CRITICAL DEBATERS HANDBOOK BY: JACKIE MASSEY DIRECTOR OF DEBATE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA SOONERDEBATE.COM

Transcription

1 CRITICALDEBATERSHANDBOOK BY:JACKIEMASSEY 2011 DIRECTOROFDEBATE UNIVERSITYOFOKLAHOMA SOONERDEBATE.COM Noteverydebatercanfitintothesquareholeofpolicydebate.Somepeopleneed roundholes,orobtuseonesornoholeatall.ithinkeachdebaterbringstheirown styletodebate.thequestionis,dotheytakeupamethodofdebatethatallows themtoaccessthatstyle? Thismanualwasanidea2yearsagoafterourfirstAlternativeDebate Workshop,TheCalloftheLoon.Nowithasbecomeatextthatpeoplecan utilizetodebateoutsideofthetraditionalpolicydebatestyleandmethod. DebateisGood!

2 INTRODUCTION:... 4 RESEARCH:...11 DEBATEABOUTDEBATE:...13 FRAMEWORK...17 WHATISPOLITICSORAPOLITICALACT?...18 FORCETHELINKBETWEENTHEIRFRAMEWORKEVIDENCEANDTHEIR PARTICULARACTION...18 THERISKOFALINK...18 WHOCONTROLSPOLITICS?...20 FRAMEWORKCENTRAL...21 CRITICALFRAMEWORKARGUMENTSIFYOU RENEGATIVE...24 DEBATINGAFFIRMATIVE:...29 STRATEGICAFFIRMATIVETHINKING!...31 IMPORTANTCOMPONENTSOFYOURAFFKSTRATEGY...31 DEBATINGNEGATIVE:...32 THELANGUAGEOFTHEKRITIK...34 THELINKDEBATE...37 IMPACTDEBATE...38 THEPERMUTATION...39 THEALTERNATIVE:...42 ALTERNATIVETHEORYARGUMENTS...44 DEBATINGCRITICALTEAMS...45 SPEED:...47 FLOW/GAME BOARD:...49 WHATISEVIDENCE?...51

3 USEOFEVIDENCE:...51 CROSS EXAMINATION:...52 WHATISANOVERVIEW!...54 BEINGPREPAREDONTHEKEYARGUMENTS...55 BEINGAGOODEVEN/IFDEBATER!...56 CHIT CHAT...57 DEBATE101SUMMARY...58 CAPITALISMKBIBLIOGRAPHY...60 DEBATEABOUTDEBATEBIBLIOGRAPHY...64 FIRSTPRIORITYTOFIRSTAMERICANSBIBIOGRAPHY...67 FRAMEWORKKSUPPORT/DEBATEABOUTDEBATE...69 FRAMEWORKANTI KBIBLIOGRAPHY...71 HEIDEGGERKBIBLIOGRAPHY...73 WHITENESSKBIBLIOGRAPHY!...76 COMMONANSWERSTOKRITIKS...80

4 INTRODUCTION: Debateiswhatwemakeit!Thereisnoonedefinitionofdebate. Thepurposeofthismanualistohelpofferyoutheknowledgetocreatethebaseto beaneffectivecriticaldebater.iwillusek,kritik,critique,critical,andkriticalall interchangeablytomeanthesamething.youshouldn tcitethismanualasevidence inadebateround.youshouldusetheargumentsfromthemanualagainstyour opponentsindebaterounds.thismanualisprimarilyforstudentswhocompetein cross examinationorpolicydebateonthehighschoolandcollegelevel. Therearemanydifferentperspectivesonwhenthe Kritik wasfirstutilizedin collegedebate.ihaveheardafewdifferentstories.allicandoisgowithmystory onhowiwasattractedtothistypeofdebate.iwasaformersiudebaterunderthe directionofbile.wheniarrivedatsiu,theyweredoingsomethinguniquein debate.inthefinalroundofcedain1989,theyplayedwhatwecalledjazz.instead ofdebatingoutthelegalprecedenceoflawwithgonzaga,siumadeanargument thatlawispatriarchialandthatwemustquestionthosenotionsbeforewecan discusswhatis just.igotinvolvedintheenvironmentalethicargumentandfound thisconceptofholismthatwasratherattractiveandseemedlikesomethingtograsp onto.toaddalittlehistoryandcontext,though,agroupofdebatersatthe UniversityofTexasinthe90'sbegantocallsomeoftheirarguments"kritiks"to distinguishthemfromcounter plans,disadvantages,andothertraditional argumentsbeingusedatthetime.workingwithcoachshanahan,brody,mcbride, Emerson,McPhersonandmanyothersstartedtobringphilosophymoreexplicitly intopolicydebatesbyattackingtheunderlyingassumptionsofthedebateandtheir opponent'sargumentsinsteadoftakingthepolicycalculusandtheagentofaction forgranted."ithinkhesterhasastoryon puttingthekindebate. Debatehaschanged.Thereweretimeswhensomepeoplewere/arereallygoodata specifictypeofdebate.astheygetbetteratthistypeofdebate,itslogicalthatthey wouldwantdebatetobewhattheyweregoodat.thesameistrueforthecritical debater.theywouldratherdebatebesomethingelsethatgivesthemachance. Neithersideiswrong;thequestioniswhocanbestdefendwhattheydo.EvenIwas taughtthatdebatewasstockissues.fiveprima faciaissues,likeitwasallinclear bright lines.butastimehaspassed,debatehaschanged.thetechnology,the people,themethodsandworldpredicamentshaveallevolved. Noteverydebatercanfitintothesquareholeofpolicydebate.Somepeopleneed roundholes,orobtuseonesornoholeatall.ithinkeachdebaterbringstheirown styletodebate.thequestionis,dotheytakeupamethodofdebatethatallows themtoaccessthatstyle? IalsoadviseyoutoreadSunTzu sartofwar.oneimportantthingistorespect policydebate,especiallywhenitisdonewell.youmustassumeeveryroundyour

5 opponentwillbeattheirbest.twothingsrisetothetopinagooddebate.whohas agoodargumentandwhohasgoodevidencetosupporttheirargument?

6 Weareallperformanceteams.It sallaperformance ThebestKdebatersaretheoneswhounderstandhowpeoplemisinterpretwhatK debatersdo,andhowmostargumentsmadeagainstcriticalpositionsonlyfunction aroundfalsestereotypes.asyouwillsee,ifyoudonotengageinfaultykdebate, thenmostofthecommontheoryargumentstodismisscriticismshavenoimpacton yourargument.stayaheadofthecurve.whatarepeoplemostlysaying,andhow doiavoiddebatingitor,howdoidefeatitsoundly?asyouutilizethisguide,you willseehowyoucanplayoffofthemisinformedperspectivespeoplehaveaboutk debaters.muchofthiscomesfrompeoplewantingtonotgointhesquarehole,but lacktheknowledgeandexperiencetotakeupthebestmethod.andthuswehave badkdebate,justlikewehavebadpolicydebate. WhatisaKritik?Idonotwanttogiveanexclusionaryexamplethatwouldprevent certainargumentsfrombeingakritik.traditionally,indebateweweretaughtthe basic5prima faciaissuesthatmustbemettohavealegitimateaffirmative.many argumentswerewhatiwouldcallprocess orientedarguments.aspeoplewere taughttohaveadvantagestotheirplan,anddisadvantagestotheotherteamsplans. Therethenbecamethecommonthemeofhavingafewcomponentsofa (dis)advantagethatinclude A:Link.B:UniquenessC:BrinkD:ImpactorLUBI. Theabilitytohaveuniquenesswithinyourargumentwasakeydecidingfactorfor manydebates.peoplewoulddeterminedoyouhaveauniqueadvantageor disadvantage.formanyyearsindebate,justanimpactofcausingeconomic downturnandmoreunemploymentwasenoughtowindebates.thenoneday someonerealizedthatwhatwewouldfearthemostisawar.thisimpactgrewto anescalatingwarthatwouldthenturnnuclear.itwasthedrivetofindthebiggest impactthatcouldaffectthemostpeople.butitwasalsoalongthesame methodologicallinesasthescaretacticsutilizedduringthecoldwar.soformany years,peoplewouldlookforauniquelinktotheriskofanuclearwar.therewere peoplewhowouldargueracismasanimpact,butmanytimesbecauseracismexists, andishardtomeasure,theriskofauniquelinktoanuclearwaroutweighed incrementalmitigationsofracism.thesamecouldbesaidforsexismor homophobia.sowhatisacritique?itisthecriticizingofthevalues/ideals /philosophyembodiedwithinthebasicsupportfortheplan.thiscouldbean examinationofmodes,methods,ontologies,ethics,discourseorsolutions.what madeitveryhardfortheseimpactstobeincludedindebateishowtheycompareto askingthequestion Doesplansolve?.Sotherehasalwaysbeenaneedtotryand have solvency indebate,whichmeansthatifyoudealwithproblemsthatcannot be solved,thenitwashardtowinadebate.especiallywhenpeoplelearntouse argumentsliketime frametosaythatweneedtoworryaboutthisshort term impactthatwecancalculate,ratherthanimpactsthatwecanneverseesolutionor finalimpactfrom.sowhenyoureadacritiqueandtheotherteamreads calculabilitygood,youcanseewheresuchanargumentgetsitsstrategicbase.

