Aff Framework

8/14/2019 Aff Framework

1/21

Resolved / Should Definitions

Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum

Army Officer School 4 (5-12, # 12, Punctuation The Colon and Semicolon,http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "as follows," "the following ," or a noun for which the list is an appositive: Each scout will carry the following : (colon) meals for three days, asurvival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmor e, and Oliver Lewis. b. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs) : In The Killer Angels Michael Shaara wrote:(colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learne d in school. There have been many versions of that battle [Getty sburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continue s for two more paragraphs.) c. A formalquotation or question: The President declared: (col on) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The questio n is: (colon) what can we do about it? d. A second independen t clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is

clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. e. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) f. The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock g. Aformal resolution, after the word "resolved:"Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

Should denotes an expectation the aff will be enacted. American Heritage Dictionary2kUsed to express probability or expectation


2/21

Ross Smith Ev / Decision Making

WE ARE ALL POLICY MAKERS. Debating about alternative government policies is the

best way to instill a METHOD OF DECISIONMAKING that is useful in all parts of life.Ross Smith, former debate coach at Wake Forest University, 7 (4/4/2007, Ross K., Challenge to theCommunity, https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox, JMP)

Policy: a course of action undertaken by an agent. We are all policy makers every time we decide toundertake a course of action. Most policies are non-governmental. We have an obligation to ourselvesand others to be good policy makers and advocates of good policies when dealing with others in ourspheres of influence.Policy Deliberation and Debate: a METHOD for making and advocating better policy decisions.Intercollegiate debate about PUBLIC policy: a useful way of teaching the SKILLS needed for successfuluse of a METHOD of making and advocating good decisions. Public policy topics are

especially useful because the research base is public. While we could debate aboutprivate actions by private agents, we have no way of poviding equal access to the kinds of informationthat would help make those debates good ones. There is a side benefit that some of what welearn about the public policy topics sometimes informs our later lives as citizensengaged in public deliberation regarding those same policies, but that is not theprimary reason that public policy topics are necessary .Andy Ellis is a policy maker. He makes decisions about courses of action for himself and for/with others.But a topic about what Andy Ellis should do is inaccessable and, frankly, largely none of our business.But Andy Ellis has been well served by having the training in one of the better methods of choosingamong and advocating whatever policies he is responsible for. That method is policy debate.

Debate about public policy is a subset of debate about policy, a subset that is "debatable" becausethere is a common research base. The fact that the subject matter is at a remove from us personnallywhile still residing in the "public sphere" is a feature, not a bug.
https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inboxhttps://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inboxhttps://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox


3/21

Steinberg & Freeley Ev / Decision Making

A limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground is key to productiveinculcation of decision-making and advocacy skills in every and all facets of life---even

if their position is contestable tha ts distinct from it being valuably debatable ---thisstill provides room for flexibility, creativity, and innovation, but targets the discussionto avoid mere statements of fact---T debates also solve any possible turnSteinberg & Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses oncriminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of CommunicationStudies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-

Debate is a means of settling differences , so there must be a difference of opinion or aconflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a tact or value or

policy, there is no need for debate : the matter can be settled by unanimousconsent . Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plustwo equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. ( Controversy is an essentialprerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas , proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues,there is no debate . In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clearidentification of a question or questions to be answered . For example, general argument mayoccur about the broad topic of illegal immigration . How many illegal immigrants are in theUnited States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on ourcommunities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take job s from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require socialservices? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourageillegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegalimmigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers areunwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, lawenforcement, housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligationof a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border , establish a nationalidentification can!, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely youcan think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area ofillegal immigration. Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense.However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particularquestion and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy . To be discussed andresolved effectively, controversies must be stated clearly . Vague understanding results inunfocused deliberation and poor decisions , frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by thefailure of the United States Congress to make progress on the immigration

debate during the summer of 2007 .Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, sociallydisenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They areovercrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle tomaintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful

decision, such as "We ought to do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups ofconcerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to expresstheir frustrations , anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for theirdiscussions , they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of


4/21

clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow . But if a precise question isposed such as "What can be done to improve public education?" then a more profitable area of discussion isopened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step . One or more

judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentarydebate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a

program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program"

more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They providespecific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference.To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directingand placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearlydefined . If we merely talk about "homelessness" or "abortion" or "crime'* or "globalwarming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable basisfor argument . For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is mightier thanthe sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis for clearargumentation . If we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical force for some

purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose.

Although we now have a general subject , we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad , tooloosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned with poems, novels,government documents, website development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context?What kind of physical force is being compared fists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more speci fic questionmight be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?"

