TRENDS IN LD DEBATE UIL Capital Conference July 7, :00-4:00

Transcription

1 1 of Dec-09 7:51 PM TRENDS IN LD DEBATE UIL Capital Conference July 7, :00-4:00 Tim Cook Salado High School Extemp Topic Analysis Texas Speech and Debate Camp UIL State LD Advisory Committee Over the past few years, the nature of Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate has rapidly evolved. At tournaments, more judges are giving oral criticisms, postmodern argumentation is being utilized more frequently, new jargon is appearing in common LD vocabulary, debaters are speaking more rapidly, more topics introduce questions of policy, pre-standard issues are proliferating, more debaters are kritiking the topic and some are experimenting with performativity. Many judges, teachers and coaches notice that several concepts and practices from cross-examination (CX) debate have appeared in LD debate rounds. Whether these changes are for the better or for the worse does not change the fact that this change is occurring. Michael J. Ritter, A Theory of Theory in Lincoln Douglas Debate (Understanding the Basic Components of Theory Debate), Rostrum Disclaimer Not endorsing, only presenting concept My challenge to you Be open to new concepts Pellicciotta quote Each concept could be an hour session They do overlap Research method (Rostrum, discussions and observation) What do you do? Paradigms and ballots 1. Technical LD debaters are speaking faster and more concerned with the line-by-line portion of the debate. The LD community is moving towards this trend because of the vocabulary we are teaching the debaters: word economy, spread, block, brief and lay judge.

2 2 of Dec-09 7:51 PM A. Speed will always be subjective. Clearly, there is a difference between increased pace and rapid-fire delivery. The question is what is too fast? Paul Moffitt discusses in his Rostrum article, The Questions Dividing Us: I know I am not the only one to notice how the pace of LD rounds, especially those at the higher levels of state and national tournaments, seems to have gotten faster. Let s face it: 38 minutes just isn t what it used to be. The effects of increasing rates of delivery on the world of debate has been a contentious topic in many a Rostrum article over the years. Cyndy Woodhouse is very critical of the fast pace in her Rostrum article Delivery and Communication in LD: Since the beginning of LD, debaters have gradually picked up speed, presumably in an attempt to cover more issues in the debate. While some judges and audiences can keep up with fast speaking, speed is normally unnecessary and excludes the many audiences who cannot follow it. Fast speeches exhaust the judges who can follow them and confuse the judges who cannot. The latter type of judge is often criticized as being lay or incapable. Instead of trying to speak more quickly to cram in as much information as possible, debaters should begin to adopt a more conversational speed to match articulation and emphasis. Speed is unnecessary when debaters pick and choose the most important arguments, weaving the evidence and details together to into a cohesive story with which they can beat or outweigh the arguments made by their opponents. It is not necessary to refute every sentence of every quoted author in order to attack a case successfully. Debaters need to slow down, think about the arguments they are making, and choose strategy over speed. Why has the pace increased? More argumentation in LD, longer cards, etc. The audience. They want it and reward it. Cheap strategy to win! B. Line by line is point by point refutation of an argument, usually with multiple arguments; often distinguished from a big picture approach. AC NC AR C utility 1..No real weighing mechanism: 1. How do I weigh freedom versus life or any other complex 2. effect of an action in this framework? 2. Greatest Good can t be defined. 1. People have varying definitions for what is good. 2. There is no way to objectively quantify what is good. 3. There is no threshold for a utilitarian approach: 1. The utilitarian framework never gives us an objective way 2.

