theory master file

8/13/2019 Theory Master File

1/169

Victory Briefs InstituteNEBEL/DIEHL THEORYFOCUSWEEKV !

Theory File

T#eory Fi$e %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

&&&C#'(ter ") intro*uction&&& %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

F'irness is i,(ort'nt %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Front$ines to f'irness %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

F'irness . E*uc'tion %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

E*uc'tion is i,(ort'nt %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

E*uc'tion . F'irness %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Co,(etin0 inter(ret'tions . Re'son'1i$ity %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Re'son'1i$ity . Co,(etin0 Inter(ret'tions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Dro( t#e *e1'ter3 not t#e 'r0u,ent %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Dro( t#e 'r0u,ent3 not t#e *e1'ter %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5 6e'nin0fu$ 6ess'0e %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

T#eory is 'n RVI %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

RVI B'* 7ree,(ts %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

T#eory is not 'n RVI %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

&&&C#'(ter ) To(ic'$ity&&& %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

'ff ,ust 1e to(ic'$ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Re'son'1i$ity for to(ic'$ity %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

E9tr':to(ic'$ity B'* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

E9tr':to(ic'$ity 0oo* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5ff f$e9i1i$ity 0oo* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

'ff f$e9i1i$ity B'* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Fr',er;s Intent


2/169


Le0'$ Definitions B'* %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Le0'$ Definitions


3/169


Intern'tion'$ fi't


4/169


5/169


&&&C#'(ter ") intro*uction&&&

F'irness is i,(ort'nt

1) When debates rules are unfairly skewed, the activity becomes ,ore risy #i$e t#e ('yoff re,'ins

t#e s',e% We participate after making an assessment of the risks of debating, such as the requisite largeamounts of preparation and time commitments, measured against potential benefits like wins and trophiesAn unfair advantage for one side destroys this calculations viability, dissuading debaters from remaining

in debate. f risk calculations assume that we have an equal chance of winning on either side, but in reality

we do not, there is a disincentive to participate.

!eople leaving debate is bad because"

A) De1'te (ro=i*es for e*uc'tion'$ 1enefitssuch as giving students the communication skills

they need to succeed later in life, helping individuals and entire communities.#) We o1=ious$y c're '1out *e1'te 1ec'use e;re #ere%$herefore, we have an incentive to

discourage actions that would destroy the community the activity is based upon.

%) You 're o1$i0'te* to 0i=e (eo($e t#eir *ue. All humans have an intrinsic right to be treated fairly, as

we interact with others in a moral community in which fairness provides a foundation for our relationships

with other people. &ven though we are debating, we are still humans, so we still have obligations to treatone another fairly.

') It;s ' 0'te'y issue( A skew in fairness makes impartiality impossible. airness is necessary to

determine the winner because you are asked to determine who is the better debater, not who is the bettercheater. #oth opponents need equal opportunity to present their own arguments and contest each others

arguments, or the basis for determining the better side is fundamentally skewed.

*) If you c're '1out *e1'te3 t#en you s#ou$* c're '1out f'irness%$he basic premises of debate assumethat the best debater should win the round. When the round is unfairly skewed toward one side, the

fundamental aim of debate can never be achieved.

+) #ecause debate also has educational value, unfairness in rounds would #in*er t#e e*uc'tion of debate

treated unfairly. ebate wouldn-t be educational if it was unfair ie, if negs had a very small burden ofproof, debate would be uneducational because neg research would be unnecessary and affs would do no

work because they could never win. $he competitive equity of the activity gives us the ability to have

educational discussion, so fairness is necessarily linked to education.

:INDE


6/169

File NameStuyvesant AE

res

Page 6/169

Front$ines to f'irness

5 Ti,e Se for t#e (erson #o r'n t#eoryNo I,('ct $ime skew has no impact because you have to allocate time to answer any argument.

/oting me down for 0forcing them to run theory 2ustifies voting me down because they had to read ablock against my argument.

6utu'$ $he time skew is mutual. have to invest time in running theory 34 by going for one of my

arguments. $his means also have an opportunity cost because can no longer go for a different

argument.

5) F'irness $e'*s to inter=entionOn$y un*er are'son'1i$itymodel of fairness does fairness lead to intervention, competing

interpretations hold that debaters should advance their own conception of what it means to be fair, sothis argument would support competing interpretations rather than refute fairness. 5ompeting interps

checks back fairness because debaters advocate what it means to be fair, so it is an issue that is resolvedin the round.

5alling intervention badconce*es t#e intern'$ $in to f'irness, as intervention is only a bad thing if it

unfairly advantages one debater. $his means that we both link to fairness, so fairness is a relevantconsideration.

$here is'$'ys inter=entionas a 2udge has biases and arguments can never be fully fleshed out in a

timed round.T#eory s#e$$sand fairnessre*uce su1st'nti=e u*0e inter=entionby making a clear standards andhaving them vote on who is winning the theory debate rather than arbitrarily discluding a position

because they feel its bad.6udge intervention with fairness is good because as an evaluatoryou #'=e 'n o1$i0'tion to ensure 'f'ir *e1'teand set norms that some arguments screw our activity too much.

5) F'irness #'s no 1ri0#t$ine7nder the competing interpretations, a bright line is not reuire*. 5ompeting interpretations leads the

debaters to promote their interpretation of fairness. A bright line is not required as to determine who gets

the ballot but rather who promotes fairness more.

urthermore, even specifically give you the bright line. $he bright line for fairness can be est'1$is#e*

1y t#e t#eory st'n*'r*s which measure the fairness and unfairness of certain arguments.

&ven if the bright line is vague, there are sti$$ so,e st'n*'r* of f'irness t#'t e=eryone '0rees 're

true. or e8ample, me punching you and ripping up your flow is considered to be unfair regardless who

you ask. What youre doing has clearly passed the threshold of fairness, that it doesnt even matter ifthe threshold is vague.

5) You cou$*;=e 1een unf'ir 1'c


7/169


res

Page 7/169

$his argument is terrible for debate considering it 2ust encour'0es furt#er '1useto the point wheredebate has no more competitive value and it is no longer a test of debating skill but of who is the better

cheater, defeating debates purpose

6ust because you punched me *oesn;t ,e'n I s#ou$* (unc# you 1'c. f what youre doing is bad, shouldnt stoop to your level. 6ust because can be unfair doesnt mean should. m trying to makedebate better.

F'irness is uniue. :y response would abuse you in some other way, preventing an equal playing field

even if responding unfairly. :e being unfair back doesnt translate to me having an equal chance towin.

:y opponent is 2ust tryin0 to t#eory 1'it ,e. ;>>> all the time in theory debates and

win rounds off of these arguments. f each of these arguments ostensibly establishes a rule for how

debate should be carried out in the future, then the rule has already been established.ts your 2ob to investigate if youre unfair, as running an argument is a choice and shows that youve

thought about it. As long as your rational, its your burden to be able tot#in '1out 'n* *efen* your

(r'ctices, thats what comes with being able to think.

$heory is the on$y 'y to c#ec 1'c '1use and make a change in what arguments are common, sinceit actively punishes transgressions. &ven if this were the first theory argument being run of this sort, it is

necessary to initiate some sort of theoretical ob2ection to the argument.

&8 post facto rules are on$y unf'ir if t#ey 're not contest'1$e. ?iven that she has the opportunity todebate the rule that would take effect this round, the concept of 0e8 post facto does not carry the same

weight that it does in legal cases.

At the very least, *ro( t#e 'r0u,ent. Accepting an 0e8 post facto rule is similar to accepting anyother kind of response that proves why you may not vote for a given argument. @ou should drop the

debater for the other reasons e8pressed in the shell and my previous responses, but err on the side of

dropping the argument even if you accept this argument about e8 post facto rules.

?iven the structure of a debate round and infinite amounts of potential , it is i,(ossi1$e to est'1$is# '$$

of t#e ru$es for the debate before the round, and thus, some rules must be e8(post facto

urthermore, allowing debaters to determine for themselves what constitutes the fairest and most

educational debate(ro,otes critic'$ t#inin0and argumentative skill, rather than simply forcingdebaters to conform to e8ternal rules

5) T#eory is unf'ir

At the very least, my theory is co,('r'ti=e$y ,ore f'irthan substance youre running.

urthermore, theory provides a c#ec '0'inst team resourceand sie 0'(s its a lot easier for amassive school like ?reenhill or ?lenbrooks to write new positions as opposed to a smaller school, but


8/169


res

Page 8/169

the fundamentals of theory doesnt change. &ven if my school is bigger than his


9/169


10/169


res

Page 10/169

true goal of debate because it reveals why people do debate in the first place. T#is $in turns t#eir('rtici('tion 'r0u,ent.


11/169


res

Page 11/169

E*uc'tion is i,(ort'nt

1. &ducation is valuable because it helps us succeed in life and makes society better as a whole by

increasing societys ability to function. $he impacts garnered from education are $'stin03 'n* i,('ct

our re'$ $i=es, as well as the lives of those around us.