7 ISDEBATEAGAMEORATRAININGGROUNDFORADVOCACY? Isdebateagameorisitaplacetopracticeadvocacy?ThisiswhereIfindalotof peopledecidetheywouldratherbeakdebaterthanapolicydebater.it sokaytobe both,butthereareonlysomanytournamentsandsomuchprep,andnoteveryone hasthoseresources.that seitherapersonalchoice,oronedictatedbycoaches.but forthosewhochooseanalternativestyleofdebate,iofferyouthekriticaldebaters Handbook.Inmyopinion,manypolicydebatersrefusetotryandreadtheliterature ofthephilosophicalk,andfindthemselvesstaringatevidencethattheycannot comprehend.atmosttheylookatawordontheblockandhopetheyhaveafileto matchit.iseethisasachallengeofintellect.asadebater,itfeelssogreattoknow theotherteamcannotunderstandwhatyourargumentsare.thechallengeisthis: CANIGOTHROUGHTHEEXTENSIVELYTESTEDANDWIDELYACCEPTED TRADITIONALPOLICYDEBATEARGUMENTSANDNOTDROPANYTHING? Thatreallyisthechallenge.Soyouhavetobeready.Thisguideisanattempttotell youwhatthecommonlyusedargumentsareandihopetoprovidesomeinsighton howtobestaddressthebadonesandmakethegoodones.itrytoprovidealotof checklistsandlistsofthingstobepreparedfor. CommonStereotypes: Kdebatersarelazy Yousayyouwinbecauseyoudance Yousayyouwinbecauseyou reoppressed.(oppressionolympics) Kdebatersarecheaters K sdon tdoanything

8 ARGUMENT: Whatisthedifferencebetweenyourargumentandmyargument,andwhyisthat important? Onethingyouwillfindaboutmyadviceinrelationtothewaydebateargumentsare constructedrevolvesaroundnotionsofabsolutism.ifyoucanlearnhowtocriticize argumentsthatforeclosethinking,youhavemadeyourfirstbigstepinbeinga criticaldebater.whenidebatedwereferredtothisasholism. Agoodargumentisagoodargument.Ithinkit scalledakritikbecauseit snot aboutthosethingsthatcanbemeasuredobjectively,andthus,canbewrittenoffin favorofmore tangible thingsthatpeoplehavedecidedtoberealortrue.agood argumentsaysthat: a. Yourliteratureisbad/yourtheories/schoolsofthoughtetc. b. Youdon tsolve abetterkhasakritikoftheideaof solvency c. Youmakethingsworse/Impactsinevitableabsent alt d. Thisisthemostimportantthinginthisdebate IE Impactcalculus Thereismuchdebateabout doyouneedanalternative? Inmyview,thetheories abouthowthecomponentsofthekshouldfunctionareonlyresponsestothe methodschosenbythepolicydebaterstoanswerthek.atfirstitwasframework, asthoughakwasn tanargument.then,itwasjustthepermutation,passtheplan andsayxisbad.then,thekresponsewas, wellifthatisallthatcanbeatme,1nr willmakesurewewillnotlosetheperm. After1ar sdecidedthiswastoomuch, anotherstrategycamealong: What sthealternative? Then,thestandardresponse bytheaffirmativewasthatthenegativewasstuckwiththestatusquo.so,thek responsewasratherlucid,alternativeslike Weshouldallloveeachother or we shouldvoidourlifeof desire or weshouldembraceourinsecurities.therewas nowayforthesealternativestobeactualized,whichresultedinthecategorization ofkdebateastoo Utopian,whichsparkedtheargument utopianalternativesare abusive.butkdebatersdugalittledeeper.alongwithhavingthisdebateabout yourcriticism,youwerealsoforcedtobeatthepolicyteamsonthis framework debate,orotherwiseitbecomesasilverbulletagainstyourbroad basedargument. Thensomedebaterstriedthefloatingpic(planinclusivecounter plan). Wesupport allofyouraffirmativeexceptyourrepresentations,andthenarguedtherewere representationsinthe1acthatwouldmaketheplanworse.thefloatingpicstheory blocksbecameaspopularasmeadcardsthen,sothekdebatermadeanothermove. Thistimethealternativechangedtorejectingtheaffirmative.Soundssimpleright? Withthisstrategy,yourpurposeistoprovethattherearebenefitstorejectingthe affirmativeformofpolitics. Thealternativeistorejecttheaffirmativebecausetheyhaveabadformof politics. Thetermpoliticsissuchabroadterm,thatyoucanthenaccessmanyreasonswhy theirpolicywasbad.useofthestate,ontology,epistemology,orethics.justafew

9 examplesofwhereyoucanfindaplacetodisagree,andthenbepreparedtoargue whythisismostimportant. Iwillsaythattherearestrategicreasonstousethealternativelikeacounter plan. ForyearstheKdebaterwastryingtousetheirimpactstooutweightheaffirmative, andthiswassuchanuphillstruggle.butthenifyougetstrategic,youcanmakeita downhilljoyride.ifthealternativesolvestheaffirmative,thenyouonlyhavetowin impactstotheaffirmativefromyourlinksthatthealternativedoesnotlinktoo. ThistypeofKdebatingismuchmorefunctionalinfrontofpeoplewhohavebeen decidingdebatesofplanvs.counter plan itisonewaytheycannottotally comprehendthek,butstillbeabletoseethatitispreferabletotheaffirmative. Thisisalsoagoodexplanationastowhywordexclusioncounter plansaregood. Yourewritetheplanwithoutaparticularwordinit,andthenhaveargumentsasto whythiswordyouleftoutisabadwordandnotusingitisbetter.peoplealsouse the erasure method,wheretheyhaveacounter planthatputsthewordunder erasure.(derrida)somepeopledrawlinesthroughthedebatablewordsintheir plan,andarereadytoargueerasuresolvesbetterthandoingtheplanwithoutthe word.(ie don tforgetthepastisoneargument). Thereisnoone waytobeakdebater,youreallyhavetoseethedifferentstrategies, andchoosethosewiselybasedupontheevidenceandtheargumentyouwantto make. AcommonstrategyforanyargumentbasedgameisthatifIamaffirmative, andicanproveyourargumentsdon tdisagreewithme,thenyoudidnot refutemyargument.incompetitivedebatewecallthisthenolinkandthe permutation. Acommonstrategyonthenegativeistofindonesmallplacetodisagree,but reallyexploitit.strategiesthatattempttodenyeverythingtheaffirmative sayswillbeanuphillbattle. StraightfromtheBile: NegativeCxof1AC 2N DoIhavetodisagreewitheverythingyousay? 1A NO (Imeanwouldn ttheylookabusiveiftheysaidyes Negcouldnever win) 2N Whogetstochoosewherewedisagree? 1A Youdo (Iftheysaytheydo,onceagainNegcouldneverwin) Andthereyouhaveit.Ichoosetodisagreewith: TheirLanguagechoice IELanguageKritiks TheirMethodology IEMethodKritiks