3 3 of Dec-09 7:51 PM to determine when the ends are desirable and when the means justify the ends. 2. Theory Theory is a broad term the debate community uses for checking abuse. Theory arguments are seen in LD debate rounds, when some type of style, position or advocacy is abusive. The last few years have seen an influx of theoretical issues. Michael J. Ritter wrote in A Theory of Theory in Lincoln Douglas Debate: Theory debates help students shape their opinions of how debate should function, which furthers efforts to maintain those valued qualities of the activity. Ritter continues: These debates usually involve competing interpretations of how LD debate should function and arise out of a disapproval of a practice of or a type of argument made by other debaters. If the affirmative speaker speeds through her affirmative constructive, and the negative speaker feels that this is an unfair practice, she will probably make an argument about it in the debate. In this instance, the negative speaker would argue (implicitly or explicitly) for her interpretation of how LD debate should be, which would exclude speaking too quickly. The affirmative speaker would want to respond to this by providing a different interpretation of what should be allowed in LD debate that would include speaking at rapid rates. In addition to an interpretation, the initiator of the theory debate should point out what the other debater did that would not correspond or fit within the parameters of that interpretation. In the previous example, the negative would want to point out that the affirmative spoke at a rate which many people, including the negative, could not understand. Two things you should know about theory argumentation: 1. Most theory arguments stem from some type of in-round implication (fairness or education). These types of implications explain why in-round abuse is enough for your judge to vote of theory. 2. All theory arguments must be structured. A proper theory argument, should first explain where the violation of theory actually takes place. Then it should explain why this violation or abuse is enough for the judge to pull the trigger. Essential components of a theory argument include: (1) An interpretation of how debate should function; (2) A reason the practice of another debater is not included under this interpretation; (3) Reasons why the interpretation is good for debate; (4) What common value or values the interpretation promotes; and (5) An actual impact, or how the judge should weigh the argument. Here are just a few types of theory arguments that can be seen.

4 4 of Dec-09 7:51 PM A. Topicality- is a type of theory that checks definitions or resolution interpretation Basic Topicality Shell (A) Interpretation - what is supposed to happen / not happen (with T, this would usually be a definition of a word in the resolution) (B) Violation - how your opponent fails to meet this interpretation (usually this is the most straightforward part) (C) Standards - why your interpretation is preferable (such as that it better promotes education or fairness, or has a clearer bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior) (D) Voters- usually this involves reasons to vote down your opponent because of the violation. Gives the judges reasons why they should pull the trigger on theory. B. Conditionality Conditionality is usually seen in debate rounds when the Affirmative over limits the resolution. Thus conditionality is a type of theory argument in which we have a discussion over whether the Affirmative has to prove the whole resolution true, or just parts of it. Therefore conditionality arguments usually take place when the Affirmative limits the resolution to a specific example instead of proving the whole resolution true. Common arguments for why conditionally affirming the resolution is acceptable: 1. Off-sets abuse A: Aff has the hardest speech in the round the 1AR. My opponent has plenty of time in the NC while I have only four minutes. B: If I have to conditionally affirm, than make my opponent conditionally negate. Otherwise, my opponent could pick any little part of the resolution to negate that I m not ready for, which makes my 1AR even harder. Common arguments for why conditionally affirming is not acceptable: 1 Burden failure. The affirmative has the burden to prove the whole resolution true and not just parts of it. If the affirmative only picks specific parts of the resolution to affirm, then the affirmative has failed a prima facia burden. 2 No limit. There s no bright line to how much the affirmative would have to prove. If the affirmative doesn t have to prove the whole resolution true, then the affirmative can find the littlest, arbitrary way to affirm. Others: THEORY INDEX I. Burden Theory 1. Topicality is a Voting Issue 2. Critique of Topicality 3. AT Critique of Topicality 4. Conditionality Bad 5. AT Conditionality Bad 6. Parametrics Bad 7. AT Parametrics Bad

5 5 of Dec-09 7:51 PM II. Counterplan Theory III. Kritik Theory 1. Counterplans Bad 2. AT Counterplans Bad 3. VICs Bad 4. AT VICs Bad 5. Discourse PICs Bad 6. AT Discourse PICs Bad 7. Dispositionality Bad 8. AT Dispositionality Bad 9. Severance Perm Bad 10. Intrinsicness Perm Bad 1. Kritiks Bad 2. AT Kritiks Bad 3. Micropolitics Bad 4. Narratives Bad 5. AT Narratives Bad IV. Extraneous Issues Ritter does say: 1. Contradictions Bad 2. Multiple A Prioris/Standards Bad 3. Multiple Conditional Counterplans Bad 4. Speed Bad 5. AT Speed Bad 6. Fairness is a Voting Issue 7. Fairness is not a Voting Issue 8. Education is a Voting Issue 9. Education is not a Voting Issue 10. Fairness Trumps Education 11. Education Trumps Fairness 12. Truth Trumps Education/Fairness 13. Potential Abuse is a Voting Issue 14. In-Round Abuse is Necessary 15. AT Reject the Argument, Not the Debater 16. Irony Bad there are two potential drawbacks to initiating a theory debate. First, making theory arguments (and making them correctly) can take a significant amount of time. If constructed correctly, however, theory can be a very powerful and strategic tool to win a debate given this time trade-off. Second, many judges might reject the idea of theory debates because they are not traditional or because theory is closely associated with CX. 3. Policy Concepts Given many of the topics have been policy in nature, policy debate concepts have entered into LD debate. Baldwin article William H. Bennett in a Rostrum article, Policy Debate Arguments in Lincoln Douglas, notes:

