ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT: TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS Tuesday, August 5th Baxter and...
-
Upload
emily-hines -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
2
Transcript of ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT: TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS Tuesday, August 5th Baxter and...
ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT:
TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS
Tuesday, August 5th
Baxter and Steve
Basic Framework of Theoretical Arguments
A. InterpretationB. ViolationC. StandardsD. Voting Issues
Topicality Proper
The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government Should…
…substantially…
Arbitrary Values “Substantial/substantially” means
Essentially Important In the Main Large To make greater/augment Material/real Excludes material qualifications
…increase…
Does it have to exist already? Can it just get better?
…its…
The object (economic engagement) belongs to the prior subject (The United States federal government).
Can it be an NGO or private entity? (Development!)
Can it be cooperative/consultative?
…non-military…
Coast guard Army Corps of Engineers Non-military role
Icebreakers Search and rescue
…exploration…
“ocean exploration” is discovery through observation and recording
Has to be where no one has gone before Includes data or not
…and/or…
Means and/or Unless it means or…
…development…
Makes use of oceans as a resource Are regulations development? Is commercial in nature Non-sustainable?
…of the Earth’s oceans.
The SOUTHERN Ocean!?! Excludes the sea Excludes the coastal areas Excludes above the surface
Debating T Well
Like almost all theory, revolves around two impacts Fairness Education
You need to focus on three issues Caselists (content and size) Division of ground Types of literature
Good T debating requires an appropriate mix of both offense and defense
Non Topicality Procedurals
Are the Same As T!!!
Plan vagueness Solvency advocate (lack thereof) Specification
Agent Enforcement Funding
Framework
What is this about? The controversy behind almost all framework debates is which types o f impacts “count” when the judge renders a decision A secondary question the involves what
mechanisms the debaters can use to access those impacts
Useful analogs include Legal rules of evidence Criteria debates from old school CEDA or LD Methodological disputes
Framework (2)
What impacts are we competing for? Education Fairness “Good political agents”
What are the approaches negatives take to defending framework against non-traditional affs? “T”: you are not what the resolution says, debate
like a T violation (caveman) Traditional framework: policymaking is good, you’re
not it (old school) Cooptive frameworks: fair play, etc.
Framework (3)
Judges and framework debates Be aware of the judge’s identity and social
location/status Ideologues
K all the way K no way
Centrists (largely incoherent)—both sides get to weigh their impacts
Framework (4)
Meaning of words is arbitrary/predictability is a praxis, not a truth
Counter-definitions of worlds that allow an individualized focus USFG is the people Resolved refers to us, not the USFG
Debates do not leave the room Policymakers do evil things, policymaking
logic does evil things
Framework (5)
Epistemological kritiks (knowledge from policy land is bad/tainted)
Politically-centered kritiks Friere Identity politics Schlag
Ethics kritiks Language kritiks/dirty words General “case outweighs”