10 Theirrepresentations IERepresentationsKritiks Theirphilosophy IE..it sneverending..thereareinfinitewaystodisagree. ThissoundslikeagoodaffirmativewhineagainsttheKright?...wrong thenext stepisimportant.whyisthisplacewhereyoudisagreeimportant?thereal questionbecomes,whyisitmoreimportantthanthe plan? WhenIattempttodeterminewhatwouldbeagoodaffirmativeornegative argument.ispendtimeanalyzingwhateveryoneelseissaying,andconstructa logicalargumentinmyhead/oronpaper,andthengooutandfindtheevidenceto supportwhatiwanttosay.ie Seeitasadebateargument,notjustanauthoror evidence.afteryouseehowyouwillutilizethisargumentyouhavecreated,find theevidencethathelpsyouengagethekeypartofthedebatethatyouhave determinedtobeimportantplacesofdeparture.sometimesyouwillfindthatmuch ofwhatyouhavetosayisfromthesameauthor,butthatonlycausespeopletothink yourargumentis author basedratherthencreatedasacompetitivedebate argument. Myadviceonusingtheguideistoreaditonce.Thenchooseyourargumentandgo backandreaditagain.it sokaytousetheparagraphsorsentencesfromthisguide asyourargument,iwouldpreferthismuchmorethansaying Massey,2011 before youmadetheargument.don twasteyourtimewiththecite,thisguyisprobably notascredibleasyou.

11 RESEARCH: Chooseanareaofthelibrary Youneedevidencetosurvivethedebateafterthe debate.whatisthat?thatiswhenthejudge(s)take20 30minutesmakingtheir decision(s)andneedevidencetoreadtoberefreshedonthearguments.thebestk teamsaregreatresearchers.butitreallymeanstheyseewhatisneededfor arguments,andthengooutandfindanargumentandtheliteraturethatsupportsit. Ican ttakethetimetotellyouhowtobeagreatresearcherinthisvolume.iwillsay thatyouneedtospendtimeatthelibrary,orcreateyourown.thereseemstobe someuniquevalueinbooksthathelpscriticaldebaters.therearealotofbooks onlineofcourse,buttherearesomanymorethatarenot.ifyourstuffisfrom books,peoplehaveamoredifficulttimepokingholesinwhatyousay.ifyourstuffis fromonlinesources,youropponentscanreadyourwholeargumentandarticles beforetheydebateyou,andthebestkdebatersknowhowtotakeyourstuff,and lockyouintoalinkindefenseofsomething.agoodkritikalwayshasalink.you havetodotheresearchtohavethoselinks.indoingyourresearch,remembera goodkritikisagoodargument.asadebater,youmustgetgoodatsomething, beforeyoucanbegoodatanything.logicalright?inotherwords,takean argumentandstickwithituntilyoumakeitwin.sometimesittakesayear,and sometimesittakesaweekend.don tinvesttimeinanargument,thentossitaside afternotsucceedingwithitatfirst.keepwithit.thisiswhereresearchbecomes important.ifyoureallyknowyourareaofthelibrary,assoonastheotherteam mentionsthenameofanauthor,youshouldknowwhatthemostandbest argumentsthatcouldbemadebythatauthor.ifyouhaven treadit,thengetthe citation,andmakesureyoureaditassoonaspossible.keepresearching.one benefityouhaveasakritikdebaterthatisstrategicismosttraditionalpolicydebate argumentsthatareframeworkortopicalitydonothavealotofevidencetosupport theirsubstantivedebate,whilethekteamshaveevidenceratherthantheoryblocks. Spendtimeattheshelves. ThisiswheregreatKdebaterssprout,isattheshelvesofthereallibrary.Don tjot downthecallnumbersandgotoeachcallnumber.jotdownthecallnumbers,and thenspendtimeinthatwholesectionofthelibrary.layyourbagdown.setup camp. Step1 Pulloffallbooksthatseemeitherneworrelevant. Todeterminenew,it seasy,lookfortheverywhitebooktag/callnumber.the whiteritis,thenewerthebook.lookatallnewbooks(last2years)evenifthetitle isnotthatcrafty.iusuallylookontheindexinthebackofthebooktoseeifthere arekeywordsandthenlookatthechapters. Step2 Sortoutthejunk. Thisiswhereyouthengothroughthe20booksyoupulledoftheshelftotakethe timetoseeifit sworthcheckingoutorskimming.icanusuallytellhowanauthor writesbyreadingafewpages,todetermineiftheywillbesayingwhatineed.

12 Step3 Findingargumentcomponents,notparagraphs Itisokaytosoakuptheknowledgeeachandeverybookoffers,butyoudon thave timetoputeachcomponentofknowledgeintoevidence.ifthewritingis explanatoryor factbased,thenyoudon treallyneeditasevidence.thisiswhyi liketoflushoutmywholeargument(drawitoutinachartwithanswerstoetc.), andthenwheniread,ifitdoesn tfallintoapartofmyargumentstructure,theni don t cutit asevidence,isoakuptheknowledge. Step4Finish! Don tbetheonewhoalwayshadstuffontheirjumpdriveorhadthecardscut,but notags.youhavetofinish.youcan tdoeverythingatonce,soyouhavetosetdown anddosmallprojectsthatresultinfinishedusableitems.don ttakeonnew projectsuntilyoucanfinishtheoneyou reon.otherwiseyo realwaysonlyhalfway ready. RESEARCHTIPS Followthefootnotes,theyleadyoutogreatplaces Bookshavethebest answersto Don tcuteverything,justreadeverything(knowwhatcanpossiblybe said) Thinkofyourargumentasadebateargumentfirst,thenfindthe evidence Don tcutalosingpieceofevidence.findabetterone Goto google andtypeinexactlywhatyouwantittosay(youwillbe surprised) Use quotes inyoursearches Bethorough Ifyouwanttoowntheargumentyouhavetoknowmost ofwhatissaid whentheysayanauthorsname,youshouldalready knowtheirargument Getcites/Usewikistomakesureyourseeingwhatotherpeoplehave

