Framework 6 week-ENDI - Open Evidence Archive

FRAMEWORK - ENDI 6 Week - 2010 Thanks to Nick Jeon! FRAMEWORK - ENDI 6 Week - 2010 1
*** 1NC AND OVERVIEW *** 2
1NC Framework 2
1NC Framework 3
XT - Limits Key To Meaningful Debate 4
XT - Switch-Side Key To Testing Ideas 5
XT - Testing Ideas Good 6
XT - Ethic Of Tolerance 7
XT - Ethic Of Tolerance 8
2NC Overview 9
*** FAIRNESS *** 10
2NC Fairness Outweighs Education 10
2NC Fairness Outweighs Education 11
2NC Fairness Outweighs Education 12
Fairness ( Trust/Cooperation 13
A2: Fairness Is A Rigged Game (Delgado) 14
A2: Fairness Is A Rigged Game (Delgado) 15
A2: Treating Debate As Game Decreases Education 16
*** SWITCH-SIDE DEBATE GOOD *** 17
Switch-Side Debate KT Activism/Policy 17
Conventional Research Good 18
Conventional Research Good 19
Switch-Side Debate KT Critical Thinking 20
Switch-Side Debate KT Critical Thinking 21
Pluralism Good - Tolerance 22
Switch-Side Debate KT Political Engagement 23
*** STATE-FOCUS BAD ANSWERS *** 24
2NC Policy-Relevant Debates Good 24
2NC Policy-Relevant Debates Good 25
XT - Cede The Political 26
XT - Theoretical Debates Change Nothing 27
A2: Technocratic Politics 28
A2: Seriel Policy Failure (Dillon and Reid) 29
A2: Seriel Policy Failure (Dillon and Reid) 30
A2: State Focus Bad 31
A2: State Focus Bad 32
A2: State Focus Bad 33
A2: State Focus Bad 34
*** EXCLUSION ANSWERS *** 35
A2: Consensus Based Politics = Exclusionary 35
A2: Consensus Based Politics = Exclusionary 36
A2: Consensus Based Politics = Exclusionary 37
A2: Consensus Based Politics = Exclusionary 38
A2: Censorship 39
A2: Censorship 40
A2: We Should Speak From Our Subject Location 41
A2: We Should Speak From Our Subject Location 42
A2: We Should Speak From Our Subject Location 43
A2: You Exclude Us/Silencing (Content) 44
A2: You Exclude Us/Silencing (Techne) 45
*** RACE ARGUMENT ANSWERS *** 46
A2: You Let People Say Racist Stuff 46
A2: You Let People Say Racist Stuff 47
A2: All Your Stuff Is Made Up/Racist 48
A2: All Your Stuff Is Made Up/Racist 49
A2: All Your Stuff Is Made Up/Racist 50
A2: Whiteness/Masked Neutrality 51
*** COUNTER-INTERP ANSWERS *** 52
A2: USFG Is Us 52
A2: USFG Is US 53
A2: Resolved Is Personal 54
A2: The ":" Makes it Personal 55
A2: Debate Is About Liberation 56
*** OTHER ANSWERS *** 57
A2: Debate Forces moderation 57
A2: Relativism 58
A2: Spectator Phenomenon (Violence) 59
A2: Spectator Phenomenon (Violence) 60
A2: Spectator Phenomenon (Agency/State) 61
A2: Spectator Phenomenon (Agency/State) 62
A2: Hicks And Greene (American Exceptionalism) 63
A2: Hicks And Greene (American Exceptionalism) 64
A2: Hicks And Greene (American Exceptionalism) 65
A2: Hicks And Greene (American Exceptionalism) 66
A2: Hicks And Greene (American Exceptionalism) 67
A2: Hicks And Greene (American Exceptionalism) 68
A2: Hicks And Greene (American Exceptionalism) 69
A2: Loss Of Conviction 70
A2: Loss Of Conviction 71
A2: Loss Of Conviction 72
A2: Political Conservatism 73
A2: Political Conservatism 74
A2: Political Conservatism 75
A2: Political Conservatism 76
*** 1NC AND OVERVIEW ***
1NC Framework A. Interpretation - The affirmative should defend a topical plan. All
advantages should be causal results of the plan. 1) Federal Government refers to the national government.
Hartley '96 (John, "American Civics", p. 39, Google Print)
The term federal government refers to the national government, which is
centered in Washington, D.C.
2) Resolved means to enact by law
Words and Phrases '64 (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".