%. &ducation is the (ri,'ry 0o'$ of debate" the skills that debate measures like critical thinking and

research skills are educational, meaning that it is undeniable that debate has an educational element.

'. @ou as a 2udge have the duty to vote on education.


12/169


res

Page 12/169

E*uc'tion . F'irness

1. &ducation is the u$ti,'te 'i, of *e1'te" $he point of debate is to educate debaters on global issues,

how to research, critical thinking not how to be fair. 3therwise, topics would be about issues like

multple a prioris or time skew rather than real(world political issues.

%. F'irness is su1ecti=e, different people have different ideas as to what arguments and practices are

fair so we can never know when fairness is being achieved. urther, people have different conceptions

of what it means to be fair. or instance, we don-t know if fairness is procedural or if it is substantive, ieif fairness means correcting the neg win skew or not.

'. Unf'irness is non:uniuebecause theres always some aspect of an interpretation that isnt as a goodas another.

*. &ducation is something we take away from debate" t is impossible to take fairness away from debatebecause we never know what it truly is and how to apply itI whereas, e*uc'tionis something that c'n

1e '(($ie* in any situation. airness has no impacts outside of round compared to education that shapes

how we understand and operate in the world. 4eal world impacts come first because were humans

before were debaters and thus should prioritie helping society over winning debate rounds. ;trait andWallace1write,

$he ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill. t is

the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. ecision(makingtranscends boundaries between categories FofH learning like Jpolicy educationJ- and Jkririk education,Jit makes

irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcends questions of

what substantive content a debate round should contain. $he implication for this analysis is thatthe critical thinkingand argumentative skills offered by real(world decision(making arc conductively greater than any

educational disadvantage weighed them. t is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that

can best improve all of our lives.)

+. Sc#oo$s fun* *e1'tefor its educational value, not because its competitive, meaning that if debate is

no longer educational it dies as an activity. ebate is often regarded as an educational club, like ;cience

3lympiad, rather than a sport, like tennis, and is funded as such.

9. ebate was cre'te* 's 'n e*uc'tion'$ 'cti=ity, therefore it should reward the skills it values. f it

was solely based on fairness, participants would have no reason for 2oining debate over a coin flipping

contest. $he reason debate was created and the reason people 2oin it is because it emphasies criticalthinking and argumentative skills. ebate should reward educational benefits because of its function,

otherwise the activity becomes pointless.

B. As we become more educated, we better understand how things interact, and thus can come to better

conclusions about what is fair, making education a necessary intern'$ $in to f'irness.

1K. !aul ;trait L?eorge :ason 7niversity) and #rett Wallace L?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he ;cope of Gegative iat and the

Kogic of ecision :aking. W7 ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB. Fhttp"


13/169


res

Page 13/169


14/169


res

Page 14/169

Co,(etin0 inter(ret'tions . Re'son'1i$ity

@GA R'ce to t#e 1otto, ( 4easonability leads to a race to the bottom because there is incentive to push

the line of whats reasonable lower and lower as more people start running slightly abusive arguments.$his sets a norm for lowering the bar because debaters have an incentive to lower the bar for a

competitive advantage. As debaters push the bar lower and arguments seem more reasonable over time

as the bar is lowered. $his leads to bad debate because any argument can be accepted as reasonableleading away from debate on substance, which makes debate progressively worse. 5ompeting

interpretations solves for this by establishing a clear standard for what is the best interpretation.

L>) 4easonability has no 1ri0#t $ine, meaning(

a. 5ant make a decision to see if it is actually reasonable so dont use it to evaluate arguments.

b. 6udges have different views for what is reasonable forcing intervention to decide what is reasonable

which is opposite to a fair debate.

c. &ven if they make one, it is arbitrary as they get to make it, causing the line to be skewed in theirfavor.

L>) 5ompeting interpretations creates an incentive to promote fair debate because it forces *e1'ters to

*efen* t#eir inter(ret'tionsI defending the interpretation is the only way to generate offense on theory

so debaters have incentives to run advocacies consistent with the most fair interpretation, becauseotherwise they would lose the theory debate.

@GA T#eory is 0oo*( it allows us to check abuse and make debate the best it can be. 4easonabilitydiscourages this because it skews time to run it if they can 2ust get out of it because they-re reasonable.

@GA Re'son'1i$ity isan inconsistentmethod of ad2udication( you as a 2udge dont use reasonability as a

way to evaluate substantive arguments so to be consistent you should evaluate all arguments includingtheory from a competing interpretations standpoint if a argument is winning more offense even if its

marginally it should be preferred.

L>) 4easonability cre'tes 'n incenti=e for *e1'ters to run 'r0u,ents t#'t 're 's '1usi=e 's (ossi1$e

without crossing a threshold that they themselves established. 4easonability pushes the standard of

reasonability down because arguments which are only marginally more unfair than other arguments can

be construed as within the limits of reasonability. $his harms education because there is less engagementon the substantive debate and more generic theory. $his is unfair because threshold set up arbitrarily can

allow for really abusive cases to be fair, while in reality they destroy my chance to win. 5ompeting

interpretations solves for this because there is no bright line and debaters will always be trying topromote the most fair interpretations.


15/169


res

Page 15/169

Re'son'1i$ity . Co,(etin0 Inter(ret'tions

@GA Co,(etin0 inter( c'uses r'ce to t#e to(: 7nder competing interps, there will always be an interp

thats slightly better, meaning we would always run theory because its a gateway issue. $his would

distract us from substance, which is the educational part of debate that we can apply to other parts oflifeI theory can not be applied to anything but high(school debate.

@GA Destroys cre'ti=ity:5ompeting interpretations forces debaters to think out side the bo8, forcing

them to conform to only arguments that are perfectly fair otherwise, they would always face theoryabout a slightly more fair practice. $his causes stasis in debate because everyone would run the same

0fair issues over and over again. 4easonability checks back this problem because debaters can be

creative when choosing positions as long as they are reasonably fair.

@GA Contr'*icts our notions of (unis#,ent( We should only re2ect debaters) :akes theory infinite$y re0ressi=e. $hey prep out reasons why both sides of a theory issue would be

preferable in order to win on theory no matter what do( causing endless theory debates. 4easonability

solves for theoretical issues that can not be resolved. or instance, there are interps and counter(interpsfor plans good and plans bad no matter what do, lose. 4easonability stops these no(way(out

situations from occurring.

L>) L3nly if topicality) !eople *on;t #'=e 'ccess to resourcesthat provide the best definition so

reasonability doesnt screw over small schools without the ability to get the best definition.

L>) 4easonability prevents a r'ce to t#e 1otto,because a significant impact is needed to win the theorydebate. A marginal impact is sufficient under competing interpretations, so debaters have an incentive

to make their interpretations and counter(interpretations as similar as possible, minimiing points of

clash. $his makes it impossible for the person responding to theory to win the debate because she has togenerate offense off a tiny part of the original interpretation. urther, it harms education because both

debaters agree on DEM of the theoretical issues, so they have few opportunities to defend their positions.


16/169


res

Page 16/169

Dro( t#e *e1'ter3 not t#e 'r0u,ent

L>) $ime spent on theory cant be made up( was forced to run theory and undercover substance meaningdropping the argument doesnt rectify the ti,e se. Also, K times are short enough that once theory

is brought up or abuse occurs, theres simply not enough time to rectify the abuse and get back to a fair

round. $he implication is that you need to vote off fairness as the round is irrevocably altered away fromthe substance.

L>) $his argument encourages people to run lots of terrible abusive arguments. f my opponent runs a tonof abusive arguments ll be forced to run theory on each, then my opponent will 2ust kick each and win

on substance thus winning the time trade off. $hat means you have to drop the debater to ensure

'r0u,ent 'ccount'1i$ity%

L>) /ote them down to *eterfuture abusive strategies. Si0e$in C*

Foug ;igel 1DC*, 0$he !unishment $heory" llegitimate ;tyles and $heories as /oting ssues, 6ournal of the American

orensics Association, available online at http"


17/169


res

Page 17/169

('rticu$'r$y unf'ir 1ec'use ' *e1'ter c'n ne=er 1e sure if t#e 1its 'n* (ieces of ' s(eec# #e

un*erstoo* ere t#e s',e 1its 'n* (ieces t#e u*0e un*erstoo*% T#e 'y to restore co,(etiti=e

euity is to =ote '0'inst te',s 0ui$ty of *isru(tin0 t#e n'tur'$ co,(etiti=e o((ortunity t#'t e9iste*

in t#e '1sence of '1usi=e t'ctics% To ,ere$y *ro(:out 1'* *e1'te (r'ctices is to encour'0e t#eiruse::te',s i$$ run ,u$ti($e counter($'ns3 counter'rr'nts 'n* t#e $ie 'n* #o(e to *r' $ots of

'tt'cs on t#e, to 'ste t#e ,'9i,u, ti,e (ossi1$e3 '$$oin0 =ictory on t#e ot#er issues% It see,s

('rticu$'r$y unust for ' te', to #'=e to 'nser ,u$ti($e counter($'ns3 counter'rr'nts3 'n* t#e

$ie 'n* to en* u( $osin0 on to(ic'$ity% On$y 1y =otin0 to (unis# te',s e,($oyin0 t'ctics t#'t 're

s#on to 1e inurious to *e1'te((in terms of education and fairness((c'n co,(etiti=e euity 1e

,'int'ine*%


18/169


res

Page 18/169

Dro( t#e 'r0u,ent3 not t#e *e1'ter

"% 7ro(ortion'$ityJ t is not proportional for me to lose the round because violated some rule of debate."