The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as "Resolved: That theUnited States should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that

fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative

interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over competinginterpretations of the controversy ; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging . The point isthat debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point ofdifference , which will be outlined in the following discussion.


5/21

Part Scott Harris NDT Finals Ballot

http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=4762.0

For me the negative under develops the extent to which a forced choice that excludes the affirmativeapproach in every debate is essential. I think the negative should have developed more of a traditionallimits type argument. The argument that allowing this affirmative to make the debate about theirsocial location would enable every debate to be framed about a different social location and thatthere would be a tremendous incentive for fewer and fewer debates to talk about the topic. That thepermutation is a bad idea because in the world of the permutation there would be a vested interest inmore and more debates crowding out the political debates. In other words, I think the link to the lossof traditional political research and debate from embracing the affirmatives approach in somedebates is not developed enough by the negative. The 2NR does say that under the affirmative visionthere would be no limits to what the affirmative talks about but the focus is on how that impacts onthe ability of the negative to prepare for debates rather than making it about an argument of whatdebate would look like in the world of the permutation. The negative could also have argued for theimportance of Quare individuals specifically to discuss questions of politics and energy policy inparticular or answered more specifically the affirmatives assertions that government policy had norelevance to them. The affirmative Quare specificity arguments are late breaking in the debate sincethey only appear in CX and in rebuttals but the negative does not really address them explicitly. Hadthese arguments for why the permutation was a bad idea been developed more I would most likely havevoted negative in this debate. I am sure that Northwesterns reaction to this expl anation will be to feelthat is what we said. While I think it is the implicit intent behind their arguments I do not believe thatthese arguments as a response to the perm are explored sufficiently in the 2NR. I believe that thepermutation absorbs most of the negatives offense for why policy debates will be good and thensome debates that encourage performative resistance will also be good. I think the negative wins thatthe framework argument itself is not violent and that voting negative to exclude the aff would not be

an act of violence. That does not mean, however, that there is not an inclusion advantage to votingaffirmative.

Ballot continuesportion deleted

I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwesterns strategy in this debate round. Thiscriticism is premised on the idea that they ran framework instead of engaging Emporias argumentabout home and the Wiz. I think this criticism is unfair. Northwesterns framework argument didengage Emporias argument. Emporia said that you should vote for the team that performatively andmethodologically made debate a home. Northwesterns argument directly clashed with thatcontention. My problem in this debate was with aspects of the execution of the argument rather thanwith the strategy itself. It has always made me angry in debates when people have treated topicalityas if it were a less important argument than other arguments in debate. Topicality is a real argument.It is a researched strategy. It is an argument that challenges many affirmatives. The fact that otherarguments could be run in a debate or are run in a debate does not make topicality somehow a lessimportant argument. In reality, for many of you that go on to law school you will spend much of yourlife running topicality arguments because you will find that words in the law matter. The rest of uswill experience the ways that word choices matter in contracts, in leases, in writing laws and in manyaspects of our lives. Kansas ran an affirmative a few years ago about how the location of a comma in a
http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=4762.0http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=4762.0


6/21

law led a couple of districts to misinterpret the law into allowing individuals to be incarcerated in jail fortwo days without having any formal charges filed against them. For those individuals the location of thecomma in the law had major consequences. Debates about words are not insignificant. Debates aboutwhat kinds of arguments we should or should not be making in debates are not insignificant either.The limits debate is an argument that has real pragmatic consequences. I found myself earlier thisyear judging Harvards eco -pedagogy aff and thought to myself I could stay up tonight and put astrategy together on eco-pedagogy, but then I thought to myself why should I have to? Yes, I couldput together a strategy against any random argument somebody makes employing an energymetaphor but the reality is there are only so many nights to stay up all night researching. I would liketo actually spend time playing catch with my children occasionally or maybe even read a book or go toa movie or spend some time with my wife. A world where there are an infinite number ofaffirmatives is a world where the demand to have a specific strategy and not run framework is a worldthat says this community doesnt care whether its participants have a life or do well in school orspend time with their families. I know there is a new call abounding for interpreting this NDT as amandate for broader more diverse topics . The reality is that will create more work to prepare for theteams that choose to debate the topic but will have little to no effect on the teams that refuse todebate the topic. Broader topics that do not require positive government action or are bidirectional

will not make teams that wont debate the to pic choose to debate the topic. I think that is a con job. I am not opposed to broader topics necessarily. I tend to like the way high school topics are writtenmore than the way college topics are written. I just think people who take the meaning of the outcomeof this NDT as proof that we need to make it so people get to talk about anything they want to talkabout without having to debate against topicality or framework arguments are interested inconstructing a world that might make debate an unending nightmare and not a very good home inwhich to live. Limits, to me, are a real impact because I feel their impact in myeveryday existence .


