Guantanamo Aff

Document Sample
Guantanamo Aff Powered By Docstoc
					SCFI 2009                                                           Framework
                                                                     ___ of ___

                                   Debate Good / Bad
                                    (Policy v. Kritik Frameworks)

***Top Shelf***
1NC Shell                                 2
1AC / 2AC Shell                           3

***Debate Good***
Fiat Good – Coverstone                    4
Fiat Good – Nuclear War***                5
Fiat Good – Rawls                         6
Fiat Good – Democracy                     7
Fiat Good - Education                     8
Debate Good – Research                    9
Switch Side Debating Good                 10
AT Kulnych                                10

***AT Specific Frameworks***
AT Ontology                               11
AT Reps / Discourse                       12

***Debate Bad***
Debate Bad – Mitchell                     13
In-Round Activism Good – Kulnych          14
Fiat Bad - General                        15
Fiat Bad – Dillon and Reid                16
Fiat Bad - Bureaucracy                    17
Fiat Bad - Movements                      18
Limits Bad – Exclusion                    19
AT Policy Making Good                     20

***Specific Frameworks***
Methodology 1st                           21
Discour se 1st                            22
Discour se 1st                            23
Random Trash Austin Cut                   24

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                         Framework
                                                                                                                                       ___ of ___

                                                                   1NC Shell
A. Interpretation – The affirmative must affirm the topic instrumentally. The 1AC must include a topical
plan that is justified with a normative defense of federal government adoption of such a policy.


The topic is defined by the phrase following the colon – the USFG is the agent of the resolution, not
the individual debaters
Webster‟s Guide to Grammar and Writing „2K
Use of a colon before a lis t or an ex planation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inv iting one to go on… If
the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of
the sentence, begin the clause after the colon w ith a capital letter.

The question posed by the resolution is about the desirability of USFG action
Cambridge Dictionary of American English „00
Should means “used to express that it is necessary, desirable, and adv isable, or important to per for m the action of the
following verb.”

The USFG is the government in Washington D.C.
Microsoft Online Encyclopedia „2K []
―The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington DC.‖

B. Violation – The affirmative is not an instrumental affirmation of the resolution – they affirm the topic
as _________

C. Reasons to Prefer

1. Ground – Refusing to defend the implementation of the plan/resolution erases all predictable
negative counterplan, disadvantage and case ground. While we may have arguments indicting the idea
of the plan or personal advocacy, we‟ll never have evidence saying their specific advocacy of the plan
is bad. This eliminates all of our resolutionally-based offensive arguments.

2. Topical Education – By manipulating the topic to access a political project they destroy discussion
of the important question asked by the resolution. This tactic promotes debate that is either stagnant
or shallow. They ruin a critical function of this activity which is to test the desirability of policy
implementation by not assesing the merits of specific policies.

3. Extra Topicality – Even if they claim to “defend” their plan – they skirt discussion of its merits by
arguing the benefits derived from their advocacy outweigh. This is a voting issue because we‟re
forced to win framework just to get back to equal footing – extra topicality also proves the resolution
insufficient and explodes aff ground.

D. Voting Issue – If we demonstrate the affirmative does not meet the best interpretation of the topic
they have failed to justify the resolution and should be rejected. This is the best way to preserve
competitive equity by ensuring predictable ground for the negative.

SCFI 2009                                                                            Framework
                                                                                         ___ of ___

                                       1AC / 2AC Shell
A. Interpretation – The Affirmative can affirm the topic instrumentally by defending a topical plan, the
neg can ONLY win by proving this plan is worse than the status quo or a competitive alternative. They
can run the K but we get to weigh our entire 1AC against any criticism.

B. Reasons to Prefer

1. Predictable Ground – Refusing to allow the aff to defend the resolution erases all predictable
affirmative ground. Their framework is arbitrary which devastates aff ground by not centering the
debate about a topical advocacy and mooting 8 minutes of 1AC offense.

2. Topical Education – By manipulating the topic to access a political project they destroy discussion
of the important question asked by the resolution. This tactic promotes debate that is either stagnant
or shallow. They ruin a critical function of this activity which is to test the desirability of policy
implementation by not assesing the merits of specific policies.

C. Voting Issue to preserve competitive equity

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                           Framework
                                                                                                                                         ___ of ___
                                                                                    ba Good*
                                                                               * * De t e  *