6 6 of Dec-09 7:51 PM Theory and argument constructs formerly reserved to policy team debate are increasingly used or encountered in Lincoln-Douglas debate. William H. Bennett, Policy Debate Arguments in Lincoln Douglas, Rostrum, 01/07, Bennett explains: At least eight policy debate concepts and strategies have entered or expanded their role in Lincoln Douglas debate within the last very few years. 1. TOPICALITY. Long overdue is the question of whether or not the affirmative in Lincoln Douglas case meets the intent and or letter of the debate resolution. If it does not meet the intent or wording it can be attacked as untopical. consider the November 2006 topic Resolved: A victim s deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence. One case talked about women who defended themselves but never evidenced that any of them deliberately used deadly force. A topicality attack could have effectively argued that in the heat of self-defense many victim s are not aware of deadly verses injurious force and thus the affirmative case was untopical because it violated the word deliberate. Another affirmative case talked about a mother who defended her children by shooting her husband. But neither the case nor the evidence claimed she acted after several attacks, and therefore the negative attacked the case for being untopical for violating the word repeated. 2. COUNTERPLAN. A counterplan is a negative substitute for the affirmative plan. Or, in Lincoln Douglas debate, it is more likely to be a substitute for the action (or agent of action) advocated in the wording of the debate topic. Occasionally the topic itself might suggest replacing one plan with another. Two topics are good examples. In March 2006 the topic was Resolved: Juveniles charged with violent crimes should be tried and punished as adults. Without calling them counterplans many negative debaters used counterplan arguments. In as little as one sentence or as much as a whole case some negative debaters argued that juveniles be tried as adults but be punished in a new category of jail or prison rather than adult jails, other negatives suggested that adult criminal law is seriously flawed and should be rewritten before anyone is put on trial. Still another negative counterplan was to replace all existing prison punishment, whether of juveniles or adults, with counseling, restitution, and community service. The counterplan strategy under this topic was to say that even if there is a problem there is a better nontopical way to deal with it. 3. DISADVANTAGES. A disadvantage shows a harm that comes from, or is exacerbated by, supporting the debate resolution. Negative Lincoln Douglas debaters have used disadvantages since the event was created but, until recently, rarely used the word disadvantage. Disadvantages are especially easy when the resolution itself is a plan. For example, the January 2006 topic was Resolved: The use of the state s power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust. By implication the topic s plan was to abolish state power to use eminent domain to promote business. Thus negative cases included disadvantages on lost jobs, increased poverty, urban blight and decay, an increased rich-poor gap, and socioeconomic tensions. 4. SOLVENCY and SOLVENCY ATTACKS. Solvency is the issue that asks the question, will the change the topic advocates solve the problem he is talking about. A case can have partial or complete solvency. Partial solvency means that the topic or affirmative approach solves part of the problem, complete means all is