13 DEBATEABOUTDEBATE: AsIsaidearlier,Debateiswhatwemakeit.ManydebatesthatinvolvetheKinclude anaspectofa debateaboutdebate tohelpunderstandhowthearguments competewitheachother.iseethesedebatesasunnecessary,buttheymustbe comprehendedifyoueverwantyourargumenttohaveimpactinthedebate.inmy experience,onceyouunderstandhowtobeatthesearguments,yourwinpercentage willincreasedramatically.thisisthegatewaytovictorieswithkriticaldebate. Switchsidedebate:MuchofmyinformationIinferinthefollowingdiscussionisin thehicksandgreenarticlelostconvictions. Backin1954therewasturbulenceintheNDTCommunityconcerningthetopic. Burnsclaimsthattheframersoftheresolutiondidnotthinkdebaterswould succumbtocommunistpropagandaandarguechinagood,therewasanassumption thatpeoplewouldarguewemustpullchinaawayfrommoscow. Thedebateaboutdebateoccurredforabout10years,andthenin1964McCrosky andklopfdeclaredthedebateaboutdebateclosed.itwasn treallyclosed,theyjust declareditclosed.sincethen,therehasn tbeenmuchdebateaboutswitchside debateintheliteraturebeyondthemuirarticleandthehicksandgreenarticle.ido haveathoroughlistinthe DebateaboutDebate Bibliography. Myperspectiveonadvocacyoverridesmylovefor thegame ofdebate.ifeellike thatthebestwaytocriticallytestargumentsorideascannotbefoundintheheadondenialofyes/noorgood/bad.astheargumentsplayoutforswitchsidedebate, theybeginwiththeconceptthatthebestwaytolearnaboutsomethingisto researchbothsidesoftheissue.oneofthebestargumentsfor switchside debate isbaseduponthisconceptoflearningthemostaboutsomething.however,thekey questionbecomesshouldastudenthavetoverbalizethingstheydisagreewith? Shouldyoupubliclyutterracismisgoodforthepurposeofhavingadebate?The partaboutlearningbothsidescanhappenwithoutactuallysayingitinthedebate, thedesiretowinindebateforcesyouintoresearchingbothsides.doyoureally needtoutterthingsyoudisagreewith?ifeelthatyoushouldnot,especiallyin debate.ifyouareanindividualthathasexperiencedanyformofoppression,why wouldyouwanttoplaytheroleoftheoppressor?thisiswhereialsofeelcritical thinkingcanbebettertested.wedon thavetodisagreethatsexismexistsandis bad,wecandisagreeonhowweshouldcombatit.it swhereyoudisagreethat becomesimportant.justsayingyes/nostiflescreativethinkingthatcanreallyoffer functionalhelpfultestsforcriticalideas.

14 Herearesomegoodargumentsforwhydefendingsomethingyoudisagree withisbad!(alldebatableofcourse) 1.Publicutteranceispubliccommitment shouldnotseparatespeechfrom conviction 2.Policydebateispublicdebate whenweseparateiswhenadminseesasagame anddebatedies 3.Shouldnotvaluetechniqueoversubstance Therearetimeswheresubstance shouldbesecondary. 4.Speaking/Verbalizingevilsdoesnothelptounderstand,butdrawsonecloseto themiddle 5.Techniqueindebatedoesnottranslateintoeffectivecommunicationskills 6.Focusontechniqueisexclusionaryonalllevels HS/college/andjudgingpool 8.Shouldnotdivorcetherhetoricalfromthedialectical 9.Withoutconviction,narrowtopicsdonotresultinapositiveeducational experience 10.Shouldnotdecouplethesincerityprinciplefromargumentpresentedbydebater 11.Acceptingstrictnotionsofswitchsidedebateforcesonetoreplacebeliefswith appreciationfortheprocess. Isdebaterhetoricalordialectical? Mycontentioninthisdebateisthatitisboth.Tohaveeffectiveagencyoutsideof debateformostwhoparticipate,weneedtorespecttherhetoricalanddialectical benefitsofdebate. Iscompetitivedebate publicdebate? MycontentionisinlinewithMurphy scontentionthatapublicutteranceisapublic commitment.wecontendthatdiscoursedoescreatereality,andthosewhowatch thedebatesaredefinitelyeffected.thedesiretocreatethepublic/private dichotomyshouldberesistedformanysignificantreasons.

15 Shoulddebatersbeforcedintoarguingforwhatyoudisagreewithand separateconvictionfromspeech? Mypositionisthatdebatecanbeatraininggroundfordiscussingthoseissuesthat areimportanttoyou,andgiveyouagencyfordealingwithyourownpersonal oppressionsandinequalities.wealsocontendthatwewillalwaysdebatenegative, andfeelthatgoingnegative,doingresearch,andhavingdiscussionisaplacewhere youcangetallofthetheoreticalbenefitsofswitchsidedebating,withoututtering theverywordsthatfosterpersonaloppression. IsitimportanttoVerbalizethingsyoudisagreewith? Mycontentionisthatthisverbalizationservestopullastudenttothecenter,thus explainingtheroleofdebateasaformofculturaltechnology.resolutionsare designedtoportrayanauraofinclusiveness,whileservingtoonlyallowonesideto beheard.mycontentionisthatspeakingaffirmativeiswhereyoufindconviction, andtheadvantagesoflearningtoeffectivelyaddressoppressionthateffectsyour ownpersonalagencyisbetterthanattemptingtoacquireanebulousmethodof verbalizingthatservesasatooltocooptradicalbeliefs. PARTICIPATIONVS.COMPETITION Participationismoreimportantthancompetition.Thebenefitsofaneducational formofdebatebeingabletoaccessmorepeopleisbetterthanabankruptformof educationthatisaccessedbylesspeople. Mycontentionisthatoneoftheoverarchingproblemswithemphasisonthe gamestrategyofswitchsidedebatewastheproblemofelevatingtechnique oversubstance. Debatehasmadeaturnfromthegameenvisionedinswitchsidetothemodelingof policymakersinthelegislativehalls.thereasonforclaimingitisoktovalue techniqueoversubstancewasbecausewewerenotmodelingthelegislativehalls, andarecreatingourowngame.nowmanydebatersconstructarguments attemptingtoequateourforumwiththelegislativehalls,andthusofferingamethod ofeducationthathasbeendeemedun accessiblebypastproponentsofswitchside debating. Usingswitchsidedebatetoforcestudentstodefendviewsthatarenottheirownis attemptingtousedebatetoproducetheliberalcitizen,thustreatingdebatersas subjects tobeconvertedoneatatimetobecomeatoolofglobalgovernanceusing universalnormsfortheexceptionalistsubjecttogoverntheworld.thereisagood debatetobehadaboutifthisisgoodorbad.

16 STRICTSWITCHSIDEDEBATEMAKESDEBATEAFORMOFCULTURAL TECHNOLOGY Thedebateaboutdebatehighlightshowcommunicationbecomesanobject, instrument,andfieldofculturalgovernance.thisisaproductioninthepowerof culturalgovernancethroughthreemechanisms 1. Toseparatespeechfromconviction 2. Decouplesincerityprinciplefromargumentpresentedbydebater. 3. Forcesonetoreplacebeliefswithappreciationfortheprocess ANSWERSTOMUIR Muir ssupportforswitchsidedebateisbaseduponuniversalnormssuchas toleranceandpluralism,thoughmuirattemptstoclaimthatdebatemaintainsa senseofmoraldevelopment.wemustexaminehowmuirreassignsconvictionto theprocessofgeneratingmorallysoundjudgment.muirseesswitchsidedebateas atoolfordeliberativedemocracyandgameoffreedom.thisnotionofswitchside debatepre configuresadeliberativemoraltheoryofdemocracy. Iwillalsomakeitknownthattherewasamomentbeforethemergerwherepeople attemptedtoproducepublicationstotryandpromotendtdebateoverceda debate,andotherformsofdebate,becauseoftheincredibleshrinkageofthendt debatecommunity.sosomeofthesewritingshadapurposeatthetimethatwasn t farfrommadisonavenue. Thereisnorulebookondebate,norisittotallyagreeduponthatwearedoing switchsidedebate.inthepast,resolutionswereverygeneric,andpeoplejust basicallyaffirmedtheresolution.mostaffirmativeswerethesame.nowthatwe haveageneric(butspecific)resolution,andpeopleinductivelyinfertheirplanas affirmingtheresolution,wearen tswitchingsidesonagenericissue;weare debatingwhatevertheaffirmativesays. Ifyouarearguingracismsexists,andtheotherteamssaysswitchsidedebategood, yousay switchsidesthen andarguethattheclaimtoknowishowwekeep racismhidden.thoseargumentswheredebatersclaimtheironlygroundis racism bad isadoubleturntotheirswitchsidedebategoodarguments.