7/21

Rules / Limits / Fairness Good

Rules are key to harness the educational value of intellectual contests this accesses

the educational value of funPrensky, 01 Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas ofeducation and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice presidentat the global financial firm Bankers Trust(Marc, Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging, 2001,www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)

So fun in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure puts us in a relaxed, receptive frame of mind forlearning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases our involvement, which also helps us learn.Both fun and play however, have the disadvantage of being somewhat abstract, unstructured, and hard -to-define concepts. But there exists a more formal andstructured way to harness (and unleash) all the power of fun and play in the learning process thepowerful institution of games. Before we look specifically at how we can combine games with learning, let us examine games themselves in s ome detail.Like fun and play, game is a word of many meanings and implications. How can we define a game? Is there any useful dis tinction between fun, play a nd games? What makes games engaging?How do we design them?Games are a subset of both play and fun. In programming jargon they a re a child, inheriting all th e characteristics of the parents. They therefore carry both the good and the bad of both

terms. Games , as we will see, also have some special qualities, which make them particularly appropriate and wellsuited for learning.So what is a game?Like play, game, has a wide variety of meanings, some positive, some negative. On the negative side there is mocking and jesting, illegal and shady activity such as a con game, as well as thefun and games that we saw earlier. As note d, these can be sources of resistance to Digital Game-Based Learning we are not playing games here. But much of that is semantic. What weare interested in here are the meanings that revolve around the definition of games involving rules, contest, rivalry and struggle.What Makes a Game a Game? Six Structural FactorsThe Encyclopedia Britannica provides the following diagram of the relation between play a nd games: 35PLAY spontaneous play organized play ( AMES)noncompetitive games competitive games (CONTESTS)intellectual contests physical contests (SPORTS)(repreinted with permission from Britanica.com 1999-2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.)Our goal here is to understand why games engage us, drawing us in often in spite of ourselves. This powerful force stems first from the fact that they are a form of fun and play, and s econdfrom what I call the six key structural elements of games:1. Rules2. Goals and Objectives3. Outcomes & Feedback4. Conflict/Competition/Challenge/Opposition5. Interaction, and6. Representation or Story.There are thousands, perhaps millions of different games, but all contain most, if not all, these powerful factors. Those tha t dont contain all the factors are still classified as games by many,but can also belong to other subclasses described below. In addition to these structural factors, there are also important design e lements that add to eng agement and distinguish a really goodgame from a poor or mediocre one.Let us discuss these six factors in detail and show how and why they lead to such strong engagement.

Rules are what differentiate games from other kinds of play. Probably the most basic definition of agame is that it is organized play, that is to say rule-based. If you dont have rules you have free play, nota game . Why are rules so important to games? Rules impose limits they force us to take specific paths to reach goalsand ensure that all players take the same paths . They put us inside the game world, by letting us know what is in and out ofbounds. What s poils a game is not so much the cheater, who accepts the rules but doesnt play by them (we candeal with him or her) but the nihilist, who denies them altogether. Rules make things both fair and exciting. When theAustralians bent the rules of the Americas Cup a nd built a huge boat in 1988, and the Americans found a way to compete with a catamaran, it was still a race but no longer the same

game.

While even small children understand some game rules (thats not fair), rules become increasingly more important as we grow older.The rules set the limits of what is OK and not OK, fair and not fair, in the game. By elementary school, kids know to crycheater if the rules are broken. Monopoly and even Trivial Pursuit have pages of written rule sets, and b y adulthood we are consulting Hoyle, hiring professional referees to enforce rules,and even holding national debates the designated hitter, the 2 point conversion, the instant replay over whether to change them.


8/21

Fun debate is a prerequisite to education and retentionPrensky, 01 Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas ofeducation and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice presidentat the global financial firm Bankers Trust(Marc, Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging, 2001,

www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)Fun and LearningPeople with the notion that learning cannot and should not be fun are clearly in an archaic mode.-Mark Bieler, former head of HR, Bankers Trust CompanySo what is the relationship between fun and learning? Does having fun help or hurt? Let us look at what some researchers have to say on thesubject:

Enjoyment and fun as part of the learning process are important when learning new tools since thelearner is relaxed and motivated and therefore more willing to learn. 6 "The role that fun plays withregard to intrinsic motivation in education is twofold. First, intrinsic motivation promotes the desire forrecurrence of the experience Secondly, fun can motivate learners to engage themselves in activitieswith which they have little or no previous experience." 7"In simple terms a brain enjoying itself is functioning more efficiently." 8"When we enjoy learning, we learn better" 9

Fun has also been shown by Datillo & Kleiber, 1993; Hastie, 1994; Middleton, Littlefield & Lehrer, 1992, to increase motivationfor learners. 10It appears then that the principal roles of fun in the learning process are to create relaxation andmotivation. Relaxation enables a learner to take things in more easily, and motivation enables them to put forth effortwithout resentment.