4oger ;olt. 0$O&34@ A; A /3$G? ;;7&" $O& 54:& 3 !7G;O:&G$ %EE%

http"


19/169


res

Page 19/169

$e'rn '1out *e1'te t#eory% De1'te te'c#es us ' 0re't *e'$ '1out current e=ents 'n* (rinci($es of (o$icy 'n'$ysis3 '1out

(o$itic'$ t#eory3 (o$itic'$ (#i$oso(#y3 'n* (r'ctic'$ (o$itics3 '1out ,e*icine 'n* $'3 et#ics 'n* e(iste,o$o0y% t teaches both

(ro1$e, so$=in0 'n* t#e criticis, of un*er$yin0 'ssu,(tions% 5n* it teaches ,'ny ot#er t#in0s 's e$$% !eople disagree about which of

these areas of inquiry is most important, but'ny 'n* '$$ of t#ese su1ects 're of ,ore intrinsic si0nific'nce t#'n *e1'te t#eory%

Oowever, theoretical issues contain no educational value. So$t furthers"4oger ;olt. 0$O&34@ A; A /3$G? ;;7&" $O& 54:& 3 !7G;O:&G$ %EE%

http"


20/169


21/169


res

Page 21/169

5 6e'nin0fu$ 6ess'0e

Consistency : $heory doesnt send a meaningful message because it would be unreasonable to e8pectall of my opponents to run the same theory shell my opponent ran against my argument. $herefore, even

if lose this round, still wont be deterred from running this position in the future as know other

2udges will not vote me down in future rounds and even if 2udges would vote me down if theory wererun, know that not all of my opponents will run theory.

No I,('ct ;ending a meaningful message doesnt translate into an action. ;chools who ran disclose

on the wiki theory certainly sent a powerful message to the debate community, but many people stillchoose not to disclose. 6ust because a message is meaningful doesn-t mean that it is compelling enough

of a reason for people to act on it.


22/169


res

Page 22/169

T#eory is 'n RVI

f win the counter(interpretation or an meet argument vote, for me because

f theory is an issue of competing interpretations, then you have to vote for the interpretation that is

preferable in order to *iscour'0e t#e orse inter(ret'tion. f theory and counter interpretations arerun, the debate must finish there. 3ne of them must be true. Weve transcended the realm of substance

and have to resolve the discussion on how debate should be in the future, forcing me to debate on the

theoretical level, giving me ground for an 4/ as thats the ground have to debate.1. must in=est ti,ein order to answer theory because theory is a gateway issue. $his means that to answer theory must

allocate time away from substance. $herefore, the only way for me to reasonably answer theory and not lose is to make

theory a %(way street so that the time invest on theory is worth the opportunity cost.

4/s *iscour'0e 1'* t#eoryby making people think twice about running theory. 3therwise, debaters

will run it every round because it is a no(risk issue and a time suck, giving my opponent a structural

advantage in the round. 4/s check this back as they ensure that people wont run bad theory as theyknow that will be punished. 3veruse of theory creates more problems than an 4/ ever could.

%. $heory gives my opponent the ability to 0o for su1st'nce or t#eorywhereas must go for both theory and substance. $his is

un(reciprocal as it gives my opponent twice as many outs in the round than have. 4eciprocity is key to fairness as un(

reciprocal positions makes it easier for one debater to win the round.

'. No ris issues encour'0e un:e*uc'tion'$ 'r0u,ent'tionsince they encourage kicking arguments even when there are

turns and going for less covered issues. $his is un(educational because a) it provides competitive incentive for debaters to not

engage their opponents responses because they can 2ust kick it b) encourages debaters to make shallow, blippy arguments

2ust so they get to every argument on the flow because dropped arguments cant be weighed and c) distracts from substantive

issues because debaters know that they cant lose on this level, unlike any other level.


23/169


res

Page 23/169

RVI B'* 7ree,(ts

"% 5 RVIs encour'0e t#eory 1'itin0RVIs *on;t encour'0e t#eory 1'itin0because if the interp is truly unfair, its impossible to win against

someone who understands even basic theory.

% 5 T#ere is no ti,e se$heory takes a lot more time to answer than to run, especially if they had it prepared and didnt, thus

they sti$$ #'=e ' ti,e se.

8% 5 I *on;t nee* to s(en* t#'t ,uc# ti,e on t#eoryf my integrity is challenged, should be able to spend sufficient time defending it as it is more

important than other parts of the flow that dont effect my persona. $his means I #'=e to s(en* ' $ot,ore ti,e on t#eory, meaning have to have the ability to win on it as have to trade off with

substance.

2% 5 RVI;s *iscour'0e t#eoryRVI;s on$y *iscour'0e 1'* t#eory. only need to run an 4/ because my opponents use of theory isitself abusive. $his means that will not discourage using theory in general as only get access to the

4/ so long as show that my interpretation is fairer than my opponents.

+% 5 You s#ou$*n;t in for (ro=in0 your inter(ret'tion is ,ore f'ir am not winning solely because my interpretation is fairer. 4ather, I ', settin0 u( '$tern'ti=e

st'n*'r*s #ic# ustify ,e innin0off the 4/. only win off the 4/ because running theory as ano risk issue structurally advantages one debater, not because m fair.


24/169


res

Page 24/169

T#eory is not 'n RVI

@ou s#ou$*n;t in 1ec'use you;re f'ir

a) $heory is a litmus test to see if my opponent falls under the rules for debate, proving that your

argument is not illegitimate is not sufficient for a ballot. f that was true, then any argument would besufficient for affirmation.

b) :y opponent should not win solely because they are fair. #eing fair is a precondition for engaging in

the substantive debate. ;o, him


25/169


26/169


res

Page 26/169

'n* forcefu$ confront'tion of 'r0u,ents 'n* e=i*ence re$e='nt to *ecision%When an argument is not presented or isnot presented as persuasively as possible, then debate fails. As debate fails decisions become less Jwise.J As decisions become less wise the process of decision(making is

questioned. And finally, if 'n* #en *e1'te is set 'si*e for t#e '$tern'ti=e ,et#o* of *ecision:,'in0 1y

'ut#ority3 t#e (erson'$ con=ictions of in*i=i*u'$s it#in society $ose t#eir ,or'$ si0nific'nce 's*eter,in'nts of soci'$ c#oice%

*% Si*e sitc# *e1'te is ey to *ri=e *e1'te for'r*3 (ro,ote ,inority =ie(oints3 'n* cre'te 1etter

'*=oc'tes for (ositions

5A;&@Oarrigan, A $hesis ;ubmitted to the ?raduate aculty of WAQ& 34&;$ 7G/&4;$@ in !artial ulfillment of the 4equirements for the egree of :A;$&4 3 A4$;,

%EEC, 0A &&G;& 3 ;W$5O ;& A$&. $om5

While such pragmatic 2ustifications for ;; are persuasive, they are admittedly secondary to the greaterconsideration of pedagogy. Although it is certainly true that debate is a game and that its competitive

elements are indispensable sources of motivation for students who are otherwise apathetic about

academic endeavors,t#e o=er#e$,in0 1enefits of contest *e1'tin0 're t#e no$e*0e 'n* si$$st'u0#t t#rou0# ('rtici('tion% T#e ins 'n* $osses Land marginally(cheesy trophies), by and large, arequickly forgotten with the passage of time. Oowever,t#e e*uc'tion'$ ='$ues of *e1'te 're so

fun*',ent'$ t#'t t#ey e=entu'$$y 1eco,e in0r'ine* in t#e *ecision:,'in0 'n* t#ou0#t (rocesses

of *e1'ters3 0i=in0 t#e, ' uniue$y ='$u'1$e *ur'1i$ity% To t#is en*3 SSD is essenti'$% T#e 1enefits

of *e1'tin0 1ot# si*es #'=e 1een note* 1y ,'ny 'ut#ors o=er t#e ('st fifty ye'rs% $o name but a

few, SSD #'s 1een $'u*e* for fosterin0 to$er'nce 'n* un*er,inin0 1i0otry 'n* *o0,'tis, L:uir,

1DD'), cre'tin0 stron0er 'n* ,ore no$e*0e'1$e '*=oc'tes Lybvig and version, %EEE), 'n*fortifyin0 t#e soci'$ forces of *e,ocr'cy 1y 0u'r'nteein0 t#e e9(ression of ,inority =ie(oints

