papers not be cited is because the paper is still in the working process. This means
the author is not sure about their conclusions. Furthermore, the data-set for the arguments could be updated
later in the revision process that would change the conclusions of the author. This violates the academic
integrity because they are not following the authors instruction about how to use the article in a scholarly
manner. Misrepresentation of authors harms the educational process because it rewards students for butchering
academic articles and avoiding research.

-INDEX-
AT: CITING WITHOUT PERMISSION BAD

It is unbelievably selfish for authors to say that their papers shouldnt be cited without
permission, Brian Weatherson, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University writes,

I think the main thing to say about these situations is that writers shouldnt put such requests on their papers. When you circulate a paper, either informally or by publishing it somewhere, two kinds of good
things can happen. First, good things can happen to you, either by people offering you suggestions for how to improve the paper, or
increasing their opinion of you because it is such a good paper. Second, good things can happen to the profession,
because your paper helps advance the field in certain ways. Given the dynamic nature of research work, that advance consists largely in improvements that we see in other papers that cite the work.
Now if you circulate a paper but bar citation of it, youre basically getting the good consequences for you, without
allowing there to be good consequences for the field. (Or, at the very least, you are getting the good consequences now while delaying the good consequences for the field.) This seems, to put
it mildly, unjustifiably selfish, and its very hard to see a moral justification for it. Its also hard to see what exactly the costs of being cited are. It would be
annoying to have a journal publish an article critiquing yours before yours came out. But unless you are rather
famous, and the paper has already become quite well known, journals arent going to publish such articles.
A better reason perhaps might be that if mistakes in the paper are spotted, you want the chance to fix the paper before it goes into print. But
other people citing the paper doesnt prevent that. There isnt any obligation on you to publish the first version of a
paper you post to a website. So if you say p, and someone else writes something that shows you are wrong, but you can say p instead which does just as well in the context of the paper, you of course can say just that. It might be a little odd for
the citer if your published paper doesnt make the mistake that they cited it for, but thats just a risk people take when citing papers off peoples websites.

http://tar.weatherson.org/2007/06/06/citation-practices/ Citation Practices, Brian Weatherson [Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers
University.] June 26th, 2007

-INDEX-
MISCUT EVIDENCE BAD
A. Interpretation
Debaters must cut evidence that agrees with the author's original intent.

B. Violation
They miscut their evidence by

C. Standards
1. Academic Integrity. They are destroying the academic worthiness of debate by not respecting the author's
intent. We have an obligation to maintain the highest standards of scholastic excellence, as Snider writes:
Ethics in Academic Debate: A Gaming Perspective. The National Forensic Journal, II (Fall 1984), pp. 119-134.
In other words, all matters coming under the aegis of these criteria may not be ethical matters, but that will
have to be discussed within each debate. For example, a debater who misrepresents an opponent's
position is perhaps guilty of an ethical offense, but perhaps not so if that debater merely
"misunderstood" a confusing argument offered by an opponent. The only prescriptive standard of
ethics in the game of debate should be honesty. Academic debate should not be a forum for lying. This does
not mean that when the topic is "Resolved: that U.S. military spending should be increased," that only those believing this before the debate can be
affirmative debaters. Certainly, persons in this position who are negative debaters would present the best case they could against their personal
belief. Rather, it means that Those involved should not knowingly deceive others involved. For example,
falsehoods (either falsified facts or falsified testimony) should not be entered into the debate: debaters
should not knowingly lie about what their colleagues or what they themselves have said during the
round, and those keeping time should strive to be accurate and avoid giving additional time to a speaker
they favor.
Violating this standard fuctions as an automatic reason to drop my opponent for three reasons:
A) They are using the author's work in a way that he/she did not intend. This disrespects the massive amount
of time and effort represented in the scholar's article. This is academically reprehensible and goes beyond in-
round implications. Vote him down now to punish this behavior.
B) Debate is an inherently academic activity, part of the reason that schools and parents value it so much is
that it teaches good research and writing skills. By miscutting evidence, they violate both these attributes. An
example is given by the Discussion of Plagiarism Page at Hope College in Michigan:
Official Hope College Policy on Plagiarism, Hope College Michigan. http://www.hope.edu/lib/plagiarism/policy.html
Plagiarism is the dishonest presentation of the work of others as if it were one's own. Writers, speakers, musicians, artists,
or computer programmers-whether students or professionals-commit plagiarism when they present, without proper acknowledgement, all or part of
another person's work as if it were their own. Because plagiarism violates the expectations of trust and honesty
necessary for academic work in an ethical community, it is a serious offense. In addition, plagiarism
undercuts the basic purposes of higher education by short-circuiting the processes of inquiry, reflection,
and communication that lead to learning.
Their class in school would give them an F for plagiarizing or being disingenuous to the author's intent, give
them the debate equivalent by dropping him.
C) Giving him the loss will deter future abuse, so if you don't buy the reasons to drop him now as a violation
of academic integrity, but wish to see this behavior checked in the future, still don't vote for him. You should
defend debate as an activity that promotes academic integrity and a vote for them would be a vote for liars and
cheaters trying to ruin our educational activity.
And, the three above reasons all link to education, as in order to truly access any educational benefits of the
activity you should not allow him to commit grievous actions against academic integrity.