Letting other concerns trump rules of the game guts its effectiveness and participationVilla 96 Dana Villa Political Theory @ UC Santa Barbara Arendt and Heidegger: the Fate of thePolitical p. 37

If political action is to be valued for its own sake, then the content of political action must be politics in the sense that political

action is talk about politics. The circularity of this formulation, given by George Kateb, is unavoidable. It helps if we use an

analogy that Kateb proposes, the analogy between such a purely political politics and a game . A game, writes Kateb, is

not about anything outside itself, it is its own sufficient worldthe content of any game is

itself. What matters in a game is the play itself, and the quality of this play is utterly dependent

upon the willingness and ability of the players to enter the world of the game. The Arendtian

conception of politics is one in which the spirit animating the play (the sharing of words and deeds)

comes before all else before personal concerns, groups, interests, and even moral claims. If allowed to

dominat e the game, these elements detracts from the play and from the performance of action . A

good game happens only when the players submit themselves to its spirit and do not allow subjective

or external motives to dictate the play. A good game, like genuine politics, is played for its own sake.


9/21

Competitive debate is a dialogue between two teams. Their willful refusal to defendthe resolution is an act to exclude the negative from meaningful participation in thedialogue. Placing a priority on a balanced topic exists to provide a voice for bothsides.Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATIONAT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE,Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco)

Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunityto voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated deniesone side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairnessrequirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topicselection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure.Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topicconsistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and criticalarguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to

fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table.When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines therespect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentallydenies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate asdialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental conditionof a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request forlinks to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voicebacked by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced.Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies.Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in adialogue. They are unable to understand what went on and are left to the whims of time and

power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning:Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance theirown chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because itsharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed

people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reachagreement which binds us to a common causeIf we are to be equalrelationships among equals must

find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197).Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintains equality forthe sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114).For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state norinternational action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case

essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena arephilosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by theinterchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningfulrole to the negative team, preventing them fro m offering effective counter -word and undermining thevalue of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action donot accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.


10/21

Its a voting issue and outweighs their offense their attempt to exclude the negativeobliterates the pedagogical benefits of in-round dialogue. Fairness norms are vitalbecause they allow both teams to be heard in a meaningful way. Debate as dialogueis vital to refine and develop positions, test ideas and is a prerequisite to meaningful

political participationGalloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATIONAT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE,Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco)

A second reason to reject the topic has to do with its exclusivity. Many teams argue that becausetopicality and other fairness constraints prevent particular speech acts, debaters are denied ameaningful voice in the debate process. Advocates argue that because the negative excludes a particularaffirmative performance that they have also precluded the affirmative team. The problem with this lineof reasoning is that it views exclusion as a unitary act of definitional power. However, a dialogicalperspective allows us to see power flowing both ways. A large range of affirmative cases necessitates

fewer negative strategies that are relevant to the range of such cases. If the affirmative can present anycase it desires, the benefits of the research, preparation, and in-depth thinking that go into the creationof negative strategies are diminished, if not eviscerated entirely. The affirmative case is obliged to invitea negative response.In addition, even when the negative strategy is not entirely excluded, any strategy that diminishesargumentative depth and quality diminishes the quality of in-round dialogue. An affirmative speech actthat flagrantly violates debate fairness norms and claims that the benefits of the affirmative actsupersede the need for such guidelines has the potential of excluding a meaningful negative response,and undermines the pedagogical benefits of the in-round dialogue. The germ of a response (Bakhtin,1990) is stunted.While affirmative teams often accuse the negative of using a juridical rule to exclude them, theaffirmative also relies upon an unstated rule to exclude the negative response. This unstated butunderstood rule is that the negative speech act must serve to negate the affirmative act. Thus,affirmative teams often exclude an entire range of negative arguments, including arguments designed tochallenge the hegemony, domination, and oppression inherent in topical approaches to the resolution.Becoming more than just a ritualistic tag- line of fairness, education, time skew, voting issue, fairnessexists in the implicit right to be heard in a meaningful way . Ground is just that a ground to stand on, aground to speak from, a ground by which to meaningfully contribute to an ongoing conversation.Conversely, in a dialogical exchange, debaters come to realize the positions other than their own havevalue, and that reasonable minds can disagree on controversial issues. This respect encourages debatersto modify and adapt their own positions on critical issues without the threat of being labeled ahypocrite. The conceptualization of debate as a dialogue allows challenges to take place from a widevariety of perspectives. By offering a stable referent the affirmative must uphold, the negative canchoose to engage the affirmative on the widest possible array of counterwords, enhancing thepedagogical process produced by debate.Additionally, debate benefits activism by exposing the participants to a wide range of points of view ontopics of public importance. A debater starting their career in the fall of 2005 would have debated aboutChina, landmark Supreme Court decisions, Middle East policy, and agricultural policy. It is unsurprisingthat many debaters contend that debate is one of the most educationally valuable experiences of theirlives.