17 FRAMEWORK Framework:Thereisnoonemeaningto Framework,itdependsonhowitis beingusedinthedebate. Thisargumenthasbecomequietcommoninmanydebates.Forme,Ifeelitisjust animpactdebate,butformanyitbecomesarulestypeargument.theideathat someissueshavenorelevancebecauseofthecreationofafalsebright linethat createsadistinctionbetweenwhatimpactscountandwhichonesdon tisn tvery logicaltome.whenidebatedtherewasthisdebateaboutwhetheryoucan separatevaluesfrompolicies.mostcriticalthinkerswouldagreethatthesetwoare inseparable. Obviously,whenKdebaterssayfiatisillusory,thepolicydebatersarenotblown away,butratherfeelasthoughweagreetopretendtobepolicymakers.sothefirst decisionyoumakeasyoupreparefordebatesis Whoarewe?Whatarewedoing? DoIwanttoplayinaworldofFiat? CXquestion:Willyourplanbepassed?WillyoudefendtheUSFGdoingyourplan? Youhavetobepreparedtoanswerthesequestionswithoutwavering.MostKteams losemanydebatesonframeworkoralttheorybecausetheyarenotconsistentin howtheyjumpthroughthepolicy101gauntletofargumentsandassumptions. Example:Ifyouaregoingto K uptheimpactsthenegativereads,i.e.,nuclearwar scenariosorenvironmentalcollapse.thenitsokaytogivetheotherteamgroundto makethosearguments,justmakesureyoustaytightonmakingsuretheygetno leapsoflogicwithintheirevidenceastheymovethroughtheirlinkchainstoreach theirimpacts.butthereisnoneedtosay nolink totheargumentthatyoudo somethingifyoucanbeattheargumentotherways. Somepeopleliketoseeframeworkasplacewhereyoucanargueawhole conglomerationofthingsandhopethatintheend,theycanarguetheyareoneof thosethings,andthustheirapproachisbetter.examples:realismgood,or predictionsgood,orsecuritizationgoodorpragmatismgoodorutilitarianismgood orfearofdeathgood.therearemore,butithinkyougetthepoint.youneedto beabletoaddresstheseargumentswithamethod. MyfirstsuggestionishaveaKoftheideaofframework.Thiscanbeutilizedas offenseagainstthewaytheyareusingwhateverargumentstheychoose.some argumentswouldbegeneric rulesbad arguments,orexclusionaryideologiesbad. Mysecondsuggestionistousethelanguageofdebatewhennecessary.Example Whocontrolsuniquenessonframework?Well?TheUShasbeenatwareveryyear sinceitsinception.wehavemanysmallwarsaroundtheglobe,environmental crises,naturaldisasterspushedbythoseenvironmentalconsequences,economic downturnsandspirals.morewarsarelikelytogaincontroloftheoiltofeedtheus

18 petroleumculture.andthisiswheretheir framework ideologieshavegottenus, sowhywouldwecontinue?...thekdebatercontrolsuniquenessonframework. Now,letsgetmorespecific:Whataboutdebate?Wellmostofthepeoplethat succeedinthecurrentdominant/popularmethodofpolicydebatearemanytimes privilegedandhavemanyweeksofsummercamp,arewhiteandmale.manyofthe argumentsinthedebateaboutdebatewillworktohelpyouonwhatthecurrent formofdebateteachesyou.whatarewedoing?whatisourpurpose?whatis education? AsaKdebater,youwanttopunishpeopleforarguingframework.Todothis,you needtobereadytobeontheattackwhentheyrevealtheir framework interpretation. WHATISPOLITICSORAPOLITICALACT? Thisisanimportantquestionfordebaters.Ifsomeoneusessexistorracist language,isthatgoodpolitics?doesiteffectifplanwillsolveornot?ioncehearda judgetelladebaterthatifoneteamusedracistlanguage,buttheplansolved,then hewouldvotefortheplan,butdocktheirspeakerpoints.tome,thisleadsusintoa discussionabout inroundimpacts.thismaybeoneofthewayskritiksmadetheir wayintodebate.itbecamestrategictoonlygoforsexistlanguageinthedebateif theotherteamusedblatantsexistlanguage.peoplewouldarguethatdiscourseis themostimportantbecausewhathappensinthedebatearetheonly real impacts inthedebate.sexist/racist/homophobiclanguagecreatesanunwelcomeand unfairplayingfieldforthosewhomsuchlanguagedoesviolenceagainst.tome,all debatespeechesarepolitical,andthedecisionhasalottodowithpolitics.alarger questionisonethatinvestigateshowethics,discourse,epistemology,ontologyor performancedefinesthepoliticalact.theplancanonlyaspiretothevalueofthe politicalactattemptingtosupportit.thisiswhereyourresearchwouldattemptto bebetterthantheirsonhowmuchofaroletheareayouchoosetodisagreeathas onthesuccessofthepoliticalact.therearesomanywaystoinvestigatethe political. FORCETHELINKBETWEENTHEIRFRAMEWORKEVIDENCEANDTHEIR PARTICULARACTION Everyframeworkargumenttheymakeshouldbeforcedtotieitselftothepoliticsof the1ac.theymayread100cardsonhowtherearegoodpolicyactions,andhowwe needpolicy,butit saquestionoftheirpolicy.keeptightonthisdebate.thisis wherecxbecomesimportantonceagain. THERISKOFALINK Ineverlikedthisconceptverymuch,eitherthereisalink,orthereisnot.However, manypeopledisagree.therearemanywaysthatsmartpolicyteamsarenow puttingtogethermoresubstantiveargumentsintotheirframeworkargument. CombiningthisideathatthenegativeKhastodefendthestatusquoandthatthere isachancetheaffirmativemightaccidentlymitigatealargerprobleminarisk calculus.therearemanydifferentwaystosaywemustact.therearealsosome

19 commonargumentsthatsaykritiksdonothing,andweneedcritiqueandaction. ThesearethekindofdebateswhereKdebatersgetstuckwithweighingtheir nonunique impactsagainstthe risk ofalinktheaffirmativemayhavetosomelarge extinctionimpact.manyjudgesfallonthesideofextinctionwhenthishappens. Thismeansyouneedtostayfocusedonwhatisthemostimportantissueinthe debate.thisalsomeansyoucan tjustspotthemextinction.whentheysay100% riskofextinction,youhavefailedtodoyourpartinindictingtheirarguments.be real.thereisnowayanyaffirmativeonanytopicimplementedwouldactually solve extinction,ever.that smoronicandonlyindebatedoesthatmakesense. It syourjobtomakesureitdoesn tmakesense.youhavetoindicttheirimpactby claimingtheirevidencedoesn tsayitwilloccur.youthenhavetomakesureyou provethereisnointernallinkinhowtheiraffirmativecouldactuallybethesingle factorinaddressingextinction.youcannotspotthemtheiradvantagesor THEIRDISADVANTAGES.Thenyoushouldalsohavesomethingstosayaboutthe ideologybehindthepoliticsoffearutilizedbytheirauthors.foralotofthisyou don tneedevidence.readthe makesnosenseda ifyouhaveto. Predictionsdebate:Realismdebate:(MearsheimerandMurray)Sciencegood debate:utilitarianismdebate: Allofthesearedebatesyouneedtobereadytoanswer.SomeofMearsheimer s argumentssayweneedtopretendtoberoleplayers.thisissomewhatofadebate aboutdebateargument.youranswershouldbeslantedtowardsclaimingthateven ifwewere role playing,thatdoesnotdenythatweshouldnotlearninthedebate roundshowcertainideologies/philosophiescauseimpactsinourworld.that argumentwouldonlysuperchargeyourargumentifyouareintersectingwiththeir ideaof political.ifyouaresayingwearejustdebaters,andmakingother argumentsthatdonotengagethe political,thenyouopenyourselfuptomoreof theframeworktheoryargumentsmostpolicyteamsmakeagainstkteams.