2. Predictability: it is impossible for me to predict this argument because a) I cant expect that he will fabricate
evidence and b) I cant predict in what ways he will misrepresent the evidence. And, it's unpredictable insofar
as I have no answers to a card that I wouldn't be able to find if I searched on my own. Predictability is key to
-INDEX-
fairness since researching functions as a check against obscure positions; it also links to education in that if
both debaters have a firm understanding of the literature, a more substantive debate will take place.

-INDEX-
FULL CITES NECSSARY

A. Interpretation
Evidence must have full citations

B. Violation
________ evidence doesnt have full citations

C. Standards
1. Ground for Evidence Comparison- Without dates I cant compare which evidence is more recent to determine
which is more relevant. Without qualifications I cant challenge the legitimacy of their author or explain why
my author is better than their author. I cant explain why they have more experience or their field of research
is preferable to this specific topic. Being able to compare evidence is key to fairness because otherwise I
would be unable to leverage my evidence against theirs and we would reach a stalemate.
2. Verifiability - Without citations I am unable to verify whether or not they miscut their evidence. If they just
provided citations I would be able to read the article and determine the original meaning of the article.
Misrepresentation of evidence harms the educational process because it rewards students for butchering

-INDEX-
ELLIPSES BAD

A. Interpretation
Debaters must provide the full text of their cards.

B. Violation
Their evidence has ellipses.

C. Standards

1. Evidence ethics. Ellipses are a violation of evidence ethics because it allows the aff/neg to manipulate what
their evidence says with no form of recourse. Even if their just deleted text that had no bearing on the
conclusion of their argument, thats irrelevant because its not what you do, its what you justify.
Misrepresentation of evidence harms the educational process because it rewards students for butchering
2. Reciprocal Ground. My ability to make offensive arguments against the evidence is limited because some of
the context of the evidence is left out, so the assumptions, qualifications, and conditions added to the
conclusion are no longer there. Ground is key to fairness because it provides both debaters access to
reciprocal, quality arguments, making sure both side has a chance to win. Further all of my evidence has the
entire text of the cards, which allows them to see the full context in which the authors make their conclusions.
Reciprocity is key to fairness because it guarantees maintenance of competitive equity.

-INDEX-
SWITCH-SIDES DEBATE GOOD
(__) Switch-side debate and role-playing are most democratic and educational, Spragens49 in 2000,

I have argued here that a well-ordered democratic society compromises three layers or modes of association among its citizenry. The first is the political marketplace of free exchange and contractual agreements among individuals on the
basis of mutual interest. The second is the juridical mode of association in which the democratic citizenry seeks to establish norms of social justice and to allocate the benefits and burdens of their common life in accord with them. And
the last mode of association is that of civic friendship, in which the democratic citizenry seeks to know and to attain together a humanly good life of its members. Each of those modes of association, I have argued, deploys a distinctive
mode of rationality: instrumental, deontological, and practical respectively. And in the case of the last two of these, the logic of moral discourse functions to compel a focus on
transsubjective principles and norms of behavior, thereby simultaneously compelling the various participants in the
public dialogue to transcend their idiosyncratic interests, identities, and viewpoints. Absent this feat of partial and
imperfect transcendence of unadorned and unmediated partisanship, I have suggested, a democratic society will succumb to the
logic of mutual predation limned for us so memorably by Thomas Hobbes. This argument carries with it, it seems to me, implications for both democratic
practice and for the vocation of political theory. A democratic society, it suggests, needs to nurture what John Rawls has called the moral powers and their attendant passions: the devotion to
justice and the desire to pursue a humanly good life. It should nurture as well the intellectual virtues that are necessary to render these passions effectual: the powers of the sympathetic
imagination and the capacity to consider and assess public policy in a dialogic and rationally disciplined fashion. And
it should bolster where and however possible those practices and institutions that foster the most broad based public
dialogue possible and that force political partisans to perform those feats of partial transcendence which are required
of all those who would participate in this form of discourse.