11/21

Thus, the unique distinctions between debate and public speaking allow debaters the opportunity tolearn about a wide range of issues from multiple perspectives. This allows debaters to formulate theirown opinions about controversial subjects through an in-depth process of research and testing of ideas.Putting the cart before the horse by assuming that one knows that the resolution is oppressive andcannot be meaningfully affirmed denies debaters the ability to craft a nuanced answer to the questionposed by the resolution .

People will ignore the 1AC because you dont give the other side a fair chance torespondMichael Underwood , summarizing Carl Hovland , communication at Yale University, 2000 (Psychology ofCommunication , www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/psy/hovland3.html)

Whether or not you should include arguments for and against your case depends very much on youraudience. If you know that they already agree with you, a one-sided argument is quite acceptable. Ifthey are opposed to your point of view, then a one-sided message will actually be less effective, beingdismissed as biased . Even if your audience dont know much about the subject, but do know that thereare counterarguments (even if they dont know what they are) will lead them to reject your views asbiased. Hovlands investigations into mass propaganda used to change soldiers a ttitudes also suggeststhat the intelligence of the receivers is an important factor, a two-sided argument tending to be morepersuasive with a more intelligent audience.


12/21

Researching / Debating Government Good

Christopher C. Joyner is a Professor of International Law in the Government Department at GeorgetownUniversity, Spring, 1999 [5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377]

Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates , like other role-playing simulations, help students understand differentperspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own . But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a studentparticipate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternativesand consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and viewsand enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasksare to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares withrelevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved:The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or"Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as othermore esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to theaverage undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times,international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United Statespolicy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their

subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The debateexercises carry several specific educational objectives . First, students on each team must work together to refine acogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this

way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers . Second, as they work with othermembers of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking theformer or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporaryissues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thusbecomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the realworld of policy analysis , political critique, and legal defense.

Keller, Whittaker, and Burke, 2001 . [Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U.of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting p olicy practiceskills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]

Based on a review of the literature, the authors experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those deba tes,the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured

student debates in policy-oriented courses. The authors think debates on important policy questions havenumerous benefits: prompting students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them toinvestigate and analyze competing alternatives , compelling them to advocate a particularposition, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a persuasive manner. We think engagingin these analytic and persuasive activities promotes greater knowledge by stimulating activeparticipation in the learning process.

Keller, Whittaker, and Burke, 2001 . [Thomas E., James K., and Tracy K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U.of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoti ng policy practiceskills and knowle dge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost]

Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of socialpolicies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research,identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended toinfluence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony.

According to Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58), social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policypractice activities:* value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions;* conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options;* interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point ofview in a convincing manner;


13/21

* political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and* position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy.These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill,1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions,exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period ofquestioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-makingprocess--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiplealternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skillsseems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking.


14/21

Brad Hall Ev

Brad Hall, 8 Masters in Communication Studies from Wake Forest and Special Projects Manager withthe Offices of Al and Tipper Gore

(*eDebate+ Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair, 7 -11-2008,http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-July/075330.html)

As someone who has (at least temporarily) left debate to do public policy-related research, I think Andyoverlooks the benefits of the *process* of policy debate and its connection to his call for "politicalagency in the real world." Ross and others have made this point many times, but it is worth brieflyreiterating: switch sides public policy debate enables activism by teaching a research and decisionmaking process that is applicable outside of the insulated debate community. While debates do notdirectly change public policy (after all, Mohammed Ali Hammadi still roams the streets of Beirut), theskills of debate teach debaters how to help with "activist" causes once they leave debate. For example,policy debaters are taught the skills of researching a topic both quickly (finding one or two politics cardsin 3 minutes) and in depth (consider that hundreds of high school debaters around the country arecurrently attempting to exhaust the debate over global warming and alternative energy). Debaters learna number of other useful skills, from word economy to prioritization of the best arguments. But mostimportantly, the process of reflecting on this research and considering both sides of a public policy issueteaches the participants of debate a decision making process that is applicable to the rest of their life.Many, many traditional policy debaters have taken these skills and translated them into work at thinktanks, law firms, universities, corporations, journalism, and other sectors. NDT Champion Larry Tribe hasproduced groundbreaking societal change through the law just to cite one example. Glenn Greenwald isone of the most popular progressive bloggers whose research acumen is obvious. Real change has beenproduced by these individuals (and many others), and it continues to be.The real question should be: how do alternative models of debate promote any of these skills/process,or if they don't (since they often base their existence on a criticism of these aspects of policy debate),