Lay, 1D99). ;witching sides is a crucial e$e,ent of *e1'te;s (e*'0o0ic'$ 1enefit it for,s t#e 0e'rs

t#'t *ri=e *e1'te;s inte$$ectu'$ ,otor%

e. ;ide switch debate is key to solve for global warming, disease, international conflict, and nuclear

proliferation%5A;&@Oarrigan, A $hesis ;ubmitted to the ?raduate aculty of WAQ& 34&;$ 7G/&4;$@ in !artial ulfillment of the 4equirements for the egree of :A;$&4 3 A4$;,

%EEC, 0A &&G;& 3 ;W$5O ;& A$&. $om5

Along these lines, t#e 0re'test 1enefit of sitc#in0 si*es, which goes to the heart of contemporarydebate, is its in*uce,ent of critic'$ t#inin0% efined as 0reasonable reflective thinking that is focused

on deciding what to believe or do L&nnis, 1DCB, p. 1E), critic'$ t#inin0 $e'rne* t#rou0# *e1'tete'c#es stu*ents not ust #o '*=oc'te 'n* 'r0ue3 1ut #o to *eci*e 's e$$% &ach and e=ery stu*ent

whether in debate or Lmore likely) 't so,e later (oint in $ife3 i$$ 1e ($'ce* in t#e (osition of t#e

*ecision:,'er% F'ce* it# co,(etin0 o(tions #ose costs 'n* 1enefits 're initi'$$y unc$e'r3 critic'$

t#inin0 is necess'ry to 'ssess '$$ t#e (ossi1$e outco,es of e'c# c#oice3 co,('re t#eir re$'ti=e

,erits3 'n* 'rri=e 't so,e fin'$ *ecision '1out #ic# is (refer'1$e% n some instances, such aschoosing whether to eat 5hinese or ndian food for dinner, the importance of making the correct decision

is minor.For ,'ny other *ecisions, however, t#e i,($ic'tions of c#oosin0 'n i,(ru*ent course of'ction 'repotentially 0r'=e. As 4obert 5rawford notes, there are 0issues of unsurpassed importance in

the daily lives of millions upon millions of people...being decided to a considerable e8tent by the power of

public speaking L%EE'). Although the days of the 5old War are over, and the risk that 0the ne8t !earl

Oarbor could be Rcompounded by hydrogen L&hninger and #rockriede, 1DBC, p. ') is greatly reduced,t#e ,'ni(u$'tion of (u1$ic su((ort 1efore t#e in='sion of Ir' in !!8 (oints to t#e continuin0

necessity of tr'inin0 ' e$$:infor,e* 'n* critic'$$y:''re (u1$ic LSarefsky, %EEB). In t#e '1sence of

*e1'te:tr'ine* critic'$ t#inin03 i0nor'nt 1ut ',1itious (o$itici'ns 'n* (ersu'si=e 1ut nef'rious


27/169


res

Page 27/169

$e'*ers ou$* 1e ,uc# ,ore $ie$y to *r' t#e country3 'n*possibly the or$*, into conf$icts it#inc'$cu$'1$e $osses in terms of human Bwell(being. ?iven t#e ,yri'* t#re'ts of 0$o1'$ (ro(ortions

t#'t i$$ reuire incisi=e so$utions3 inc$u*in0 0$o1'$ 'r,in03 t#e s(re'* of ('n*e,ic *ise'ses3 'n*

t#e (ro$ifer'tion of QW6Dsweapons of mass destruction, cu$ti='tin0 ' ro1ust 'n* effecti=e society ofcritic'$ *ecision:,'ers is essenti'$% As Kouis 4ene #eres writes, 0with such learning, we Americanscould prepare...not as immobilied ob2ects of false contentment, but as authentic citiens of an endangered

planet L%EE'). $hus, it is not surprising that critic'$ t#inin0 #'s 1een c'$$e* t#e #i0#est e*uc'tion'$

0o'$ of t#e 'cti=ity L!archer, 1DDC).

'. Di=isionof


28/169


res

Page 28/169

Re'son'1i$ity for to(ic'$ity

5auses race to the top

$here will always be an interpretation thats slightly better, meaning that we will always run theorybecause its a gateway issue. $his will distract us from substance which is the educational part of debate

that we can apply to other parts of life while theory cannot be applied to anything but high(school

debate.

St'sis:4unning competing interpretation discourages debaters to think outside the bo8, forcing them to

conform to only arguments that is the best rather than what is reasonable. t deters debaters fromrunning creative arguments because they are slightly less good.

Contr'*icts our notions of (unis#,ent( 4easonability is consistent with how we punish people.;omeone is not culpable only because they didnt act in accordance with the highest standard of

righteous action. 4ather, someone is only culpable if they did something wrong. ;imilarly, reasonabilityonly punishes someone if they did something wrong.

T#ere is no suc# t#in0 's ' 1est *efinitionso the notion of competing interpretations is conceptually flawed as we can never

attain a 0best interpretation. $opicality should therefore be an issue of reasonability as that avoids the impossibility of finding a

0perfect interp.

Lf Gegating) #ecause the affirmative speaks last, they will always be able to win a slightly fairer interpretation in the %A4. $hat

means that competing interpretations creates a #u0e structur'$ '*='nt'0e for t#e 'ffir,'ti=e *e1'ter%

Co,(etin0 inter(ret'tions is ,ore re$e='nt to non:to(ic s(ecific *e1'tepractice because other debate practice can continue to

be theoretically illegitimate indefinitely whereas an affirmative can only be non(topical on a given resolution for two months. $he

abuse from not having the most topical definition


29/169


res

Page 29/169

E9tr':to(ic'$ity B'*

nterpretation" nterpretation" $he affirmative must garner offense only from topical links between theiradvocacy and the resolution Lmay not advocate e8tra(topical action in addition to the resolution)

/iolation" $he aff is garnering impacts from non(topical actions


30/169


res

Page 30/169

te8t of the resolution. Gonte8tual advantages increase breadth because they force debaters to consider more issues than thosecontained in the te8t. ncreasing breadth increases fairness because it enables debaters to make new types of arguments, therefore

e8panding their ground and e8panding debaters abilities to prove their advocacies. #readth increases education because we

debate many rounds on a topic over the course of two months and many positions are widely used, so it is more educational to

discuss issues that, while related to the topic, are unique enough to provide new educational benefits.

%.7IC 0roun*

Kimiting nonte8tual advantages decreases my ability to combat !5s because the neg can co(opt all of my te8tual advantages and

will have no e8ternal advantages to weigh against them. Allowing me to garner e8tratopical advantages allows me to check neg!5s because can now capture the same benefits and weigh an e8ternal benefit against the neg counterplan. Kimiting !5 ground

is key to fairness because !5s take away 1EE percent of my ground, placing me at a complete disadvantage in winning the round

Kimiting !5 ground also benefits education because !5s eliminate any clash in the round, killing discussion and therefore the

educational benefits to be obtained from debating.

*. Turn 0roun*

Kimiting nonte8tual aff. advantages harms neg turn ground because s


31/169


res

Page 31/169

5ff f$e9i1i$ity 0oo*

1. n the status quo there is a huge ne0 1i'sbecause of time skew the neg gets B minutes to generate

offense, which the aff has to cover in * minutes, then the %G4 has 9 minutes to close doors on the aff.

$his means that there is an imbalance in fairness in the status quo that must be rectified. Kimiting negground in comparison to aff thus becomes necessary as if the neg has less strategic options they can do

less damage in the G5 making the A4 easier and also have less good arguments to go for in the %G4.

%. ;tructurally the aff is at a disadvantage since *on;t no #'t t#e ne0 is 0oin0 to s'y in t#e NC,

meaning the neg has B minutes to find some arguments which my A5 wont apply too, or use things like

!5; and counterplans to mitigate the A5 offense and then outweigh with turns and disads. $his meanswe need to limit the neg-s strategic options since they shouldnt be able to screw over the A5, or d lose

9 minutes of speech time every round.

'. $he aff strategic options and advocacies are already 'rtifici'$$y constr'ine* 1y to(ic'$ity, meaning thenumber of possible ways to derive offense as the aff is severely limited. n contrast, the neg does not

have to be topical so as long as they can find some net benefit, they can make an infinite number of

arguments and can have an infinite number of advocacies which cant predict, meaning the aff needsfle8ibility in dealing with neg arguments and we need to impose some constraints on neg ground in

comparison to aff ground.

*. le8ibility is needed for 1re'*t# of rese'rc#, otherwise the aff would have no incentive to research a

broad range of possible advocacies. $his means that we would not learn about a variety of different

stances in support of the topic, but only a limited number, constraining the education obtained fromresearch.


32/169


res

Page 32/169

'ff f$e9i1i$ity B'*

1. Aff fle8ibility takes away neg ground by o=er:$i,itin0 t#e ne0'ti=e. $his is bad because it is unfair to

arbitrarily take away neg ground while allowing the aff to choose any ground they wantI and, it is uneducationalbecause it forces negatives to all go for the same argument rather than be creative and run for unique and

creative positions.