7 7 of Dec-09 7:51 PM solved. For a first example return to the November 2005 topic on judicial activism to protect rights. An affirmative case which evidenced that judicial activism protected almost all rights would have great but not complete solvency. A negative which showed how activism actually reduced rights would have a great solvency attack. 5. JUSTIFICATION. Justification attacks ask the question Did the affirmative prove we needed the entire topic?. If not, the negative side argues, then the topic has not been proven true. Proving part of a question is not enough to prove the entire question. In Lincoln Douglas debate, unlike policy debate, topicality and justification attacks often overlap. Consider the November 2006 topic Resolved: A victim s deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence. Assume for a moment that the affirmative case convinced you that women who are repeatedly battered have a right to defend themselves. Would that position prove the topic true? No, the topic tries to justify more than defense, topic wording attempts to justify deadly force. And a good negative would include among his attacks the justification attack that the affirmative has never proven a key phrase, deadly force, to be true and thus has not proven the topic true. That is a justification attack. 6. BURDEN OF PROOF and PRIMA FACIE. Prima facie is a Latin phrase meaning on first view or at first face. In policy debate an affirmative case has the burden of proof, the obligation to show that a reasonable person would find the resolution to be true. As a first step the affirmative must show in their very first speech a prima facie case, a case complete enough to convince a neutral person that the resolution is true. In Lincoln Douglas debate the wording of the resolution determines who has the burden of proof. Most of the time, but not always, it is the affirmative side. Consider how the Nationals topic was worded in Resolved: In the United States justice system, due process ought to be valued above the pursuit of truth when they are in conflict. When one thing must be valued above another the side which assumes that obligation has the burden of proof. Why? Because if they are equal the topic advocate, the affirmative, has lost. It is like we re standing on the fifty yard line of a football field and if we stay there the negative wins; the affirmative must move us her way or lose. 7. PRESUMPTION. Policy debate took presumption from our legal system. In American and British law the accused, in this case the present system or current beliefs, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Thus in policy debate the affirmative always has the burden of proof, because in team policy debate the resolution always advocates a new policy. In Lincoln Douglas debate topic wording determines who has presumption. (It is possible neither side does. Some topic wording avoids assigning presumption.) Consider the example of the January 2006 topic Resolved: The use of the state s power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust. Who has presumption? The negative. Why? Because the present system allows the use of eminent domain to promote private enterprise, and presumption attaches to the present system. 8. KRITIKS (sometimes spelled critique ). There is a growing library of well considered writing on kritiks in Lincoln-Douglas debate.

8 8 of Dec-09 7:51 PM Others: Turn Permutation (Perm) Impacts Impact calculus 4. Pre-standard arguments One summer debate camp advertised a lecture at their camp: The Prestandard & A Priori Trend. So what are they? A priori arguments are arguments that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. Michael Mangus elaborates on pre-standard arguments in Critique of A-Priori Argumentation: The rise of the a priori. This is perhaps most evident in the rise of what many debaters call 'a priori' arguments arguments which attempt to prove the resolution true or false independent of any substantive (synthetic?) application or practical implementation. Examples of these that seem particularly common are definitional strategies which impact to either tautology or contradiction. This leads to some pretty awful debates: corporations are composed of individuals, so the resolution is tautological they're the same thing! vs. no you have it all wrong, that makes the resolution incoherent it must be rejected! also common are skeptical arguments that deny some assumption behind affirmation of the resolution. One example is a language k which asserts that indeterminacy means we can't make objective truth claims: if we don t know what the terms in the topic mean, then you can t affirm it! A priori arguments are becoming misused in LD debate rounds. A lot of debaters are labeling arguments a priori so they can win off this argument alone. However most debaters are giving no justification for why the argument is actually a priori, or why it should be evaluated before any other argument. A priori arguments are also sometimes labeled as pre-standard, meaning these arguments should be adjudicated before we evaluate the standard (value and criterion). Larry McGrath, while studying at Oxford University discusses the mislabeling of a pre-standard argument: When a debater states that her argument ought to be considered before the standard, she intends that argument to affect the judge s decision independent of the various other arguments that achieve the standard. This label renders an impact that immediately outweighs all others that achieve the standard. Despite the ubiquitous meaning of a pre-standard argument, the label actually means nothing at all. This is because the notion of an a priori argument says very little about the actual argument. Instead, the label refers to a rule whose ubiquity owes itself to the coagulation of the flow s systematicity and not an argument s own merit. What I mean is that these labels refer to the inter-relational space between arguments. When a debater deems an argument a priori she is implicitly carving out a space within the topography of the flow. The argument that the debater has labeled a priori is what occupies this privileged space. I say privileged because that is the aim: a distinct argumentative space apart from the rest of the flow. Only certain types of arguments can touch this space, namely those that engage the argument at a similar pre-standard level. The a priori argument inserts new levels of argumentation into the round, some of which come before others. A sort of conceptual bracketing occurs, whereby the position to which the a priori responds need not be responded to on its own grounds; if the debater wins her a priori argument, then the opponent s position falls. Different types of a priori arguments:

9 9 of Dec-09 7:51 PM 1. Topicality Topicality is an a priori argument, because we must first decide if the AC is within the resolutional confinements, before we can evaluate anything else. 2. Kritiks For example: The warrant for the claim Improving the economy is good is that capitalism is good. If the kritik is challenging the assumption that capitalism is good, we cannot weigh or discuss whether or not improving the economy would be good until we resolve the debate about capitalism. 5. Definitional debate The use of definitions in LD debate has always been a common practice. But how they are used has changed. Debaters will draw conclusions from their definition. A commonly used phrase is the implication of this definition is. Both debaters will attempt to draw or paint affirmative or negative worlds. This enables debaters to severe out of arguments. Affirmative practice I affirm the resolution: Resolved: A just government should provide health care to its citizens. First allow me to define a few terms. Should as to express obligation or duty. Dictionary.com Thus the context of the resolution asks us to discuss governmental obligations. I will contend that the first obligation of a just government is to protect the lives of its citizens. The implication of this argument is the affirmative can prove the resolution true, by just showing the government is obligated to protect life. This means that the affirmative doesn t necessarily have to prove that health care is efficient or effective, because the affirmative could just make changes to the problems. All the affirmative has to do is prove that the government is obligated to protect the lives its citizens, and health care plays a fundamental role in fulfilling that obligation. (Get out of solvency) Health care will be defined as the provision of medical and related services aimed at maintaining good health, especially through the prevention and treatment of disease. Encarta World English Dictionary And provide will be defined as to supply with. Encarta World English Dictionary There are a variety of ways the state could provide health care to their citizens. The implication for the round is the affirmative does not necessarily have to defend socialized medicine. Since the resolution doesn t specify the way in which the government should provide health care, indicts of specific systems do not actually address the normative question of the resolution. Thus there are plenty of systems the affirmative could advocate, but the affirmative merely has to show that the government should provide health care. (Get out of socialism)

10 10 of Dec-09 7:51 PM Negative practices Example: C/N define domestic violence The negatives only advocacy is that you can t affirm because domestic violence is a vague concept and has varying interpretations. Thus this becomes pre-standard, because we can t evaluate whether deadly response is justified if we have no understanding of what domestic violence actually is or when domestic violence has been reached. Daniel Sonkin explains, It has been over twenty years since the first publications describing the problem of domestic violence and still much confusion exists regarding the definitions of violence. Although most professionals agree that violence manifests in three general forms, physical, sexual and psychological there still lacks agreement as to what exact behaviors would be included in a comprehensive definition of domestic violence. Numerous clinical and research instruments have been developed to assess for all forms of violence but agreement as to what specific acts should be included in a comprehensive definition is far from resolved. In general, with physical, sexual or psychological maltreatment, it is with the most extreme acts that we find the most agreement and with the less extreme, more subtle, acts we are likely to find the most disagreement. First, let s look at the problems in interpreting sexual violence. The problem is that the resolution doesn t limit us to one specific country or state. Thus different interpretations exist because different countries and states have differing definitions of what constitutes sexual violence. Daniel Sonkin elaborates, Greater disagreements begin to appear when defining sexual violence. Most professionals would agree that any non-consensual sexual activity (rape, oral copulation, sodomy, etc.) would be included in this category. However, according to some state laws, consent is only one element to proving sexual assault. In some jurisdictions, physical force has also to be proven to obtain a criminal conviction. However, many battered women consent to sexual activity for fear of escalating physical and psychological violence and therefore physical force is not necessary for the perpetrator to obtain partner complicity. Therefore, the behavior itself (sexual intercourse, for example) may not be sufficient to determine whether or not an act of sexual violence has occurred. Sexual violence has been defined by advocates more broadly than the criminal justice model. For example, continual complaining or criticism may be interpreted as sexual coercion. Additionally, the subjective experience of "feeling" coerced may be a result of antecedent threats made by the perpetrator, or actual acts of physical or sexual violence, which may contribute to the belief that the victim has no choice even though it may look to the unknowing observer as if she does have a choice.when considering these realities, the issue of consent itself becomes open to interpretation. Consequently different interpretations exist because states have differing standards in determining when sexual violence has been reached.