what do they offer to activism outside of debate? It is somewhat noble to claim that the structures ofdebate are changed by alternative models (though this is often not the case), but unless you expect theactual channels of power like Congress to be similarly changed, what impact does non-traditional non-policy debate have on the "real world"?To return to the thrust of Andy's original post, there are few activities I would rather see public moneybe spent on than training high school and college students in traditional, switch sides policy debate.


15/21

AT: Delgado

Delgado wrote an article (shadowboxing: an essay on power) against the use of procedural fairnessbecause it overlooks larger cultural factors that prevent the application of fairness equally.

1. Delgados arg is that the rich and the powerful have written the rules, so the claim to fairnessoverlooks that the rules themselves are unfair: they reward one type of participation forexample, or overlook structural constraints on fairness. He uses 3 examples:

a. tobacco label laws if warning labels on cigarretes are fair because you had an informedchoice to smoke that benefits the stronger party the tobacco company and ignoresthings like addiction or social pressure to smoke.

b. Informed consent to medical treatment doctor has a responsibility to disclose risks ofmedical treatment but not liable to discuss patient fears, religion, alternative forms oftreatment, etc

c. date rape laws which define consent as verbal its fair for the man but overlooks otherthings that may be in play, such as when the woman feels coerced.

2. the focus on legal rules tradesoff with questions of justice. His alternative is to advocate legalstorytelling that essentially you cant look at procedural rules but in deciding a case it requireslooking at the full story

Responses:

1. It doesnt apply to debate: Delgado is talking about the use of legal rules in a courtroom thatdefine the civil or criminal liability of a stronger party against a weaker plaintiff.

Debate has two important differences:

a. Coercion isnt a factor participation in debate is voluntary and there arent legalconsequences. There arent power differentials between the aff and neg and no ones lifedepends on winning a debate.

b. Storytelling is inevitable in debate Debate is not a courtroom. Legal rules are non-negotiable while the rules of debate are flexible and accommodating lawyers arentspeaking for you according to predetermined rules, youre interpreting the rules yourself.Affirmatives craft interpretations of a topic and we debate about which interpretation isbest

2. Procedural fairness establishes rights of participation for both sides. Throwing out the rules isworse its more arbitrary and power differentials would be magnified. Delgado never saysthrow out the rules. He says to incorporate legal storytelling into the rules. He never says


16/21

fairness is bad as an absolute, he says there is always context that informs judgments aboutfairness.

Fairness exists to ensure participation from both sides our framework allows forstorytelling, they just have to ground it in a topical affirmative Burch, 8 - Assistant Professor, Cumberland School of Law (Elizabeth, CAFA'S IMPACT ON LITIGATION ASA PUBLIC GOOD 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 2517, May, lexis)

Given this shortcoming, the second procedural justice component is fairness. Fairness arguments aretypically offered as policy reasons to trump pursuit of certain reform proposals and aggregate socialgoals ; n101 however, I use fairness here (and in assessing CAFA) as a supplemental constraintrather than a substitute . Employing a deontological conception of fairness to balance utility aidsin , not only distributing procedural costs and correcting procedural errors, but also in ensuring that theprocedural system does not disproportionately favor or burden plaintiffs or defendants . n102 Put

differently, process should disperse the risk of error and the cost of access as evenly as possible.Neither party [*2535] should have an advantage . n103 This idea of "fairness" as avoidinglopsided distribution of error can be likened to the concept of "neutrality." n104 To be sure, someimparity in distributing risks may be inevitable.Finally, although analogous to fairness, participation - manifested as adequate representation in theclass context - humanizes process. n105 In its simplest form, participation necessitates that those whoare bound by a decision have an opportunity to take part (and be heard) in adjudication . n106Moreover, it encompasses inherent rights to present evidence, observe the proceedings, cross-examinewitnesses, and hear the judge's decision. n107 And participation , even in class litigation, affordslitigants dignity by granting them a forum in which to tell their story . n108 " Storytelling" has beencriticized when used to demonstrate satisfaction with process as a proxy for "justice." n109 I use the

term here, however, for its cathartic value only when situated within this larger [*2536]procedural fairness framework .