(__) Switch-side policy debate empirically expands critical thinking skills empirically causes students to reshape
their opinions on important issues. Keller writes.
Keller, et. al, 01 Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago
(Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in
policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost)
Educational Effectiveness of Debates
Since its origins in classical times, academic debate has been recognized as one of the best methods of learning and applying the
attributes of critical thinking (Freeley, 1996). Recent empirical studies of students participating in competitive interschool
forensics societies illustrate the link between debating and proficiency in critical thinking. Colbert (1987) found that
students involved in intercollegiate debating for one year showed a larger pretest to posttest gain on a critical thinking
test than a nondebating control group. Likewise, Shinn (1995) discovered that, after statistically controlling for intelligence, high school students who engaged in two
years of competitive debating exhibited higher levels of critical thinking than a comparison group of nondebaters.
Debates have been recommended as a strategy to engage students in active learning in the classroom (Bean, 1996; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Schroeder & Ebert, 1983). The use of in-class debates has been reported in subjects as diverse as
sociology and dentistry (Huryn, 1986; Scannapieco, 1997). Nevertheless, a search of the literature revealed no reference to student debates within social work education, despite evidence that debates have been assigned in some social
work courses (Zlotnik, Rome,& DePanfilis, 1998). Furthermore, the authors discovered only two studies, both by Combs and Bourne (1989,1994), which provide empirical evidence of the value of debates in a classroom context. In their
initial report, Combs and Bourne (1989) presented findings on the use of debates in two upper level business courses with a combined enrollment of 59 students. Nearly 80% of the students (n=47)
believed the debates provided them with a better understanding of both sides of the issues than a standard lecture
format would have. Likewise, 66% (n=39) felt they had learned more than if the course material had been presented in a lecture. Another important finding was that students' confidence in their public speaking skills
increased following the debates. In general, there was satisfaction with the debates. At the beginning of the course only 57% of the students (n=35) looked forward to the upcoming debates, but by the end of the course 85% (n=50) stated
that they enjoyed the debates, and 71% (n=42) wished debates were used in other courses. Combs and Bourne (1994) extended their initial study to cover a five-year period with a combined sample of over 500 students. The results were
even stronger in favor of using debates, perhaps reflecting improvement in the instructors' application of the debate format over time. Incorporating Debates into a Policy Course

(__) Role-playing debates promote prepare us for real world activism by giving us a better understanding of how
policy works, making us affective agents to achieve change This allows us as individuals to become actors who
could indeed transform international politics
Joyner 99 - Professor international Law at the University of Georgetown
[Christopher, Teaching International Law: Views from an international relations political scientist]
The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to
refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way,
they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of their team,
they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and
international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the
debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda
and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thus becomes an

49 Thomas A. Spragens, Professor of Polisci at Duke, 2000 Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 90
-INDEX-
excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis,
political critique, and legal defense.

[ ] Only through switch side debate can people realize mistaken ethical values.
Muir 93 - Department of Communications at George Mason University
[Star A, A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4, pg. 282-285]
The role of switch-side debate is especially important in the oral defense of arguments that foster tolerance without accruing the moral complications of
acting on such beliefs. The forum is therefore unique in providing debaters with attitudes of tolerance without committing them to active moral irresponsibility. As Freeley notes, debaters are
indeed exposed to a multivalued world, both within and between the sides of a given topic. Yet this exposure hardly commits
them to such mistaken values. In this view, the divorce of the game from the real world can be seen as a means of gaining
perspective without obligating students to validate their hypothetical structure through immoral actions.

(__) AND Debate fosters tolerance for opposing opinions it fosters development of ones opinion with the influence
of others, Muir in 93