11 11 of Dec-09 7:51 PM Now let s look at the problems that exist in interpreting psychological violence. The problems that exist with this interpretation are two fold. First, there is no one determinant on what constitutes psychological violence. Certain people look at the severity in determining when psychological violence has been reached, where as others look at the frequency. Thus there is no one static interpretation because differing standards exist in determining when psychological violence is breached. Daniel Sonkin explains, Given the differing definitions of psychological violence, how does one decide which definition is appropriate for their intervention program? One may integrate these definitions by conceptualizing psychological violence on a number of continuums. One continuum could reflect the severity (or likeliness of causing psychological harm to the victim) of the specific acts. For example, on this continuum one would place the most terrorizing types of psychological violence on one end (such as threats to kill and stalking), the more common and less terrorizing acts in the middle (such as extreme controlling behaviors or verbal abuse) and the least intrusive or damaging and most common acts at the other end (such as using male privilege).another continuum of psychological violence would describe the acts solely on a frequency basis, the idea being that the more frequent the abuse the more likely it will cause psychological trauma. This method would depend heavily on a way of quantifying specific acts of psychological violence. The author has developed a comprehensive Domestic Violence Inventory (Sonkin, 1995b) HyperCard stack for the Macintosh environment where the acts of physical and sexual violence and threats of violence are specifically quantified (once, twice, 3-5 times, etc.) and the acts of psychological violence are described more generally (never, rarely, occasionally, or frequently). In developing this tool, I found that clients found it difficult to quantify psychological violent behaviors. This may result from two reasons. First, some forms of psychological violence occur too often to actually quantify. Second, some terms may be too easily interpreted and therefore lack specificity. For example, take the category of mental degradation. What words constitute mental cruelty? Some victims have told me that it wasn't what he said, but how he said it. Generally, rarely is defined as happening once or twice. Occasionally is defined as happening more than once or twice or periodically throughout the length of the relationship. Frequently is defined as happening on a regular basis. Although these terms are subject to great variability, depending on the clients subjective experience, however, asking does give the clinician an overall sense of the types and frequency of psychological violence. Another continuum may be one of inclusiveness where at one end is the most narrow definition of psychological violence (the legal definition), at the other the end is the most inclusive definition and in the middle a definition that captures both the narrow definition and specific pieces of the most inclusive definition (Amnesty International). The second problem is that different interpretations exist due to the broad areas that physiological violence covers. Daniel Sonkin explains, Where inconsistency in definition is the greatest is in the area of non-physical violence. Even the terminology varies from professional to professional. Terms such as emotional abuse, psychological maltreatment, verbal abuse, mental abuse, emotional maltreatment and psychological violence are commonly used to describe non-physical aggression. Some view these terms as synonymous whereas others may make differentiations between forms. For example, emotional abuse may be defined as those behaviors that both partners may exhibit and are likely to include name-calling, negative judgments or attributions or actions (such as yelling) that result in causing the other person psychological pain or discomfort. Psychological violence, on the other hand, may be characterized as carrying an implied threat of physical violence, or attempt to intimidate or control the other person. Whether this distinction between

12 12 of Dec-09 7:51 PM psychological violence and emotional abuse is real or arbitrary, the fact still remains that, in a rudimentary way, these distinctions are an attempt to begin to differentiate the concept of psychological violence from marital discord.. Thus you must negate on face, because we can t evaluate the resolution due to the ambiguity and different interpretations that exist within domestic violence. 6. Framework The most common trend I have observed is justification and burdens placed in the standard (value/criterion) portion of the case. This allows debaters to clearly articulate their position and spike out arguments their opponents may make. Many of these arguments were made before but were placed in the contentions. Example The value in the round is Justice. Justice is defined as giving each their due. First, there is a clear distinction between justice and a just response. Certain actions can be unjust, but still be interpreted as a just response. For example, many would contend that War is not just, but if terrorists leave no alternatives to peace, war then becomes a just response. Thus, a Just Response is contingent on the alternatives present. Policies might not be very desirable, but if they are the only mechanism to achieving something good, then they are just. Fundamental to any correct moral system is the concept that every individual has a right to his or her own life. There is a special obligation to ensure life. Professor of Ethics, David Bleich argued, The value of human life is supreme and takes precedence over virtually all other considerations. Human life is not a good to be preserved as a condition of other values but as an absolute, basic and precious good in its owns stead. The obligation to preserve life is commensurably all-encompassing. Cardozo University, Issues inlaw and Medicine, Fall 1993, pages Likewise, if individuals have a right to life, then every individual has a right to protect that life. Thus the affirmatives advocacy is a syllogism. Life is just; self-defense allows individuals to protect their lives, thus self-defense is good. Therefore, the criterion in the round is an environment that lacks viable alternatives to self-defense. This means the threshold for self- defense is weighed with the alternatives present. For example, if my opponent were to use verbal abuse on me, it wouldn t mean I have to use self-defense, because I have the alternative to leave. This is the paramount standard for three reasons. (justifications)