B. Prefer our interpretation 1) Makes Debate Impossible - A government reduction in military presence is
the only stable basis for negative ground. If they aren't tied to defending
those changes it's unlikely we will have any applicable research, which
gives the aff a huge advantage. Being germane to the subject of the
resolution isn't enough since the number of relevant issues is
exponentially larger than the number of defensible topical policies. Plus,
the ability to unpredictably contextualize advocacies through movements,
demands or language criticisms circumvents our generic ground. 2) Hijacks Education - Predictability is the basis of negative strategy
which is key to clash and depth of discussion. The impact is rigorous
testing of policies which is the only way to truly understand the world.
Zappen '4 (James, Prof. Language and Literature - Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, "The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical
Tradition", p. 35-36)
Finally, Bakhtin describes the Socratic dialogue as a carnivalesque debate
between opposing points of view, with a ritualistic crownings and
decrownings of opponents. I call this Socratic form of debate a contesting
of ideas to capture the double meaning of the Socratic debate as both a
mutual testing of oneself and others and a contesting or challenging of
others' ideas and their lives. Brickhouse and Smith explain that Socrates'
testing of ideas and people is a mutual testing not only of others but also
of himself: Socrates claims that he has been commanded by the god to
examine himself as well as others; he claims that the unexamined life is
not worth living; and, since he rarely submits to questioning himself, "it
must be that in the process of examining others Socrates regards himself as
examining his own life, too." Such a mutual testing of ideas provides the
only claim to knowledge that Socrates can have: since neither he nor anyone
else knows the real definitions of things, he cannot claim to have any
knowledge of his own; since, however, he subjects his beliefs to repeated
testing, he can claim to have that limited human knowledge supported by the
"inductive evidence" of "previous elenctic examinations." This mutual
testing of ideas and people is evident in the Laches and also appears in
the Gorgias in Socrates' testing of his own belief that courage is
inseparable from the other virtues and in his willingness to submit his
belief and indeed his life to the ultimate test of divine judgment, in what
Bakhtin calls a dialogue on the threshold. The contesting or challenging of
others' ideas and their lives and their ritualistic crowning/decrowning is
evident in the Gorgias in Soocrates' successive refutations and
humiliations of Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles.
1NC Framework 3. Switch-side debate creates tolerance for alternative viewpoints, which
prevents moral dogmatism and respect for individual differences.
Muir '93 (Star, Prof. Comm. - George Mason U., Philosophy and Rhetoric, "A
Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate", 26(4), pp. 288-290)
Values clarification, Stewart is correct in pointing out, does not mean
that no values are developed. Two very important values- tolerance and
fairness-inhere to a significant degree in the ethics of switch-side
debate. A second point about the charge of relativism is that tolerance is
related to the development of reasoned moral viewpoints. The willingness to
recognize the existence of other views, and to grant alternative positions
a degree of credibility, is a value fostered by switch-side debate:
Alternately debating both sides of the same question . . . inculcates a
deep-seated attitude of tolerance toward differing points of view. To be
forced to debate only one side leads to an ego-identification with that
side. , . . The other side in contrast is seen only as something to be
discredited. Arguing as persuasively as one can for completely opposing
views is one way of giving recognition to the idea that a strong case can
generally be made for the views of earnest and intelligent men, however
such views may clash with one's own. . . .Promoting this kind of tolerance
is perhaps one of the greatest benefits debating both sides has to offer.
5' The activity should encourage debating both sides of a topic, reasons
Thompson, because debaters are "more likely to realize that propositions
are bilateral. It is those who fail to recognize this fact who become
intolerant, dogmatic, and bigoted.""* While Theodore Roosevelt can hardly
be said to be advocating bigotry, his efforts to turn out advocates
convinced of their rightness is not a position imbued with tolerance. At a
societal level, the value of tolerance is more conducive to a fair and open
assessment of competing ideas. John Stuart Mill eloquently states the case
this way: Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is
the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of
action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any
rational assurance of being right. . . . the peculiar evil of silencing the
expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race. . . . If
the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging
error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit,
the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by
its collision with error."*' At an individual level, tolerance is related
to moral identity via empathic and critical assessments of differing
perspectives. Paul posits a strong relationship between tolerance, empathy,
and critical thought. Discussing the function of argument in everyday life,
he observes that in order to overcome natural tendencies to reason
egocentrically and sociocentrically, individuals must gain the capacity to
engage in self-refiective questioning, to reason dialogically and
dialectically. an