Control + 1 ? Block Headings - ddi12

T A: Interpretation 1: Resolved is to enact by law
Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an
opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as 'it was resolved by
the legislature;" It is of similar force to the word "enact," which is
defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". 2. USFG is federal government
West's Legal Dictionary, 1985 p. 744 3. United States: Usually means the federal government centered in
Washington D.C. B: Violations: The affirmative doesn't defend a stable course of
governmental action or advantages predicated off of governmental action C: Standards
1. Ground - we can only debate they defend the governmental action, all our
DA's and counterplans are made to test
2. Predictable Limits - there is no way to predict the affs project kills
fairness because we can never garner real Patrick Speice, Wake Forest University, and Jim Lyle, Debate Coach, Clarion
University, 2003 "Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever."
http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSit...yle2003htm.htm
This notion of predictability is one that is important for debate as a
game. If one team cannot predict what the other will say, then it becomes
futile to attempt to research and prepare for tournament competition.
This problem is even more apparent in the case of critical affirmatives.
If an affirmative team is able to argue that the performative effects of
the 1AC are a justification to vote affirmative, or if the affirmative
team can argue that their 1AC should be endorsed as a tool of cultural
change, they are essentially asking the judge to vote for portions of the
1AC that are not necessarily linked to the plan.
3. Education Governmental engagement key to research, real world change and democracy
Patrick Speice, Wake Forest University, and Jim Lyle, Debate Coach, Clarion
University 2003 "Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever."
http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSit...yle2003htm.htm TPD helps develop at least three different skills: research skills,
logic skills (aimed at both the development of general argument
structure and sustained political advocacy), and critical thinking
skills (Solt, 1993; Parcher, 1996; Mitchell, 1998; Freeley, 1996).
Furthermore, requiring the critique team (presuming they are negative)
to at least defend the status quo also is beneficial educationally by
serving as a "valuable exercise to build power of critical theory"
(Truett, 2001, p. online). Policy debate is an excellent opportunity for
students to develop research skills. Debate topics are sophisticated
questions about the state of the United States and the world, and in
order to be able to answer these questions effectively one has to be
well versed on the subjects that the resolutions cover. This burden is
magnified by the use of policy resolutions. The policies of the United
States on any issue are sophisticated and complex, both quantitatively
and qualitatively. Furthermore, there is a considerably large amount of
literature addressing every policy area. In order to understand the
policies, substantively and procedurally, and understand how the
policies actually function, one must conduct as much research as
possible to have the most and best information available to them. Sure,
debaters could forgo research, and perhaps there would be those
individuals who could still develop solid arguments, but odds are that
most debaters would lack the necessary knowledge base to be successful.
Debaters would either lack arguments, or they would merely be capable of
presenting claims without warrants or grounds. Why are these researching
skills important? First, learning how to conduct research translates in
the better academic skills. Furthermore, it is not simply the ability to
conduct research that debate teaches; rather it is the ability to engage
in research efficiently and effectively. It still ceases to amaze us how
poor the research skills are of most non-debaters. It is not that most
people cannot do research, but rather how inefficient they are at doing
it. Second, learning how to do policy research, and doing the research
is desirable because it provides students with a better understanding of
how the American government, and the world, exist and operate. This is
useful as academic knowledge, but is of even greater utility in
professional and social roles that intersect with the functioning of the
American democracy. As has been noted elsewhere, engagement in research
not only produces disinterested knowledge, it also can facilitate
individual argumentative agency (Mitchell, 1998). The policy analysis
focus of research is particularly desirable in achieving this goal.
Experience with policy research also can translate into "post-debate"
skills. There are many debaters who have gained employment with a
variety of private, governmental, and international policy institutions
due in large part to their research skills (Parcher, 1996). Research is
an important part of the activity, and in policy debate it is essential.
The specific knowledge requirements for this form of debate are intense,
and they are magnified by the switch-side nature of the activity. Do
other forms of debate require/teach research skills? Yes, but the
results are not the same. Language and performance critiques produce
shallow debate: they are "ultra generic," have a lower burden of proof
associated with them, and provide vague alternatives. First, many of
these critiques that fail to challenge the desirability of the plan are
"ultra generics" that discourage research across a spectrum of issues.
While there is considerable literature addressing language choices and
performance, there is also always a vast amount of literature that
addresses the resolution's policy area. Reality is such that most
individuals do not have the time to dedicate to researching all of these
issues. Delving into one area of research will trade-off with another.
Additionally, because the language and performance literature is so
broad, and not necessarily linked to the policy area of the resolution
or the affirmative plan, there is no way to fully research all of these
issues, and still have time for policy issues. Consider last year's
mental illness topic, there were so many options regarding language
choice and so many performances available for presentation that one
could easily have only researched these issues and never made it into
the policy literature. Some of the more recently popularized forms of
performance have even resulted in the virtual elimination of research.
Second, the lower burden of proof that is asked of these criticisms
further undermines research. While it might be true that critique teams
could engage in more research the fact is that they don't because it is
generally not needed. Critiques, for some reason, are given a lower
burden of proof by many, and therefore are seen as having "the maximum
competitive benefit with the least effort" (Truett, 2001, p. online).
For language critiques, for instance, the negative does usually engage
in some pre-round/tournament research on the subject, but to make the
argument apply to a specific team they only need listen to, and read
over, the 1AC to extract the words or phrases that can serve as links
for the critique. Research into the specific policy area is not
required. A third, and related, reason these critiques undermine
research is the lack of a need to defend a political alternative. When
combined with the lower burden of proof assigned to these criticisms,
this serves as a simple way to sidestep a great deal of topic research.
It increases the incentive to utilize these forms of argument. Why
bother researching to learn the merits of a particular policy, or the
desirability of a certain counterplan, when it requires much less
research to develop a performance or a critique that indicts the use of
words independent of policy considerations? This substitution of topic
specific literature for critical research undermines policy learning,
and critical learning, because the debaters never really learn anything
about the issue that the criticism is being applied to. C) Topic specific education is key to getting education about the
mechanisms to actually change transportation policy - solves all the
reasons your advocacy is important
Cap K The bike industry will co-opt the plan - leads to globalized and
exploitative bicycle culture
Furness (PhD, is Assistant Professor of Cultural Studies in the Department
of Humanities, History, and Social Sciences at Columbia College Chicago)
2010
(Zack, One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility 2010 Temple
University Press Philadelphia, PA)
One of the major problems facing bicycle transportation activists in the
twenty-first century is that the totalizing logic of globalization and
the realities of free market capitalism frame the prospects of a
successful bicycle culture around the importation of bicycles and the
enhancement of retail and repair industries, as opposed to encouraging
more centralized, more localized, or at the very least, more
geographically regionalized modes of production. Because as Paul Rosen
argues, "a globally equitable bicycle industry would need to be centered
around small companies using local resources to supply local needs."38
Ricardo Navarro postulated as much in the 1980s in that he saw local
control of the means of bicycle production as an end goal in Latin
America, and also part of a wider effort to both democratize technology
and