%. Aff fle8ibility is bad because it gives the aff too ,uc# 0roun*. $his occurs because when you underlimit the

aff, it opens up a multitude of arguments that normally would not be allowed. $his gives the aff an unfair

advantage because it undermines predictability for the negI so, to have a chance at winning, negatives must be

prepared to refute almost anything which is an unfair prep e8pectation.

'. $he fact that the aff sucks at affirming doesnt mean they should be put at an advantage. ?oing into the roundwe both have an e8actly equal amount of speech time meaning that we are at re$'ti=e eu'$ity 't t#e st'rt oft#e roun*. $he fact that the allocation of time is different 2ust implies that aff and neg debaters need different

skill sets, not that one is better than the other by definition. ;o, there is no reason to say one side is advantaged.

$hus, we should not artificially limit one side-s ground.

*. $he aff gets to s(e' first 'n* $'st, meaning that the aff gets the last word on any argument. n order to

check this back the neg needs access to a greater quantity of arguments than the aff, and of more varied kind,

since that allows the neg to make it harder for the %A4 to simply put the best response on every response.Without being able to check back the aff-s structural advantage in speaking last, the aff would have the

advantage on every argument.

+. ;ince debaters want to win, fle8ibility encourages affirmatives to pick the best possible advocacy for

their side rather than the 1est (ossi1$e to(ic for *iscussion. cant claim the same advantage because

have the burden of re2oinder, so cannot weigh the best possible neg advocacy against the A5. $he onlyway to give both sides an equal opportunity is to tie the aff to a single concrete interpretation


33/169


34/169


res

Page 34/169

Fr',er;s Intent B'*

1. #ecause there is no requirement that articles on proposed topics be written in K, it is often unclear as to

what topic authors actually mean because there is no written point of reference for framers intent. $hus,

framer-s intent is sub2ective and un=erifi'1$e, so instead of clarifying the debate, it only muddles it further.

%. ;ince the wording committee alters the wording of the resolution, resolutions cannot always be debated in a

way indicative of what the framer intended. $he c#'n0es in t#e or*in0of the topic preclude framers intentfrom being a viable standard for $.

'. ramers intent is not st'ticI people who write topics change their mind about issues as they see themprogress in a certain direction they did not anticipate. urther, the way the topic relates to the real world

changes as current events develop, and the framer-s intent can not forsee these changes. ;o, using framersintent as a $ standard is nonsensical as $ interpretations have to be applicable to all debates on the topic, and to

the real world.

*. 3riginalism is bad.

Kawrence #. ;olum(%EEC, F6ohn &. 5ribbet !rofessor of Kaw, 7niversity of llinois 5ollege of Kaw,H J;emantic3riginalism,J llinois !ublic Kaw and Kegal $heory 4esearch !apers ;eries Go. EB(%*

http"


35/169


res

Page 35/169

9. $he committee is (o$itic'$. $hey vote for other topics in order to get their own topics voted for. $hus,framers intent is bad, as the topics arent chosen for educational purposes but instead because of backhand

dealing.


36/169


res

Page 36/169

Un*er:$i,itin0 1'*

7nder limiting e8plodes the number of topical affs, skewing negs- ability to prep so many possiblepositions. $his gives affs preferable research burdens since they only have to prep their one advocacy,

while negs are forced to prep every remotely related issue on a broad topic.7nder(limited e8plodes the neg research burden, forcing negatives to attempt to cut cards against a

massive quantity of positions. $his means that negative research will be of poor quality and negs will

never get to go in(depth on any issue. $hus, under(limiting harms education.


37/169


res

Page 37/169

O=er:$i,itin0 1'*

3ver(limiting creates str'te0y se. :y strategy to win this round was to prove the entirety of theresolution untrue. #ecause of the affirmative advocacy, am forced to now change my strategy to prove

a tiny part of the resolution untrue. $his means that my strategy has been completely changed because ofthe limits the affirmative advocacy places on the resolution.

3ver(limiting allows one debater to become a specialist in the particular argument that they advocateIthis se in *e(t# of rese'rc#on an issue chosen by the advocate determines who garners the ballot.

$his is creates an unfair disadvantage for the aff as over limiting causes the aff to provide only few

arguments under this standard. $his would undermine the value of fairness in that debating ought not

have an unbalanced ratio on who wins the round.


38/169


res

Page 38/169

7recision


39/169


res

Page 39/169

7recision B'*

Absolute precision is detrimental to education because it deters innovation. H'=in0 i00$e:roo, 't

t#e ,'r0ins 0i=es *e1'ters ' co,(etiti=e incenti=e to e9($ore ne issuesthat are related to the topic.$his is an educational benefit because debaters learn about new topics rather than remaining static while

still preserving the depth of argumentation. Also, having a gray area forces debaters to defend the

theoretical legitimacy of their own positions, rather than 2ust assuming if their position is topical viasome defined boundary. A $ debate demands that debaters think on their feet and critically e8amine

their own practices, which is arguably the most important skill that debaters can take from the activity.

;hutting this debate out by having a super precise definition denies this educational benefit.

Word focus kills fairness first by making it impossible for the aff to win because the neg can bring up so

many definitions of phrases and words that its impossible for me to meet all of them. urthermore, byforcing me to define all terms in the A5, it forces me to spend all my time on definitions, making it

impossible for the aff to generate offense. $hus, precision e9'cer1'tes ne0 in se.

!recision doesnt e8ist for either 5ompetitive interpretation or reasonability.&ric Qupferbreg, 7niversity of Qentucky

:ost articles on topicality devote their attention to the two dominant schools of topicality standards

reasonabilityand best definitionebaters have dutifully compiled long lists of reasons in support of oneor the other or both outlooks.. Oowever, such analysis inevitably suffers from two pitfalls. irst, the

shortcomings debaters invent usually are mutually applicable to either standard Le. g., both reasonability

and best definition standards are highly sub2ective and prone to 2udge intervention). And, second,neitherstandard can be easily defined with precision. :ore often than not, debaters make impassioned

pleas for what is -bestJ or reasonable without providing adequate guidelines to determine what

completely constitutes either standard. Geither school offers any compelling criteria by which to 2udgewhether the larger -standardJ has been met.


40/169


res

Page 40/169

Fie$* Conte9t


41/169


res

Page 41/169

Fie$* Conte9t B'*

Fie$* conte9t *efinitions 're *is(ute*. Got all authors believe in the same definitions for different

concepts in the world of academia. $here are often many definitions that are given for various conceptssometimes even within the same conte8t. $hey are all disputed and affirmed by various scholars.

ield conte8t specific definitions often take on field specific meanings which rely on an e8tensive priorknowledge of the field to interpret correctly. $his means that *e1'ters ,'y not 1e u'$ifie* to

inter(retor understand field specific definitions and will 2ust misconstrue the meanings of the words in

round. $hus, because debaters lack the ability to correctly present e8pert definitions, any advantage tousing field definitions is mooted by the fact that it is not a direct representation of academia, but rather

of some debaters FmisHinterpretation.

5onte8tual definitions derived from topic literature leave room for 1i's'n* su1ecti=itysince different

authors have competing claims on what different terms mean. #ecause academics write papers with anend in mind, academia has an incentive to manipulate definitions in their favor to achieve that end. &ven

if literature is peer reviewed, there is still no way to check back for the inherent partialities differentauthors have regarding the way phrases are defined in their field.


42/169


res

Page 42/169

F?:T B'*

5A Inter(ret'tion : The affirmative advocacy must be directly topical.

BA Vio$'tion J$he A5 is only topical through its effects

5) ;tandards (

"A Li,its( if the affirmative is not required to defend an advocacy that in and of itself affirms theresolution, it becomes impossible for the neg to predict the countless potential affirmative advocacies

that do not directly affirm resolution but whosesolvencyis the affirmation. #eing required to advocate a

direct affirmation of the resolution narrows the scope of potential aff advocacies, giving the neg ageneral idea of what to e8pect when entering a round. !redictability is key to fairness because the aff has

a greater chance of accessing the ballot than the neg who was severely isadvantaged with lack ofprevious knowledge of the arguments in the round. !redictability is also key to education because

unpredictable advocacies decrease in depth argumentation and clash because one debater will not have

appropriate preparation to develop well(warranted responses.

A Counter($'n 0roun*( the affirmative denies crucial strategic counterplan ground by claiming away to solve for the harms of other affirmative advocacies while achieving an e8ternal net(benefit fromthe e8tra(topical advocacy. :y interpretation effectively prohibits affs usage of such ground and thus

returns counterplan ground to the negative which is entitled to run alternative solvency mechanisms for

the aff 5ounterplan ground is crucial negative ground because it is key to fairness in debate because itclearly defines which arguments debaters are and are not allowed to make, and so by taking thenegatives ground, the aff is taking the negs capability to make arguments. $hus loss of such critical

ground destroys fairness. 5ounterplan ground is also key to education because if the affirmative steals

counter(plan ground, debate loses the educational clash over the plan v counterplan debate because theplan is altogether eliminated from the round if the aff defends the counterplan.