Values clarification, Stewart is correct in pointing out, does not mean that no values are developed. Two very important valuestolerance and fairnessinhere to a significant
degree in the ethics of switch-side debate. A second point about the charge of relativism is that tolerance is related to the development of reasoned moral viewpoints. The willingness to
recognize the existence of other views, and to grant alternative positions a degree of credibility, is a value fostered by
switch-side debate: Alternately debating both sides of the same question ... inculcates a deep-seated attitude of tolerance toward differing points of view. To be forced to debate only one side leads to an ego-identification with that side.... The other side in
contrast is seen only as something to be discredited. Arguing as persuasively as one cane for completely opposing views is one way of giving
recognition to the idea that a strong case can generally be made for the views of earnest and intelligent men, however such views may clash with ones
own . . .. Promoting this kind of tolerance is perhaps one of the greatest benefits debating both sides has to offer. The activity should encourage debating both sides of a topic, reasons Thompson, because debaters are "more likely to realize that propositions are bilateral. It is those who
fail to recognize this fact who: become intolerant, dogmatic, and bigoted. "While Theodore Roosevelt can hardly be said to be advocating bigotry, his efforts to turn out advocates convinced of their rightness is not a position imbued with tolerance. At a societal
level, the value of tolerance is more conducjye to a fair and open assessment of competing ideas. John Stuart Mill eloquently states the case this
way: Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. ... the peculiar evil of silencing the
expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race .... If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by its
collision with error. At an individual level, tolerance is related to moral identity via empathic and critical assessments of differing
perspectives. Paul posits a strong relationship between tolerance, empathy, and critical thought. Discussing the function of argument in everyday life, he observes that in order to overcome natural tendencies to reason egocentrically and sociocentrically, individuals
must gain the capacity to engage in self-reflective Questioning, to reason dialogically and dialectically, and to "reconstruct alien and opposing belief systems empathically. "Our system of beliefs is, by definition, irrational when we are incapable of abandoning a belief for rational
reasons; that is, when we egocentrically associate our beliefs with our own integrity. Paul describes an intimate relationship between private inferential habits, moral practices, and the nature of argumentation. Critical thought and moral identity, he urges, must be predicated on
discovering the insights of opposing views and the weakness of our own beliefs. Role playing, he reasons, is a central element of any effort to gain such insight.]

Debate is key to critiquing our assumptions this turns their framework
The values of tolerance and fairness, implicit in the metaphor of debate as a game, are idealistic by nature. They have
a much greater chance of success, however, in an activity that requires students to examine and understand both sides of an issue.
In his description of debating societies, Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion, and summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the rule
stands, you are saddled with the side you disapprove, and so you are forced, by regard for your own fame, to argue out, to feel with, to elaborate completely, the case as it
stands against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn up in this idle digging of the vineyard! How many
new difficulties take form before your eyes! How many superannuated arguments cripple finally into limbo, under the glance of your enforced eclecticism! . . . It is as a means of
melting down this museum of premature petrifactions into living and impressionable soul that we insist on their
utility.")

-INDEX-
NARRATIVES BAD

(__) The resolution is statement of truth, to be validated or rejected on the debaters arguments. One persons view of
the world prevents the judge from determining if the resolution is a true statement or not. This prevents the adversarial
system of debate from being able to function as each side will have unequal access to the truth of the resolution,
meaning that one side will always garner a more truth-apt advocacy. Thus, the narrative cant be a voting issue. This
impact turns any education advantage they claim for the narrative, as engendering a mentality of false logic causes
active harm, while the decrease in information that the narrative transmits, is a passive harm and correctable by
outside learning.

(__) Narratives parametricize the resolution because they only prove 1 instance of the resolutions truth. This skews
my strategy because they narrowed the resolution down to the scenario that tells their story. Rejecting narrative
argumentation is best because it allows for real argument comparison while they render the resolution irresolvable
because it would make the resolution true and false at the same time. Resolvability is necessary for any interpretation
because every round must have a winner. Also, one instance is not sufficient to generalize, but rather qualifies the
topic because a specific scenario can differ and include arbitrary variables that render it distinct from the normative
statement. This skews the round both quantitatively and qualitatively against me.
(__) Narratives are inconsistent with the original purpose of debate to teach debaters how to make decisions in a real-
world context because they provide no means by which to compare the policy and philosophical advocacies that I
establish in the round in favor of blinding pushing forward social issues. Real world applicability is key to education
because it provides actual meaningful application of the skills we learn to the process of deciding policies in actual
life, thereby ensuring that we have the greatest applicability to our educational benefits.
(__) The narrative changes the role of the judge by telling the judge to become an adjudicator of the discourse which
they are presenting, which implicates the judge as an actor of their advocacy. This is a clear use of private actor fiat
which is uniquely unfair for Im fairly bound to arguments that use the government as the actor whereas this justifies
my opponent picking the maximally advisable actor. This is unfair because my opponent gets access to a much wider
variety of arguments than the affirmative as well as a better repertoire of arguments in that they have literally an
infinite amount of solvency advocates. Quantity of arguments is necessary to have structural ability to debate and
quality of arguments is necessary to defend the substance of your position.
(__) My opponent has put himself in a double-bind with relation to discursive impacting. Either A. We reject the
narrative based on its using discursive impacts which are uniquely harmful to debate because 1. It creates new
burdens in the round. Voting me down on anything other than my resolutional is unfair because I had no ability to
prepare for those scenarios, so you arbitrarily favor the other debater &. 2, It destroys meaningful weighing analysis
because discursive impacts will always come before any substantive evaluation of the round. OR B We accept the
narrative but my opponent needs to bite the bullet and accept that narratives harm discourse for two reasons.
1.Storytelling kills public discourse. Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Professors of Law, 1997, Beyond All Reason, 11
Second, radical multiculturalism [narration] lends to disturbing distortions in scholarship and public discourse. Because they reject
objectivity as a norm, [they] the radicals are content to rely on personal stories as a basis for formulating views of social problems.
These stories are often atypical or distorted by self-interest, yet any criticism of the stories is inevitably seen as a personal
attack on the storyteller. More generally, because radical multiculturalists [they] refuse to separate the speaker from the message, they can
become sidetracked from discussing the merits of the message itself into bitter disputes about the speakers
authenticity and her right to speak on behalf of an oppressed group. Criticisms of radical multiculturalism are seen as pandering to
the power structure if they come from women or minorities, or as sexist and racist if they come from white men. This makes
dialogue difficult at best.
2. They trivialize their discourse by claiming that somehow a debate round is going to lead to ______ form of
discourse. This numbs us to the possibility of real _____ (whatever their discourse is). And, by using it to win the
round, its dehumanizing because they see discourse as a means to the end of winning more than anything else.
-INDEX-