13 13 of Dec-09 7:51 PM 1 - To deny an individual the ability to defend their own life when no alternatives are present is morally wrong. Individual s sacrifice certain rights so they can receive protection from the government. If the government can t fulfill its reciprocal obligations it has with its citizens, it shouldn t deny them the ability to protect themselves. 2 - If a person is more concerned with the desires of others, then their own judgment and ability to sustain their own life will be hampered because sustaining their own life is no longer the top priority. In a world in which others are more important than oneself people become dependent on each other and thus slaves to each other, forced to hope that other people will choose to take care of them. 3 - Life is the basis for all values, Peikoff writes, Peikoff, Leonard Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, A Meridian Book, New York, NY 1991 Living organisms are the entities that make value possible. They are the entities capable of self-generated, goal-directed action- because they are the conditional entities, which face the alternative of life or death. They are thus the only kind of entities that can and must pursue values. The alternative of existence or non-existence is the precondition of all values. If an entity were not confronted by this alternative, it could not pursue goals, not of any kind. Therefore, because the fundamental alternatives are whether or not to act to sustain one s life, life must be the standard of values and thus of justice as each is due their own life. Additionally, this proves that there is one set of just principles that can and should be the evaluative mechanism for this round: that which helps to support humans pursue life. Thus, through self-defense life is ensured establishing justice. This means, moreover, life is a pre-requisite to the negative s advocacy. Individuals cannot seek good if they are dead. The negative has two burdens in the round. First the negative must prove that there are viable alternatives present for domestic violence. The negative can t claim one alternative can solve, because a one-size fits all solution will not work. Wendy Mcelroy explains, First of all, there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to a complex and varied phenomenon like domestic violence. Answers will vary depending on specific situations. A wife who strikes out once in anger cannot reasonably be compared to a sadist who systematically brutalizes her husband over the course of years. The solution for her may be a course on anger management. A wife whose alcoholic husband wants desperately to become sober and non-violent might well support rehab rather than call the police. For some women and men, the only solution will be to leave and go to a shelter. Domestic Violence Law Fuels Big Government/ Second, the negative has to prove the legal system can solve for repeated domestic violence. This is true because no alternatives can be effective if the legal system is inadequate. Alan Greig explains, Stopping domestic violence always comes back to the legal system. This is the problem with most alternatives. They look at the immediate solutions instead of the long term solutions. You can go to shelter and stop the abuse for a while. But if the legal system is unable to cooperate with domestic violence victims or adequately punish abusers, the abusers will always be able continue their wrath of abuse. Racism, Class, and Masculinity: the Global Dimensions of Gender Based-Violence, Other trends:

14 14 of Dec-09 7:51 PM No value/criteria, just a standard Flex neg Multiple value/criteria Sever out of negative or affirmative case 7. Postmodernism One summer debate camp advertised a lecture at their camp: Postmodernism as a Means for a New Debate. So what is postmodernism? Honestly, I am still trying to figure it out! Postmodernism (sometimes abbreviated Pomo) is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture, which are generally characterized as either emerging from, in reaction to or superseding modernism. In debate sense, postmodernism is a variety of cultural positions which reject major features of modern thought. When the idea of a reaction to - or even a rejection of - the movement of modernism was borrowed by other fields, it became synonymous in some contexts with postmodernity, a term for the evolutions in society, economy and culture since the 1960s. The term is closely linked with poststructuralism (cf. Jacques Derrida) and with modernism, in terms of a rejection of its bourgeois, elitist culture. Thinkers in the mid and late 19th century and early 20th century, like Friedrich Nietzsche, through their argument against objectivity, and emphasis on skepticism (especially concerning social morals and norms), laid the groundwork for the existentialist movement of the 20th century. Writers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, drew heavily from Nietzsche, and other previous thinkers, and brought about a new sense of subjectivity, which greatly influenced contemporary thinkers, writers, and artists. This idea was taken further by the anti-foundationalist philosophers who argued that rationality was neither as sure nor as clear as modernists or rationalists assert. Movements and contributors: Influencer Year Influence Martin c.1930 rejected the philosophical grounding of the concepts of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" Heidegger Jacques re-examined the fundamentals of writing and its consequences on philosophy in general; c.1970 Derrida sought to undermine the language of western metaphysics (deconstruction) examined discursive power in Discipline and Punish, with Bentham's panopticon as his Michel model, and also known for saying "language is oppression" (Meaning that language was c.1975 Foucault developed to allow only those who spoke the language not to be oppressed. All other people that don't speak the language would then be oppressed.) Richard Rorty c.1979 philosophy mistakenly imitates scientific methods; argues for dissolving traditional philosophical problems; anti-foundationalism and anti-essentialism 8. Critical arguments