20 WHOCONTROLSPOLITICS? Manypeoplecallthis cedethepolitical. Thisargumentclaimsthatifwedonot engageinpolitics,thentherightwingwilltakeover,andalloftheimpactsyou identifyinyourcriticismwillbeworse.youranswertothisargumenthastobea uniquenessstyleargument.manypeopleliketopositionthemselvesasnotfalling withinthe evil partofthepoliticalspectrum,whilestillendorsingthesametypeof policies.youhavetobeabletodefendwhyyourpositionofnotengagingpolitics,if youdo(hopefullyyourargumentisaboutthepolitical),andithinkonepositionyou cantakeistoarguethatwhatyoucallthe political isaverylimitedviewofwhere politicshappens.butithinkthebestargumenttomakeisthatyouarechallenging thosewhotheyclaimyouwouldbecedingtoo,inthisdebate.ifyouwintheother teamsargumentsonlyreifytheexistingpoliticalsystem,thenchallengingtheir argumentisachallengetothatpolitical.you renotceding,youareengaging.this argumentworksbestforthepolicyteamswhenyouchoosetonotengagethe state bydoingsuchthingsasrefusingtoaffirmtheusfg.beprepared. Hereisanexample: Cedespowertoaggressiveandreactionaryelitesthatwillcauseextinction absentpoliticalengagement CarlBoggs(LosAngelesCampus FacultyProfessor)1997 TheGreatRetreat Anotherargumentthatdovetailswiththisoneis: Arguingthatrepresentationsdeterminerealitydestroyseffectivepolitical action Jarvis,00(Darryl,lecturerinIR andthechallengeofpostmodernism,2000,p.189 )

21 FRAMEWORKCENTRAL SAMPLE#1 Framework interpretation:thesolepurposeoftheballotistoanswerthe resolutionalquestion:istheenactmentofatopicalplanbetterthanthestatusquoora competitivepolicyoption? Thisisaninterestingdescriptionofwhatdebateshouldbe.Thereisnoplacethat makesitthis.thereisnorulebook,oragencythatcarriessucharuleout.isdebate supposedtoanswertheresolutionalquestion,oristheresolutionjustafencethe planhastofallinto?votingaffirmativeinalotofdebatesdoesnotanswerthe resolutionalquestions.mostaffirmativesarenotadequateinductivelogicalsteps thatprovethegeneralstatementoftheresolutiontrue.whatamisaying?iam sayingthattherearefallaciesinlogicthatonemustrecognizewhenpeoplewantto starttalkingaboutwhetherwearedebatingthe truth oftheresolution. Allbirdscanfly. Anostrichisabird Thereforeandostrichcanfly.. Mostaffirmativesareostriches,notbluejaysorrobins,andthusareexamplesofthe resolution,butnotnecessarilyrepresentativeofthegeneraltruthoftheresolution. SAMPLE#2 Framework:Thisdebateisaboutevaluatingifatopicalplanisbetterthanthe statusquooracompetitivepolicyoption? Manypeoplegooutoftheirwaytomakesureweknowthisis policy debate.we havethe policydebate roundrobin.atfirstthisdistinctionwasonebasedon seeingthedifferencebetweencedaandndt.thenthedistinctionwasusedto identifythedifferencebetweenceda/ndtandparliamentarydebate.nowitis beingusedtotryandcreatedistinctionsbetweenargumentstylesintheceda/ndt community. Byaccessingtheaffirmativethroughtheir politics youareevaluatingifthetopical planisbad,butthisphrasetriestomakeitonlyauniquenessissue.onceagain, wheredoesthistypeofthinkingoriginatefromthatsaysthisisthebestwayto comparesomething;thisisansweredbywhocontrolsuniqueness.thesimple, yourkritikisanon uniquedisadvantage argumentisusedalothere.youhaveto learnhowtoarguethateachincrementallinkmakesthestatusquoworse. Remember,agoodargumentsaysyouframetheproblembadly,youdon tsolve,and youmakethingsworse.also,yourpurposeistobuildinaccesspointstotheir affirmativewithyourargumentthatallowyoutovoidtheirframeworkarguments. Theyspendtimeonframework,whileyou respendingtimeaccessingtheir frameworkwithyourargument.ireallywanttostressthatmost framework/topicality/ktheoryargumentsareslantedtowards faulty Kdebate andstereotypes.ifyoucandisconnecttheirtheory(i.e.,frameworkscreens)from

22 yourargument,thenyouwillwinmostofthetime.hereisyoureducationturn, claimthatthisthenforcesteamstoactuallygooutandresearchyourargument. Onceyougetgoodatvoidingtheirmisinformedarguments,yoursuccessrate shouldrisedramatically. SAMPLE#3 Ourinterpretationisthatthenegativegetstodefendacompetitivepolicy alternative a.predictability therearemillionsofrepresentationsthatwecan tpredict theresolution saysusfgsoweshoulddebatethat predictabilityiskeytofairness b.education policydiscussionsfosterbetterinformeddebatethatcanbeadaptedtothereal world c.switchsidedebatesolvesanyriskofdebatebeingunethical theirargumentsarebasedin alackofunderstandingoftheactivityandhowitworkstoshapestudents Abbott,2009 Thisisthetypeofframeworkargumentwhereyoushouldleanmoreonyour frameworkkritik.thisargumentmakessomanyassumptionsabouta Kritik, includingthattheyareallthesameormakethesamearguments,orcanallbeputin onebarrelatonetime,becausethey renot policyarguments andsotheymustbek arguments. Sothisargumentissayingthattheonlywaythenegativecandisagree,iswitha counter plan.hmmm.that sithuh?seemssomewhatabusive.obviously,ifyour argumentisacaseturn,itwouldcompete.thisargumenthassuchanarrow interpretationofpolitics.mostgoodkritikswillcriticizethisnarrowinterpretation ofpolitics,andshouldbereadytoarguehowthiswayofthinking/politicsisbad. Theargumentthattherearemillionsofrepresentationsaretrue,unfortunatelythe negativeshouldbetalkingabouttheonesthatwereofferedupinthe1ac.theyhad 9minutestospeak,theychosewhattosay,thatiscalledapoliticalact.Any argumentssayingtheyarenotstucktotheirrepresentationsareprettymuch legitimizingtheaffirmativeseveringlinksfromthe1ac. HerearesomecommonT/Frameworkauthorspeopleread.Ifyoureallywanttobe theamazingkdebateryoushouldknowwhateachandeveryoneoftheseauthors say.ifyoucanfindacampframeworkfilelyingaround,youcanactuallyseehow theyareused.readthesepeople.studythem.ifyouareakdebaterinhighschool andcollege,thenyoumightaswellgetonwithknowingthebasicauthorspeople readagainstyou.thatispartofresearching.whentheysayoneoftheseauthors names,youshouldknowwhattheevidencecansay. Herearesomeverypopularauthorsusedagainstcritical/alternativeteams: MichaelIgnatieff,2004 CarrProfessorofHumanRightsPractice,DirectoroftheCarrCenterforHumanRights PolicyattheJFKSchoolofGovernment,HarvardUniversity,TheLesserEvil:PoliticalEthicsinanAgeofTerror, p.20 1 RuthLesslShively2000 AssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceatTexasA&M,PoliticalTheoryandPartisan Politics,p.182 3