-INDEX-
NEGATIVELY WORDED INTERPRETATIONS BAD
A. Interpretation
Theory Shell interpretations must be positively worded.

B. Violation
His interpretation is negatively worded, specifically using the word not.

C. Standards
1. Competitive Ground. By my opponent simply forbidding a particular action, then there is no clearly defined ground
upon which I can criticize their interpretation, because there interpretation fails to explain what debate looks like
under their interpretation. This puts my opponent in a double bind, either a) they allow for any argument external to
what they forbid allowing for near infinite abuse or b) they dont allow for anything else in which case I have no idea
what their interpretation allows and thus cant generate offense. Competitive ground is necessary for fairness because
my arguments have to be competitive with my opponent in order to generate unique offense to my position that is
necessary for me to have a chance to win the round.

-INDEX-
ARBITRARY COUNTER-INTERP PLANKS BAD
A. Interpretation
Counter-Interpretations must be a non-arbitrary interpretation without planks.

B. Violation
Their counter-interpretation is specific to the action they are taking instead of defending that action in general

C. Standards
1. Reciprocal Burdens: The burden of proof for justifying a particular action or advocacy is on the person running that
advocacy. Debaters should defend their visions of debate, which creates incentives to ensure that their arguments are
the most fair or educational because it must be consistent with the vision. Reciprocal burdens implies that the negative
cannot defend only their advocacy, but instead must justify their vision of debate. Also, any planks on the plan are
necessarily arbitrary because they still violate my interpretation and just use the planks to tie to leverage offense
against the interpretation. Arbitrary planks destroy reciprocal burdens because one debater is able to create a burden
that is much easier for them to prove reasonable while being structurally unequal to the burden for theory I set up in
the shell with my interpretation. Reciprocal burdens

-INDEX-
NON-SHELL THEORY BAD

A. Interpretation
All theory arguments that implicate the ballot in terms of fairness and education require full shells comprised of four
subpoints.

B. Violation
My opponent makes arguments that appeal to impacts of fairness and education but does not provide an interpretation,
violation, standard, and impact in that order.

C. Standards
1. Moving target: Without the full shell, we dont know exactly how my opponent is going to use their theory
argument to exclude my position. We dont know what rule is being established for debate and they can
change their rule in the 1AR and 2AR to be broader or narrower depending on the application to the debate
round. Moving targets are unfair because they force a time suck on both theory and substance. I was forced
to run this position to answer back all of his theory preempts in an adequate way so I wouldnt lose.
2. Theory argument quality Without a full shell, debaters can conceal defects by combining distinct
components and arguments together. While some say I should have to pick those out, theory debate is
debater when debaters are not allowed to run those defective arguments in the first place. He might say
that his argument has no defect but thats not the issue. My argument is about the structure of theory
arguments and the incentives created by that structure.

Theory Masterfile-VBI

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 Masterfile-VBI

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

VBI THEORY WEEK FIVE

DIEHL/NEBEL MASTER FILE 2010

Potrebbero piacerti anche