17/21

AT: Social Location Key

We cannot assume a priori that their authors have a unique insight on reality

Hammersley, 93 Prof. Education and Social Research @ Centre for Childhood, Development andLearning @ Open U *Martyn, British Journal of Sociology, Research and 'anti -racism': the case of Peter Fosterand his critics, 44.3, 11 -93, JSTOR]

The second view I want to consider is sometimes associated with versions of the first, but must be kept separate because itinvolves a quite distinctive and incompatible element. I will refer to this as standpoint theory. Here people's experience andknowledge is treated as valid or invalid by dint of their membership in some social category .'7 Here againFoster's arguments may be dismissed because they reflect his background and experience as a white, middle class, male teacher. However, this

time the implication is that reality is obscured from those with this background because of the effects ofideology . By contrast, it is suggested, the oppressed (black, female and/or working class people) have privileged insightinto the nature of society. This argument produces a victory for one side, not the stalemate that seemsto result from relativism the validity of Foster's views can therefore be dismissed. But in other respects this position is no

more satisfactory than relativism. We must ask on what grounds we can decide that one group hassuperior insight into reality. This cannot be simply because they declare that they have this insight;otherwise everyone could make the same claim with the same legitimacy (we would be back to relativism). Thismeans that some other form of ultimate justification is involved, but what could this be? In the Marxist version ofthis argument the working class (or, in practice, the Communist Party) are the group with privileged insight into the nature of social reality, butit is Marx and Marxist theorists who confer this privilege on them by means of a dubious philosophy of history.l8 Something similar occurs inthe case of feminist standpoint theory, where the feminist theorist ascribes privileged insight to women, or to feminists engaged in the struggle

for womens emancipation. l9 However, while we must recognize that people in different social locations may havedivergent perspectives, giving them distinctive insights, it is not clear why we should believe theimplausible claim that some people have privileged access to knowledge while others are blinded byideology.

You should evaluate our arguments based on credibility and evidence reversion topersonalized bases of knowledge eradicates the possibility of common knowledge andeducational development.Hammersley, 93 Prof. Education and Social Research @ Centre for Childhood, Development andLearning @ Open U *Martyn, British Journal of Sociology, Research and 'anti-racism': the case of Peter Fosterand his critics, 44.3, 11 -93, JSTOR]

I suggest that the assessment of substantive and methodological claims should be based on judgmentsabout the plausibility and credibility of evidence with attempts to resolve disagreements such as that betweenFoster and his critics, being pursued through a search for common ground and an attempt to argue back from that to some conclusion that allwill accept. By 'plausibility' here I mean what I referred to earlier as consistency with existing knowledge whose validity is taken to be beyondreasonable doubt. By 'credibility I mean (Martyn Hammersley) the likelihood that the process that produced the claim is free of serious error.Here I am assuming that factual claims vary in their credibility both according to their own content and according to the circumstances in which

they were produced. Where a claim is neither sufficiently plausible nor credible to be accepted at face value,evidence for it must be examined in terms of its plausibility and credibility, and so on until a judgmentcan be made or until judgment must be suspended for want of the necessary evidence. Where there is initial disagreement,ideally this process will result in the acceptance by all of one or other of the two original positions, or (more likely) the construction of a third position ( for example through clarification of the concept of racism); though unlike withfoundationalism there is no guarantee offered that disagreement will be resolved . It seems to me that maximizing


18/21

the chances that agreement will be reached in this way, and that the resulting consensus will capturethe truth, requires a research community operating on the basis of the following norms: 1 The overridingconcern of researchers is the truth of claims, not their political implications or practical consequences. 2Arguments are not judged on the basis of the personal and/or social characteristics of the personadvancing them , but in terms of their plausibility and credibility . 3 Researchers are willing to change

their views if arguments from common ground suggest those views are false; and, equally important,they assume (and behave as if) fellow researchers have the same attitude - at least until there is very strongevidence otherwise . 4 Where agreement does not result, all parties must recognize that there remainssome reasonable doubt about the validity of their own positions, so that whenever the latter arepresented they require supporting argument, or reference to where such argument can be found . 5 Theresearch community is open to participation by anyone able and willing to operate on the basis of thefirst four rules ; though their contributions will be judged wanting if they lack sufficient knowledge of the field and/or of relevantmethodology. In particular, there must be no restriction of participation on the grounds of personal characteristics religious or political

attitudes. In my view, a research community committed to the above norms maximizes the chances ofdiscovering error in empirical and theoretical claims, and of discovering the truth about particularmatters. It encourages the cumulative development of a body of knowledge whose validity is morereliable on average than that of lay views about the same issues. This is not to say that in any particular instance currentresearch-based knowledge will be correct and commonsense wrong; simply that it will usually be closerto the truth . Furthermore, it should be noted that this advantage is bought at considerable cost in terms ofthe time taken to complete inquiries in this way, and (correspondingly) the limited size of the body ofresearch-based knowledge that can be produced.