23 AdolfG.Gundersen,2000 AssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceatTexasA&M,PoliticalTheoryandPartisan Politics,p JohnRawls.1999,TheLawofPeoples,p AlanCoverstone,1995 "AnInwardGlance:AResponseToMitchell'sOutwardActivistTurn,"DRG,URL: organizations/debate/miscsites/drgarticles/coverstone1995china.htm Owen02,UniversityofSouthampton(David, ReorientingInternationalRelations:OnPragmatism,Pluralism andpracticalreasoning,millennium:journalofinternationalstudies,vol.31,no.3, Fine,2000 DepartmentofSociologyNorthwesternUniversity Gary, GAMESANDTRUTHS:LearningTo ConstructSocialProblemsInHighSchoolDebate, Boggs,1997 ProfessorofPoliticalScience, 97 Carl,NationalUniversity,Theory&Society26,December,p SankaranKrishna,1993 ProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheUniversityofHawaii,Alternatives,v.18 BestandKellner,2001 StevenBest,Assoc.ProfPhil.AndHuman.UTexasandDouglasKellner,Phil.OfEd. Chair, PostmodernPoliticsandtheBattlefortheFuture, Illuminations, Muir1993 StarA.PHILOSOPHYANDRHETORIC,"ADefenseoftheEthicsofContemporaryDebate,"v26,n4, p.288 ShampaBiswas,2007 ProfessorofPoliticsatWhitmanCollege,December2007, EmpireandGlobalPublic Intellectuals:ReadingEdwardSaidasanInternationalRelationsTheorist, Millennium:JournalofInternational Studies,Vol.36,No.1,p.124 JohnJ.Mearsheimer,1995 Realismheavyweightchampion,InternationalSecurity,Vol.20,No AlastairJ.H.Murray,1997 PoliticsANDRealism FuyukiKurusawa2004 ConstellationsVol11No.4 ToddMay,2005,PHILOSOPHY&SOCIALCRITICISM vol31nos5 6 pp DavidE.McClean,2001 TheCulturalLeftandtheLimitsofSocialHope Presentedatthe2001AnnualConference ofthesocietyfortheadvancementofamericanphilosophy. P.H.LIOTTA,2005 SecurityDialogue Vol.36(1):49 70

24 CRITICALFRAMEWORKARGUMENTSIFYOU RENEGATIVE Thereisatimewhenyoudebateteamsthatwillnotdefendanything.Thisisone reasonwhythe1 st Priorityto1 st Americansargumentwasasuccessfuldebate argument.teamsthatchoosetodefendnothing,relyuponameta argumentthat mightsayabsolutesarebad.orweneedtobeinconstantchange.(seemannand DeLeuzeandGuattari.) Youneedacriticalargumentthatsaysnottakingastanceonanythingorconstant deferralbad.somepeopleliketomakethisargumentinrelationtoaframework argumentthatmightsaylackofdebateaboutpoliticsorincludingeveryonecreates worselong termviolenceorthattherearetimesweneedtoexcludetoprevent violence.ifyouareapersonwhofeelsyouhavetostruggledaytodaywith oppressionsuchassexismorracism,thenyoushouldhaveanadvantageoverthose whoprivilegejustthinkingoremptyspaceintheplaceofachancetoengagein revolutionarypolitics. Raaschisoneexample.Thisargumentsaysthatexclusionsaregood,andwemust debateaboutissues,notletitbe. Agonismgoodisanotherargumentthatwouldsaytheyavoidtheneedfor contestation. Hegemoniccompetitionismoreofatheoryargumentthatwouldsaytheaffirmative allowsnospaceforyoutodebate,andwillusethatadvantagetowinacompetition. Thisformofunfaircompetitioncanbeidentifiedashegemonicasopposedto cooperativecompetition,wheredisagreeingisrequired.theseareexamples,and youmayfindyourown.justmakesureyouhaveastrategy.

25 TOPICALITY Wordscanbend.Wordscanbeinterpreteddifferentways.Oncearesolutionis written,itiswhatitis.thereisnoonestandard prediction peoplemakeabout legitimatearguments,onlyanexpectedrehashingofpastarguments.forhigh schooldebaters,thetopicsseemtobelesspoliticallycreated,andifindthemmuch moreaccessibletocreativeandinnovatedebate.iwillidentifysomeofthekey debatesyoushouldbereadyforwhenyoureadyouraffirmative. Itbafflesmeathowtheforceoftechnologyiseverchangingourabilitytoresearch andaccessmoreinformationatafasterpace,peoplestarttofeellikeweneedto limitthepossibleinterpretationsofthetopic.whydowewantalimitedtopic? Thisisbasedupontheperspectivethatforustohavegood,educationaldebate,we needtomakesuretheresolutionsarenarrowenoughsothateveryonewouldhave evidenceonallofthepossibleaffirmatives.ifweallowtoomanyaffirmatives,then wecan tpossiblyresearchallofthem.it soddthatpeoplesaythis,butatthesame timereadthesamescenariosandmeadevidenceyearafteryear. ThereisalargerabstractreasonwhyIfeelpeoplelikelimitedresolutions.Ifyou findamethodandcanbecomeanexpertinorganizingandtechnicallymanaging evidenceinthedebate,thenalimitedtopicbenefitsyourstyle.toome,thereisa pedagogicalreasonwhypolicydebaterspreferlimitedtopics.forkritikdebaters, theirargumentsarebroadenoughtocatchalargeamountofpossibleaffirmatives. Whichleadstothequestion,aregenericargumentsgood/badfordebate? Ifeelthatagoodargumentisagoodargument.Ifsomethingissoprominentthatit appliestoalotofthings,thenmaybeitshouldbediscussed,ratherthanbeing writtenoffasgeneric.and,likeisaid,it snotlikethepolicydebateworldisdoing nothingmorethanregurgitatingthesameextinctionscenariosyearafteryear. Somepeopleliketohaveoffenseontopicality.Iusedtobeoftheschoolthatsaid thatwehavetorejectthetopic,buthavebecomemoreofasupporterofwecanreinterpretthetopic.maybeyouwantto affirmtheresolutionofxxxxx(inserttopic) asametaphorfor... Youhavetobecreative,butyouhavetoaffirmsomething.Itreallyisanuphill battletojustrejecttheresolution. Ifyouhaveaninterpretationthough,thenyouhavetheabilitytohaveoffenseonthe competinginterpretations byclaimingthatthenormativereasonsyouhaveto interpretthetopicthiswayaremoreimportantthanthecompetitivereasonsyou haveforlimitingthetopicdiscussion. Therearetopicswheretherearedebatesabouthowweshouldinterpretcertain wordsthatreallydocomedowntonormativereasonstoprefervs.competing interpretations.

26 Example#1 AtopicthatsaystoX nations especiallylikeafricaandeastern Europe.YouhaveyouraffirmativethatprovidesXtoapeoplewhoarebeingdenied nationhood andutilizetheirargumentsintheliteratureonwhytheyshouldbea nationasyourtopicalityevidence. Example#2 Atopicthatgives development assistance.therearemanyauthors whowritethattheterm development isracist.soifyouchoosetonotbe traditionalmodesof development assistance,youhavesomegoodreasonsto preferyourinterpretationthatgoesbeyondhowitlimitsthetopic. Canyoureallychooseonedefinitionasbeingrightovertheother? ThisiswhereIthinkfalsedichotomiesarecreated,whenweattempttoascertain oneinterpretationasalegitimateinterpretation,butnotthemostlimiting definition.shouldyoureallyloseadebateforthis?youreallyneedsome offense onlimitinginterpretations.oneexampleistoarguethenegativeinterpretations over limits,andtheirinterpretationsexcludesimportantdebate.weightheamount ofgoodindepthdebategainedovertheincrementalamountofbaddebatelost. Hereismyboldstatementforthissection.Topicsareframedbasedupon2 importantfactors Whatevidenceisavailable(whatdoesthemainstreamliterature say)andhowwouldthisworkindebate(whatgroundwouldnegativeand affirmativehave)!these2framingfactorsareaproductof ideological/ontological/epistemologicalperspectivesthatarejuxtaposedtoother perspectivesontheseissues,butofferedupintheresolutionsasneutral.the wordingand keyphrases forcedebaterstoeithertotakeupthemainstreamside whileontheaffirmative,orhavetodebatethetopicalitygauntlet.notalltopicsare thisway,norisitininherentinadebatetopic.butthecurrentcollegetopicprocess doessufferfromthisillness.weshouldopenuptopicstoallowthealternative literaturebasegoaffirmative.whenyou renegative,youanswertheaffirmative.so radical/alternative/minoritysolutionstotopicproblemareasareneveran affirmativeoptionwithouthavingtodebatetopicalityinmostdebates. Inyourdefenseofyourinterpretationontopicalitythereare3thingsyou shouldbesaying: Educationismostimportant,notcompetitiveequity. Participationismoreimportantthancompetitiveequity. Competitiveequityfromlimitingtheresolutionissubjectiveanddebatable. Yourparticipationandeducationclaimsonanormativelevelarenot. NORMATIVEREASONSTOPREFERYOURINTERPRETATIONOUTWEIGHTHEIR FAIRNESS.