8A D/5


43/169


res

Page 43/169


44/169


res

Page 44/169

F9 T


45/169


res

Page 45/169

that discounting such benefits is disingenuous to the topic literature and debaters can only formulateanswers to arguments that fall within the topic literature. Also, this is best for education as embracing

the real world implications of our arguments ensures that we gain the out of round educational benefits

from debating.

Aff le8ibility

$he aff needs to be fle8ible in order to counteract the empirical truth the neg debaters win most

frequently. $he neg debater doesnt have a topicality burden, so to increase fle8ibility, the aff must havemultiple ways to access topicality. :y opponents interpretation hurts fle8ibility as it restricts my access

to topicality whereas my interp allows me to access topicality in multiple different ways. $his increases

fairness as it checks the massive negative win skew. t also increases education because it allows me tosubstantively engage the flow and spark topical discussions by preventing the neg from capitaliing on

their inherent advantages.


46/169


47/169


48/169


res

Page 48/169

when used in a different sentence, thus, we must consider the purpose of the sentence as a whole piecebefore we can determine the definitions of the individual words. $hus, conte8tual definitions provide

debaters with a solid interpretation of the information being offered and create a clearer universal

understanding of what is trying to be communicated. $his consistency is key to fairness because it isimpossible to make arguments if the resolution makes no sense. t is also key to education, as we cannotresearch or effectively argue about gibberish.

Consistency)$his is the biggest internal link to any other standard as words are not isolated but meanthings as terms of art. All other sources depend on them defining the right thing, but defining self(

isolated words perverts their definition. $opic lit can only define things if its in the conte8t of the

resolution and not single words and grammatical rules change when multiple words are stung together.5ommonly used things like hot dog on make sense in conte8t( it doesnt mean a warm canine.

!redictability"5onte8tual definitions are more predictable because they are derived from the topic

literature. ;ince our understandings of a topic are based solely on the literature we read, terms which aredefined outside of the topic literature are unpredictable. !redictability is key to fairness as debaters need

to be able to predict an argument to formulate a coherent strategy to answer it. 7npredictable position

creates an asymmetrical prep advantage for my opponent as they can block out my case but cant blockout their arguments.


49/169


res

Page 49/169

Diction'ry *efinitions 0oo*

1.Diction'ry *efinitions 're cre*i1$e 'n* o1ecti=ebecause they are provided by credible sources,which ensure that they have accurate, ob2ective definitions. 7nlike other sources, dictionary definitions

carry no motive for their users to reach any conclusions on the provided definitions, so they serve as

ob2ective compilations of definitions.%. 5 *iction'ry *eter,ines co,,on us'0e%With the determination of common usage the debater is

able to use a definition that is within the norms of quotidian &nglish. $he dictionary ranks the definition

in the order of what is most commonly used. $his allows for the debaters to select the most commonlyused definition to avoid being biased and abusive. $he commonly used definition provides an ample

amount of predictability. $herefore, the debaters are aware of the e8pectations of what definition would

appear.'. 5 *iction'ry is 'ccessi1$e to e=eryone%$herefore its definitions are predictable to everyone. $hey

arent elitist and e8clude peopleI though you cant find dictionaries anywhere, they are easily the mostaccessible unbiased resource for reference in comparison to an ob2ective but inaccessible elitist article.


50/169


res

Page 50/169

*iction'ry *efinitions 1'*

1. A definition is 2ust that of an isolated word that i0noresthe larger conte9tprovided by the synta8 ofthe resolution and of the words surrounding the one being defined. urthermore, words are defined not

phrases. As a result the conte8tual definition may be different than that provided by defining each wordof the resolution in a dictionary. $hus, looking only to dictionary definitions provides a false

interpretation of the resolution.

%. ictionaries c'te0oriPedefinitions by common usage, but oftentimes the most co,,on us'0eof 'or*is not the one that debaters want to look for. We require e8ternal knowledge or literature to define

certain words, because resolutions have empirically used words varying from the common(usage

definitions found in dictionaries.


51/169


res

Page 51/169

Bi*irection'$ity 0oo*

1. #i(directionality gives ,ore 0roun* to 1ot# si*esbecause they can derive offense from both sides ofan issue, meaning that there is more possibility for offense. ;


52/169


res

Page 52/169

Bi*irection'$ity 1'*

1. #idirectionality puts me in a double bind where any argument make against one 'r0u,entc'n 1e

$e=er'0e* 's ' contr'*ictionor an argument for my opponent on the other side. $hus bi(directionalityuniquely destroys my position by making it so that any argument make is a potential argument that can

be used against me, destroying my ability to have a cohesive strategy in round and meaning that

always lose.%. $reating the resolution as though it has bidirectional signals causes my o((onent;s (ositionto

become #i0#$y un(re*ict'1$e, as s


53/169


54/169


res

Page 54/169

Co,,on us'0e 0oo*

1. 5ommon usage is ey to (re*ict'1i$itybecause common usage implies that we actually use such

terms in a certain way every day, and that most people understand such terms in this way. #ecause theresolution is written in order to appeal to a community of debaters as opposed to &nglish ma2ors, we

must look to common usage in order to properly interpret the resolution. urthermore, language is best

defined by its common use, and if the &nglish language is most often used to communicate ideasconversationally or directionally, than we should look to the vocabulary of conversational &nglish to

interpret the resolution. $hus assigning common definitions to words is the most predictable option.

!redictability is key to fairness because debaters have to be able to predict arguments to ensure theresan ability to be responsive and thus win the round.

%. 7tiliing the common usage of words in the resolution allows debaters to e8ercise '(($ic'tion to t#e

re'$:or$*. Without following commonly accepted standards we lose the main educational part ofdebate since most of debate is the ability to intelligibly e8press yourself to othersI the only method this

can be done is through the use of conversational &nglish. $he purpose of debate is that people canarticulate arguments in a relevant and coherent matter debate is a speaking activity. $hus the main

educational activity of debate is the ability to be articulate to many people and be convincing.


55/169


res

Page 55/169

Co,,on us'0e 1'*

!eople can use words in multiple different and historically inaccurate ways, creating i,(recise

*efinitionsof words. or e8ample the word tight can mean angry or cool or taut in common usage ordepending on where in the 7; you are, meaning that common usage encourages bad debate because of

imprecise definitions.

#ecause resolutions are written with enough obscurity provided to allow some variety in interpretation,we must remember that resolutions are not written in conversational &nglish. urthermore, if the

individual debater were to interpret the resolution based on their most accessible resource for common

usage Ltheir own knowledge and usage of &nglish on a daily basis), they would sub2ectively decide themeaning of each word based on their own usage which is also determined on their location, preference,

etc. #ecause common usage doesnt provide a consistent definition amongst individuals, and is thus

un(re*ict'1$e it shouldnt be preferred as a resource for interpretation in debate. Kack of predictabilityin round fails to achieve fairness for both sides in the round.

5ommon usage provides ',1i0uityin round as well as inst'1i$ityin the constantly evolving definitionsof words used in everyday speech.

Attig, 6ohn 0?eneral 4eflections on the 5oncept of 5ommon 7sage 5ommittee on 5ataloging" escription and Access, 6uly %1,

%EE'

ts Ambiguous" Ambiguities" 5ommon usage does not make clean distinctions and uses terms thatoverlap or have very fuy boundaries. n the case of sound recordings, the term 0disc is commonly

applied to both analog and digital technologies. $he more common term for digital discs is 0compact

disc or simply 05 but we also need a term for analog discsI at the moment, the preferred term seems

to by 0vinyl disc V which brings us to the ne8t problem"

Attig, 6ohn 0?eneral 4eflections on the 5oncept of 5ommon 7sage 5ommittee on 5ataloging" escription and Access, 6uly %1,

%EE'

ts 7nstable" nstability" 5ommon usage keeps changing. $he case of analog sound discs is a perfect

e8ample. $he terms 0record, 0album, 0K!, and 0vinyl disc have all been common usage at one time

or another. $o apply the criterion of common usage retrospectively would lead to an endless successionof changing terms for the same things, all of them leaving their traces in our descriptions. AKA feels

rather strongly that common usage should not be used to 2ustify such constant updating of established

;: terms. 3nce a term has been established for a particular type of carrier, based Lamong otherfactors) on common usage at the time, that term should not be changed. $he fact that this term may not

always be recognied by future users is perhaps an argument for applying the common usage criterion

with e8treme care in the first place.Co,,on us'0e #'s no 1ri0#t $ine%:y opponent needs to be showing a clear metric for determining

when a word has met the threshold for common usage and is not merely used frequently.

&ven if a word is more commonly used, that doesnt 2ustify its preferenceI co,,on us'0e #'s no re'$i,('ctin the debate round. $he resolution uses certain words and often we must pick a less common

definition in order for the resolution to make grammatical sense. or e8ample, a sanction is commonly

referred to as an endorsement, but in terms of economic sanctions we must look to a less common usage

of the word sanction, a prohibition.


56/169


res

Page 56/169


57/169


res

Page 57/169


58/169


res

Page 58/169

+.


59/169


res

Page 59/169

&&&C#'(ter 8) Sco(e&&&

($'n focus . Res focus

A. nterpretation

$he affirmative may limit their advocacy to a topical plan with a solvency advocate.