15 15 of Dec-09 7:51 PM Critical arguments are claims that your opponent is guilty of a certain mindset or assumption that should be grounds for rejection. Kritiks are sometimes a reason to reject the entire advocacy without evaluating the standard; other times, kritiks can be evaluated within the framework. Examples of some kritiks include ones against biopower, racism, centralized government or anthropocentric viewpoints. Critiques arose in the early 1990s, with the first critiques based in deconstructionist philosophy about the intrinsic ambiguity of language. The current trend is to run one word kritiks (justice, morality, rights). Elements (1) Link (2) Implications/Impacts (3) Alternative William Bennet wrote an excellent article, Not in LD!, that discusses how to attack Kritiks. Example Gendered Language K First, using male pronouns like he when referencing the abuser ignores other aspects of domestic violence. Stephen Armstrong explains, Perhaps the first and best evidence of how popularized the issue of fairness has become is the case of what's called the "generic he." At this point, it probably should be replaced for more than issues of social justice: Used this way, the masculine pronoun is likely to stop most readers because they see it so seldom. No matter the writer's intention, the risk is that he won't be considered inclusive and will annoy readers. The implication is that society becomes desensitized to the problem because we re trapped in our rudimentary way of thinking: that she was abused by he. Armstrong continues, Language not only communicates immediate ideas; it also conveys the class, socialization, cultural background, morals, and social belief systems of its user. Consequently, language makes assumptions about the gender of its reader. Assumptions can be as small as using male gendered pronouns and male normatives (he, his, mankind) to refer to an entire audience, or as sweeping as assuming that a particular subject might appeal exclusively to one gender. Gendered language introduces tremendous bias into our perceptions of history and self, and is simply an incorrect use of language.

16 16 of Dec-09 7:51 PM Second, by referring to women as victim she is seen as an irrational being. If women know that that can take any action because they fall under the realm of victim then they will continue to misinterpret reality. The implication is, by assuming women are victims we mask both the woman s eyes from possible alternatives and we mask our eyes from judging a woman s actions properly. Author of Moral Implications of the Battered Woman Syndrome Sally Scholz explains, The Battered Woman Syndrome has been used to categorize a woman who is abused by an intimate as victim. To refer to the woman as a victim indicates a static state of being. Within this state one s moral decision making capacitates are limited and/or controlled by others, whether it be those who, like the batterer, have their own self-interest at heart, or those who have the victim s interest at heart. The Battered Woman Syndrome functions in this way in that it tends to point to a sort of environmental determinism. That is, BWS attributes a woman s behavior to the environmental conditions in which she lives. As an autonomous agent she is absolved of her responsibility because it is perceived that her environment determined her actions Narratives A narrative is a text which describes a sequence of real or unreal events. It derives from the Latin to recount. The word story may be used as a synonym of narrative, but can also be used to refer to the sequence of events described in a narrative. Narratives are emotionally delivered speeches generally given at the opening of a speech. They are usually personal in nature, and call for the judge to approve or reject the resolution based on a situation. A case might argue eminent domain should be rejected based on a specific story of an individual whose property was take by the state or capital punishment should be reject on the narrative of an individual that was wrongfully unexecuted. Authors: Roland Barthes, Walter Fisher 9. Evidence Evidence is longer and includes warrants, not just claims. Common philosophy cards Rawls, Nozick, Locke, etc. Common impact cards