19/21

AT: Green & Hicks / Debaters Lose Conviction

Conviction emerges from discussion, not prior to it debate exists to establish and

refine positions so that ideas may be subsequently chosenGalloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATIONAT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE,Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco)

Those who worry that competitive academic debate will cause debaters to lose their convictions, asGreene and Hicks do in their 2005 article, confuse the cart with the horse. Conviction is not a priori todiscussion, it flows from it. A. Craig Baird argued, Sound conviction depends upon a thoroughunderstanding of the controversial problem under consideration (1955, p. 5). Debate encouragesrigorous training and scrutiny of arguments before debaters declare themselves an advocate for a givencause. Debate creates an ethical obligation to interrogate ideas from a neutral position so that they maybe freely chosen subsequently.

Defending an argument in a debate doesnt force you to be a real life proponent of it only subjecting your views to examination can establish their validityBaird, 55 Professor of Speech at the Uni versity of Iowa (C. A., The college debater and the red china issue, Central States Speech Journal, 6(2), 5 -7)

A second indictment of you debaters is that if you discuss recognizing Red China you may fall victim to the Communisticpropaganda . The assumption is that you may become inoculated. You may become brainwashed. The issue here is whether you may be gullibleenough to swallow the "wrong" side of any subject whatever that "wrong" side is if you happen to argue it.This criticism is a vote of non-confidence in you. It amounts to the expression of the ancient distrust ofdemocratic participation. The implication is that we Americans, even if we are reasonably well trained, are nevertheless incompetent

to decide important questions. We cannot be trusted to push out into the troubled seas ofpropagandist^ conflict .Our only reply at this point is to invite those who fear open discussion on important issues, to read again any treatise onAmerican government . We furthermore suggest a reading again of the great documents of our heritage.The principles in all of these documents steadily affirm that ours is a government by talk; that the secret votingis accompanied by popular assemblies and the free exchange of ideas and arguments; that all citizensshare the right and ability to think, communicate, and decide, and that we can rely upon the molding ofpublic opinion through these avenues of our democratic system.My other recommendation to those who look askance at free discussion and debate is to read again John Stuart Mill's Liberty of Thought and Expression. According to Mill,the opinion or side which we ignore or sidestep may be true. Or, continued Mill, the forbidden side or opinionwhich we ignore or sidestep may be partly true. Or, concluded Mill, even if one hundred per cent truth ison our side, our opinions or conclusions become valid and properly significant only if we subject them toexamination. Indeed, as Mill suggested, our beliefs and convictions, unless under continual review, may become en-feebled or lost, and so "inefficacious for good."

Sound conviction can only happen after thoroughly researching and debating bothsides of an issue it is hypocritical and immoral not to require debaters to defendboth sidesMuir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mas on


20/21

(Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile)

In a tolerant context, convictions can still be formed regarding the appropriateness and utility ofdiffering values. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters are hypocritical and sophistical,Windes responds with a series of propositions:Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under

consideration . . . . This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issuesand survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence . . . , This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be doneby the careful testing of each argument pro and con . . . . The learner's sound conviction covering controversial questions[therefore] depends partly upon his experience in defending and/or rejecting tentative affirmative andnegative positions .""*Sound conviction, a key element of an individual's moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasonedassessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debatersto defend both sides of the issues. "" It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate , that twoopposing accounts are present on everything, and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions.Debate might be rendering students a disservice , insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them someknowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction.


21/21

AT: Resolved Before the Colon

A more reasonable interpretation is that the resolution posits a question that must be

affirmed by the affirmativeParcher, 2001 (Jeff, Re: Jeff P --Is the resolution a question? eDebate,www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)

(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firmdecision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent partsSee Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis inoriginal) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination ordecision.(2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course ofaction determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature.(3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context.The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. Thecommittee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue.There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topiccommunity attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus onissues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate whichwill be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do,but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committtee somewhere to adopttheir own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanarywording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon.(4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasize the fact that it's policy debate. Resolvedcomes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is

not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not.

Aff Framework

Documents

Transcript of Aff Framework