#. ;tandards

1. Re'$ or$* *ecision:,'in0

n the real world, policymakers and other rational agents cant implement general statements of value. nstead,

they can only consider and implement specific plans of action that reflect these general statements. 4eal world

decision(making has the strongest link to education because the ability to make decisions is the most importantskill debaters gain from debate.

!aul Str'it L?eorge :ason 7niversity) 'n* #rett W'$$'ce e9($'inL?eorge Washington 7niversity). 0$he;cope of Gegative iat and the Kogic of ecision :aking. W7 ebaters 4esearch ?uide. %EEB.

T#e '1i$ity to ,'e *ecisions *eri=in0 fro,discussions, argumentation or *e1'te, is the eystill. It is t#e one

t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us i$$ *o e=ery *'y of our $i=es 1esi*es 1re't#in0%Decision:,'in0 tr'nscen*s'$$ 1oun*'ries 1eteen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0 $ie (o$icy e*uc'tion 'n* riti e*uc'tion3 it ,'es

irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of #et#er e i$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'ers3 'n* it tr'nscen*s uestions of

#'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in% T#e i,($ic'tionfor this analysis is t#'t t#e critic'$

t#inin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e si$$s offere* 1y re'$:or$* *ecision:,'in0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n

'ny e*uc'tion'$ *is'*='nt'0e ei0#e* '0'inst t#e,% It is t#e si$$s e $e'rn3 not t#e content of our

'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n 1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es% W#i$e (o$icy co,('rison si$$s 're 0oin0 to 1e $e'rne*

t#rou0# *e1'te in one 'y or 'not#er3 t#ose si$$s 're use$ess if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e in* of $o0ic

'ctu'$$y use* to ,'e *ecisions%

;o, evaluate real world decision(making before any other claims to education.%. Reci(roc'$ 1ur*ens

!lan focus uniquely creates reciprocal burdens for the aff. and the neg. 5omparing the relative

advantages and disadvantages of a plan under the resolution gives aff. and neg. arguments equal weight.

7nder other interpretations, the aff. burden is significantly greater than the neg. burden and the neg. canuse unequal strategies like counter(warrants to negate the res. 4eciprocal burdens are key for fairness

because they ensure that both debaters need to do the same amount of work to win. 4eciprocal burdens

are also key for education because they increase debate over substantive issues when one debater ismore focused on trying to meet the burden than the other.

'. 5ff f$e9%

Allowing the aff. fle8ibility to choose different strategies is important because it helps to mitigate the negsautomatic advantage, which is evidenced by time skew the neg has more time to respond to the aff case and

the aff has less time to cover both sides of the round, meaning that the aff is structurally at a disadvantage going

into the round and therefore needs fle8ibility to compensate. Aff framework choice is necessary. 3onnelle8plains"

0And the $wain ;hall :eet" Affirmative ramework 5hoice and the uture of ebate. $imothy :. 3onnell

irector of ebate. 7niversity of :ary Washington.


60/169


res

Page 60/169

$here are several reasons why the affirmative should get to choose the framework for the debate. irst, 5FC

(reser=es t#e ='$ue of t#e first 'ffir,'ti=e constructi=e s(eec#% T#is s(eec# is t#e st'rtin0 (oint for t#e

*e1'te% It is ' function of necessity% T#e *e1'te ,ust 1e0in so,e#ere if it is to 1e0in 't '$$% F'i$ure to0r'nt 5FC is ' *eni'$ of t#e ser=ice ren*ere* 1y t#e 'ffir,'ti=e te',;s $'1or #en t#ey cr'fte* t#is

s(eec#% Furt#er3 if t#e 'ffir,'ti=e *oes not 0et to (ic t#e st'rtin0 (oint3 t#e o(enin0 s(eec# 'ct is

essenti'$$y ren*ere* ,e'nin0$ess #i$e t#e rest of t#e *e1'te 1eco,es ' *e1'te '1out #'t e s#ou$* 1e

*e1'tin0 '1out.

$he aff deserves fle8ibility to establish the terms of debate because it would be more unfair to cost the aff si8

minutes of their speech time 2ust because they have the misfortune of speaking first.

*. De(t# of rese'rc# plan focus promotes depth of research by allowing affs to focus on specific

policies, therefore giving them more opportunity to research and flesh out the implications of the plans they

advocate. Advocating the entire resolution promotes shallow or generic research on many possible affirmativeactions. epth of research is key to education because a thorough knowledge of significant topics has

educational value while superficial knowledge of a broad range of topics acquired through a res focus is less

useful in and out of the round.

+. 5r0u,ent u'$ity( specification of the implementation process of a particular affirmative plan gives

the negative specific ground to attack. ?ranting access to specific A and turn ground increases the educationalvalue of debate because direct clash arises by attacking the specific links of an affirmative plan rather than

running entirely unrelated generic arguments. Argument quality is key to education as the arguments advanced

in round determine what we learn from each debate. :oreover, we learn more from direct clash because itforces us to make strategic choices and weigh between different arguments.


61/169


res

Page 61/169

7$'n focus 0oo* front$ines

5) 7$'ns 0i=e 'ff 1etter 0roun* 1ec'use t#ey 0et to 'r1itr'ri$y n'rro t#e *e1'te

f% To(ic'$ity C#ecsthis argument because if the aff advocacy is arbitrary and unpredictable then thenegative can simply argue that the aff is non(topical, however, this is not a problem with plan focus

as a whole

0% KGQ $urn" !lan focus 0i=es ne0'ti=es 1etter 0roun*because they can argue literally AG@advocacy outside of the plan, even topical advocacies, which is ground negs would not have access

to absent plan focus

#% :!A5$ $urn" Allowing the aff to have fle8ibility is a good thing because this will incre'se 'ffin (ercent'0e to co,(ens'te for ne0 ti,e 1i's and create a truly level playing field where affswin around fifty percent of the time. :y opponent will attempt to say that there is no reason

fle8ibility uniquely checks time bias however this is empirically denied because it has checked back

neg time bias in policy debate as win percentage is relatively equal.


62/169


63/169


res

Page 63/169

significant issues are politically relevant and are reflected as such in the news or#. t is politically relevant, and thus in current events publications meaning they could have easily

predicted it. $hus, it is not the aff. who is being unpredictable, but rather the neg. not doing enough

research.Q checksQs can link regardless of me running a plan or defending the whole resolution. $hus, no matter how

unpredictable am, at the very least, the neg. can still run a Q. $his mitigates the impact of

unpredictability as the neg. can still do research to substantively answer the plan.eontology Land other philosophy checks) ?eneric philosophical arguments, especially deontology,

which create categorical reasons to re2ect the resolution check predictability. ;o long as a philosophy

creates a reason to re2ect the resolution in its entirety, it doesnt matter if the plan is unpredictable, as theG5 will still substantively answer it. $he inability to research an unpredictable position is mitigated by

the ability to research categorically binding philosophies.

?eneric Kink ?round 5hecks

$here are always generic arguments that will link to the resolution. #ecause plans will always fall underthe resolution, there will always be arguments that can link to them. $his checks back the harms of

predictability as the neg. can still research positions which will answer the A5 meaning that there is no

advantage to the aff. having better prep for their arguments.

5T) Denies (#i$oso(#y/='$ue 0roun*

1. $urn

!lan focus encourages values and philosophy debate as competitors are forced to researchphilosophically grounded positions. ;ince its impossible to research every plan, philosophy is crucial totaking out multiple different advocacies. 4es focus hurts values and philosophy ground as there is an

incentive to run multiple counter(warrants instead of engaging in the philosophy debate, as it is

impossible to answer B minutes of counter warrants in a * minute speech.

$urn!lan focus actually makes philosophy more relevant because most of my aff is devoted to the plan

instead of framework giving them a better ability to win the framework debate. And, philosophical

frameworks are still very relevant with plan focus because impacts need always to be evaluated undersome value structure. $hey get the same if not better philosophy ground.

$urn

!hilosophy and values are only important if they can apply to the real world. 3therwise, it wouldntmake sense to run philosophical arguments as the resolution asks us to evaluate a real world action. !lan

ocus therefore ensures better philosophy and values ground as plans reflect real world policy making.

Gon(plan affs might have a link to the real world, but this is 2ust a possibility, whereas plan focusguarantees a link to the real world.


64/169


res

Page 64/169

RESOLUTION IS 5 TO7IC 5RE5

T#e reso$ution in*ic'tes ' 0ener'$ ,or'$ st'te,ent. $he resolution does not indicate a course of

action, but instead states whether a decision is moral. $he fact that it does not specify an actor, action,

and etc., inherently implies that it cannot be a plan, but rather serves as a general statement thatencompasses over plans.

Almost all to(ic $iter'turediscusses specific e8amples within a topicI very few, if any, discuss the

resolution as a complete statement. $opic literature is the most important standard in terms of fairnessbecause learning how to research is the foundation of participating in academic debate, learning good

educational practices, reading the opinions of many different people, and developing critical

reading


65/169


res

Page 65/169

Res Focus . 7$'n Focus

A) nterpretation" $he neg advocacy must be the whole resolution

#) /iolation" $he neg specifies a plan that is a portion of the resolution rather than the whole resolution.