27 THETOPICALITYGAUNTLET! YouneedtobereadytowalkthroughthegauntletofperfectedTargumentsifyou wanttobeasuccessfulkdebater.myviewisthatyoushouldwinmostorallof yournegativerounds,andunstoppablesuccessreallydependsonyouhavingagood affirmative.soifyouwanttobegoodontheaffirmative,onethingyouhavetobe abletodoisproveyourargumentasprocedurallylegitimate. Herearesomethingsthatyouneedtobeawareof. 1 BeclearinCXwhatyouraffirmativeaffirms.Ifyouareshady,inconsistentor abusive,youwillbepunishedwhendebatingadebaterthatisgoodatwinningthe argumentthatyouhavetobeabouttheresolution.crossexaminationisyourpass oryourdeathsentence. 2 Don t NO LINK outofarguments.youshouldengageinmore NOINTERNAL LINK stylearguments.behonest,ifpeoplearereadingmeadorbearden,whynot goafterthepartoftheargumentthatsaysonceyoulink,youcausenuclearwar. Everytimeyousetuptoansweranegativeargument,youmustthinkabouthow thiswillinteractwithtopicality. 3 Bereadytoidentifydebatablenegativeground.Thisisimportanttoalotof critics.makesureyouidentifyargumentsthatmostteamsarereadingonthe negative. 4 Bereadytoexplainhowyourinterpretationofthetopicneitherexplodesthe topic,norover limitsthetopic.thisalsomeansyoushouldalwayshavean interpretationofthetopic. 5 Ifyoudonotreadaplan,bereadytomakeargumentsthatwouldultimatelysay criticalground ismoreimportantthancounter planground.youaresayingthat processstyleargumentsremovediscussionawayfromunderstandingtheissues. Thetypically yesweknowthat,let sdosomethingaboutit shouldnotflyhere. Yourargumentneedstobethat action withouttrueunderstandingeitherpacifies ourneedforrealchange,orresultsinnegativeconsequences. 6 Knowthehistoryofdebateandyouwillgetbymucheasier.Backintheearly 90 sincedasomepeoplewerereadingplans,whileotherswerenot.the communitywashugethen.therewereover300teamsatcedanationals.the diversityofapproachintheresolutionbroughtdebatetoitshighestparticipation numbers.nowtheattempttosaywemustdebatelike X onlytakesusbacktothe dayswhereanyonecanqualifyforthendtbecausewedon thavemanyschools doingndtdebate.whocanndtmergewithnext,oncethe CEDAstyle has phasedout?(itwon t PuttingtheKindebate) 7 Havereasonswhyyourmethodofaffirmingtheresolutionisgoodfordebate.

28 Therearesomeargumentsthatmostteamswhoreadtopicalitymightmake.Now manytimesthesewilloverlapwithframeworkarguments.whatyouneedtodois bereadytodebatethemandhaveyouranswerswrittendown. Youcansayitonthenegative Thereisatopicalversionofyouraff Extra Topical EffectsTopical GottahaveaPlan ASpec Discourseisextra topical Rulesgood Debatingaboutthestategood

29 DEBATINGAFFIRMATIVE: Myviewofhowtodebatecriticallyontheaffirmativehaschangedovertheyears. ThereweretimeswhenIfeltliketheresolutionwasjustabadidea,andthought thatargumentssayingrejecttheresolutionontheaffirmativewerelegitimate.i owealottoshanahanbecauseheandihadsomeheatedargumentsaboutsome issues,andonethingilearnedisthatyoushouldwarpthemeaningofthetopic, ratherthansayithasthepowertoshutyouout. NOTALLCRITICALAFFIRMATIVESTHATTALKABOUTOPPRESSIONOR DISCRIMINATIONAREPROJECTS! Bereadytoplayoffofthis.ThisisacommonmistakepeoplewanttomakeagainstK affirmatives,sotheycanfindtheir projectstrategies fromthe1990 s.yes,some teamsusedtocalltheirargumentaproject.butthatdoesnotmeanyouareone. Remember,whenpeoplecannotfinddirectargumentsagainstyou,theywill tryandcontroltheframingofthedebate,andconstantlyrepresentyouas somethingyouarenot.thisisoneofthebiggestchallengesasakdebater, especiallyontheaffirmative.youneedtocontroltheframingofwhatyoudoand whatyousay,whichbeginswithagoodcxandaconsistentinterpretationofyour affirmative. Viewofwhatyoucando: Criticizeit/RejectItorTheglassceilingofideology:Thisiswherepeoplesay the resolutionsaysx andwedon twanttosaythat,voteaffirmativetorejectthe resolution. PokeFunatit:Thesetypesofmethodscouldusesatire,irony,metaphorsorother methodsofattemptingtoover identifywiththeresolutionaspeoplemightsay. Re interpret:thisiswherethebestcriticaldebatersfindtheirspot.onceagain, youmakeyourselftopical,butatthesametimefindcriticalwaystoleveragehow yourinterpretationofthetopicisnormativelybetter,andusethe benefits/advantagesfromyourcriticism/affirmativeaswaytoimpactturntheir interpretation. Somestrategiesinvolveusingstatementslike Thepurposeofthisdebate or The frameworkforthisdebateis.whatyoudostrategicallyisgetreadytogobigin the2 nd constructivesandrebuttalsonwhyyourxstatementshouldbethefocus, andtakingontheperspectivethatyouwillnotlosethisdebate.theniftheydon t debateyouthere,it saneasywin.iftheydo,youshouldbeready.thatisdebate. Commonquestions/areasofconcernyoushouldhavewhenwritingacritical affirmative! DoIreadaplan?

30 WillIlinktothestatismdebate? WillIbeabletocompetewiththebestKdebater? Whatismyanswertoframework? Whatismyanswertotopicality? HowwillIoutweigh/frameshort termdisads? CanIidentifynegativeground? HowwillIaddresscounterplans/counter advocacies? HowwillIanswerthecapitalismkritik? CrossXissoimportantfortheKdebater.YouliveanddiebyCX.Youcan tsayyou willdefend passageofplan butthensaynolink wedon tpassplan asyourfirst answertoda sorcp s.(da Disadvantage CP Counterplan) ThisbringsmetothenextthingtoconsiderwhenreadingaPlan,youwillhaveto combatcounter plans.goodpolicydebatershaveastorageclosetfullofvarious executiveorder(xo)counter plans,statescounter plans,courtscounter plans.so ifyoureadaplan,youhavetoconsiderhowdoidefendagainstthesearguments? Ifyouchoosetoreadaplan,onestrategyistosaythatontologyorethicscomefirst, andifyourplancanbelegitimatedonanontologicallevel,thenyouwouldwantto bepreparedtoarguethatthisiswhatismostimportanti.e.,ontologycomes1 st.you wouldclaimthisdebatecomesbeforelookingattheimpactsoftheplan. Somepeopletrytobecriticalbyreadingaplanwithcriticalimpacts.Onethingto consideristhatifyoudebatethebestkteams,youmostlikelywillsufferfromyour owncognizanceofknowingthatyoulink.ifyouhavecriticalimpacts,thenan alternativethatiskbasedwillprobablysolveyouraffirmativeimpactsbetterthan usingthe state perse. Youhavetomakethosestrategicdecisions.Figureoutwhereyouwouldliketo forcethedebate.ifyouwouldratherhave gottahaveaplan debatethana CPof theweek debate,thenyoushouldnotreadaplan.