5) ;tandards"

De(t# of issues stock issues are complicated and can be delved into more than we have time for in adebate round. Oaving multiple rounds about the whole resolution and the same issues improves our

understanding of those issues rounds at the last tournaments on a topic always go more in(depth than the

beginning ones because the amount of rounds we have on a topic improves our depth of knowledge onthat issue. $his is an internal link to education because the depth that we understand the issues is the

same as the depth of education we are getting.

V'$ues De1'te: K resolutions are worded in a way that implies a value statement not a policy option.!lans take our focus away from the debate about the values and philosophy behind the resolution and

focus it on the implementation or specific situations. $he focus of the debate as implied by the resolution

is education on the philosophical side of the issue if the focus is shifted from that topic specificeducation is hindered.

Sitc# si*e *e1'te( !lan focus permits topical cps this discourages switch sides debate because itvirtually allows people to affirm every round. $his is bad for education because the critical thinking it

takes to switch sides is key to the education we get from debate.

Lin


66/169


res

Page 66/169

To(ic'$ counter($'ns 1'*

5% Inter(ret'tion counterplans must e8ist partially or entirely outside the scope of the resolution

B% Vio$'tion : $hey run a topical counterplan.

C% St'n*'r*s J

1. Sitc#:si*es *e1'te J when the neg runs a topical counterplan, they can use affirmative arguments

when negating. orcing counterplans to cover some ground outside the resolution stops negs from 2ust using

their affirmative cases for both sides. ;witch(sides debate fosters education because

A. Kearning to debate on two sides of an issue is an act of ethical education that debate uniquely teachesay e8plains"

ouglas ?. ay, Assistant !rofessor and irector of orensics at the 7niversity of Wisconsin, 1D99 FJ$he&thics of emocratic ebate,J Central States Speech Journal, /olume 1B, ebruary, p. // BATMANH

To (resent (ersu'si=e$y 'r0u,ents for ' (osition it# #ic# one *is'0rees is t#e #i0#est et#ic'$ 'ct in

*e1'te 1ec'use it sets 'si*e (erson'$ interests for t#e 1enefit of t#e co,,on 0oo*% &ssentially, for t#e

(erson #o 'cce(ts *ecision 1y *e1'te3 t#e et#ics of t#e *ecision:,'in0 (rocess 're su(erior to t#e

et#ics of (erson'$ con=iction on ('rticu$'r su1ects for *e1'te.emocracy is a commitment to means, not ends.

emocratic society accepts certain ends, i.e., decisions, because they have been arrived at by democratic means. We reco0niPe t#e

,or'$ (riority of *ecision 1y *e1'te #en e '0ree to 1e 1oun* 1y t#'t *ecision re0'r*$ess of (erson'$

con=iction% Suc# 'n '0ree,ent is ,or'$$y 'cce(t'1$e 1ec'use t#e *ecision:,'in0 (rocess 0u'r'ntees our

,or'$ inte0rity 1y 0u'r'nteein0 t#e o((ortunity to *e1'te for ' re=ers'$ of t#e *ecision%$hus, personal

conviction can have moral significance in social decision(making only so long as the integrity of debate is maintained. And t#e

inte0rity of *e1'te is ,'int'ine* on$y #en t#ere is ' fu$$ 'n* forcefu$ confront'tion of 'r0u,ents 'n*

e=i*ence re$e='nt to *ecision% W#en 'n 'r0u,ent is not (resente* or is not (resente* 's (ersu'si=e$y 's(ossi1$e3 t#en *e1'te f'i$s%

;witch(side debate destroys clash and respect for decision(making processes, harming the educational benefits

of debate.

#. ;witch(sides debate simply teaches debaters more about the topic than they could learn by 2ust

researching one side. When debaters must debate both sides, they must research a variety of arguments beforeformulating their case positions, which is a valuable skill taught by debate.

%&ffective clash topical counterplans destroy effective clash by narrowing the difference in

advocacies between both sides. ebate would then become an issue of trivial differences between the twoadvocacies rather than the substantive discussion of two contradictory policy options that it would become with

a non(topical counterplan. 5lash is key to education because it improves debaters abilities to generatearguments and delineate important distinctions between different schools of thought.


67/169


68/169


res

Page 68/169

7ics 1'*

Inter(ret'tion" 5ounter !lans must be entirely e8clusive of the affirmative advocacy

Vio$'tion":y opponent runs a plan inclusive counterplan which includes part of the affirmative advocacy.

St'n*'r*s

1. Ti,e se" !5s waste the 1A5 speech time, because they render substantive advantages non(unique

by focusing on a slight distinction. f the neg can agree with DDM of the aff, only 1M of my 9 minutesmatters in the 1A4. Also, it e8plodes the effectiveness of Gegative speech time because he can spend

almost all of his time attacking the small portions of the A5 that he doesnt agree with. ;kewing time is

unfair because the speech times are designed to give each debater an equal chance at winning the roundIthats why both sides add up to 1' minutes. f dont get an equal opportunity to speak, dont have a

fair chance at winning. Also, this standard doesnt 2ust say he cant agree with any of my arguments, a

!5 steals a huge portion of A ground and renders it useless. $hats different from him conceding an

argument or saying that one contention is non(unique.

%. Turn


69/169


res

Page 69/169

7ICs >>>>>>>>> and my >>>>>>>> card advocates the !5

;tandards

Key to f'irness J !5s are a necessary part of a critical neg strategy against the vague resolution

otherwise it can be claimed that the resolution captures the 5!. ailure to allow us this kills fairness bymaking it impossible for the neg to win and kills education by making clash on 5!s impossible

Str'te0ic c#oice !5s force the aff to affirm all parts of the resolution and defend all parts. $his is

good for education by increasing the critical thinking and increases fairness by having the aff affirm allparts, and the neg negate it.

Re'$ Wor$* Decision 6'in0 (ebate is only a valuable activity if we use it as a means to makinginformed decisions. $he benefits we derive from debate are those which can apply outside of debate, most notablyour ability to make informed choices. $herefore, we ought to value arguments which correspond to real world decision

making. :y opponents interpretation prevents real world decision making as when legislators propose policy decisions, they

evaluate such policies with the goal of achieving the best outcome. !5s do this by advocating for the best policy, even ifthis policy only slightly differs with the plan. 4eal world decision making is key to education as we our educational benefits

are derived from how we use debate out of round. ;trait and Wallace e8plain why real world decision making has the strongest link toeducation

W#y *e1'te;ome do it for scholarships, some do it for social purposes, and many 2ust believe it is fun. $hese are certainly all relevant considerations whenmaking the decision to 2oining the debate team, but as debate theorists they arent the focus of our concern. 3ur concern in finding a framework for debate that educates

the largest quantity of students with the highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity. T#e '1i$ity to ,'e *ecisions

*eri=in0 fro, *iscussions3 'r0u,ent'tion or *e1'te3 is t#e ey si$$% It is t#e one t#in0 e=ery sin0$e one of us i$$ *o

e=ery *'y 1esi*es 1re't#in0% Decision ,'in0 tr'nscen*s 1oun*'ries 1eteen c'te0ories of $e'rnin0like 0policy

education and 0kritik education,it ,'es irre$e='nt consi*er'tions of #et#er e i$$ e=entu'$$y 1e (o$icy,'ers 'n* it

tr'nscen*s uestions of #'t su1st'nti=e content ' *e1'te roun* s#ou$* cont'in%$he implication for this analysis is thatt#e

critic'$ t#inin0 'n* 'r0u,ent'ti=e si$$s offere* 1y re'$:or$* *ecision:,'in0 're co,('r'ti=e$y 0re'ter t#'n

'nyeducational*is'*='nt'0e ei0#e* '0'inst t#e,. It is t#e si$$s e $e'rn3 not t#e content of our 'r0u,ents3 t#'t c'n1est i,(ro=e '$$ of our $i=es%While policy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way or another, thosesi$$s 're use$ess

if t#ey 're not 0roun*e* in t#e in* of $o0ic 'ctu'$$y use* to ,'e *ecisions%


70/169


71/169


72/169


res

Page 72/169

functions as a net benefit. $o create un(reciprocal burdens would lead to a disadvantage for one side,destroying the competitive equity of debate.

f. epth of discussionAllowing negs. to kick one or more of the counter plans allows an in depth discussion about the otherLs)or the status quo, which is a more educational discussion to have because it probably involves the best

alternative policy option to the aff. advocacy. epth of discussion in general is key to education because

the only way we learn in debate rounds themselves is by e8ploring the issues over which we debate withthorough discourse that gives us insight about new facets of a given issue on the topic.

g. #readth of researchAllowing negs. to run conditional counter plans encourages negs. to run more counter plans as they are

no(risk. $his increases breadth of research because negs. must research more viable policy alternatives

to com

theory master file

Documents