                                                  Fiat Good – Coverstone
Policy debate is best for real world change, their turn towards in-round activism threatens elite
takeover and destruction of debate as a neutral training ground for the real world
Coverstone ‟95 (Alan, debate coach, 1995, An Inw ard Glance, http://groups.w
Mitchell's argument underestimates the nature of academic debate in three ways. First, debate trains students in the very skills
required for nav igation in the public sphere of the information age. In the past, political dis course was controlled by those elements who
controlled access to information. While this basic reality will continue in the future, its essential features w ill change. N o longer will mere possession of
information determine control of political life. Information is widely available. For the first time in human history we face the prospect of an entirely new
threat. The risk of an information ov erload is already shifting control of politic al discourse to superior information managers. It is no longer possible to
control political discourse by lim iting access to information. Instead, control belongs to those who are capable of identify ing and deliv ering bits of
information to a thirsty public . Mitc hell calls this the "desertification of the public sphere." The public senses a deep des ire for the ability to manage the
information around them. Yet, they are unsure how to process and make sense of it all. In this environment, snake charmers and charlatans abound.
The popularity of the evening news wanes as more and more information becomes available. People realiz e that these half hour glimpses at the news
do not even come close to covering all available information. They desperately want to select information for themselv es. So they watch CNN until they
fall asleep. Gavel to gavel coverage of political ev ents assumes top spots on the Niels en charts. Desperate to decide for themselv es, the public of the
tw enty first century drinks deeply from the well of information. When they are finished, they find they are no more able to decide. Those who make
decis ions are envied and glorified. Debate teaches individual decision- making for the infor mation age. No other academic
activity available today teaches people more about infor mation gathering, assessment, selection, and delivery . Most
importantly , debate teaches indiv iduals how to make and defend their own decisions. Debate is the only academic activ ity that moves at
the speed of the information age. Tim e is required for indiv iduals to achieve escape velocity . Academic debate holds tremendous value a s a
space for training. Mitchell's reflections are necessarily more accurate in his own situation. Over a decade of debate has well positioned him to
participate activ ely and directly in the political process. Yet the skills he has did not dev elop overnight. Proper training requires time. While there is a
tremendous variation in the amount of training required for effectiv e nav igation of the public sphere, the relative isolation of academic debate
is one of its vir tues. Instead of turning students of debate immediately outward, we should be encouraging more to enter
the oasis. A thirsty public, drunk on the product of anyone who claim s a decision, needs to drink from the pool of decision- making
skills. Teaching these skills is our virtue. Second, Mitchell's argument underestimates the risks associated with an outward turn .
Individuals trained in the ar t and practice of debate are, indeed, well suited to the task of entering the political world .
At some unspecified point in one's training, the same motiv ation and focus that has consumed Mitchell will als o consume most of us. At that point,
political action becomes a proper endeavor. However, all of the members of the academic debate community will not reach that point together. A
political outward turn threatens to corrupt the oasis in tw o w ays. It makes our oasis a target, and it threatens to politicize the training
process. As long as debate appears to be focused inwardly, political elites w ill not feel threatened . Yet one of Mitchell's prim ary
concerns is recognition of our oasis in the political world. In this world we face well trained information managers. Sensing a threat from
"debate," they will begin to infiltrate our space . Ready made information w ill increase and debaters will eat it up. Not yet able to truly discern
the relativ e values of information, young debaters w ill eventually be influenced dramatically by the infiltration of political elites .
Retaining our present anony mity in political life offers a better hope for reinvigorating political discourse. As perhaps the only
truly non-partisan space in Americ an political society , academic debate holds the last real possibility for training activ e political participants. Nowhere
else are people allowed, let alone encouraged, to test all manner of political ideas. This is the process through whic h debaters learn what they believe
and why they believ e it.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                         Framework
                                                                                                                                       ___ of ___
                                             Fiat Good – Nuclear War***
Policy education is critical to avert international genocide and nuclear extinction
Beres ‟03 (Louis Rene-, June 5, Journal and Courrier, Lex is )
Our response, ev en after Operation Iraqi Freedom, lacks conviction . Still pretending that "things w ill get better ," w e Americans
proceed diligently with our day-to-day affairs, content that, somehow , the worst can never really happen. Although it is true that we
must go on with our normal liv es, it is als o true that "normal" has now become a quaint and delusionary state. We want to be sure that a "new" normal
falls within the boundaries of human tolerance, but we can't nurture such a response w ithout an infor med appreciation of what is still
For us, other rude awakenings are unav oidable, some of w hich could easily overshadow the horrors of Sept. 11. There can be little doubt that, within
a few shor t years, expanding tribalism will produce several new genocides and proliferating nuclear weapons w ill
generate one or more regional nuclear wars. Paralyzed by fear and restrained by im potence, v arious governments w ill try, desperately ,
to deflect our attention, but it w ill be a vain effor t. Caught up in a vast chaos from whic h no real escape is possible, we will learn too late that
there is no durable safety in arms, no ultimate rescue by authority , no genuine remedy in science or technology.
What shall we do? For a start, we must all begin to look carefully behind the news. Rejecting superfic ial analy ses of day-to-day events in
fav or of penetrating assessments of wor ld affairs, we must learn quic kly to dis tinguish what is truly important from w hat is merely
entertainment. With such learning, we Americans could prepare for grow ing w orldw ide anarchy not as immobilized objects of false
contentment, but as authentic citiz ens of an endangered planet.
Nowhere is it written that we people of Earth are forever, that humankind must thwart the long-prev ailing trend among all planetary life-forms (more than
99 percent) of ending in extinction. Aware of this, w e may yet surv iv e, at least for a w hile, but only if our collectiv e suppression of purposeful fear
is augmented by a complementary wisdom; that is , that our personal mortality is undeniable and that the harms done by one tribal state or terror group
against "others" will never confer immortality . This is, admittedly , a difficult concept to understand, but the longer we hum ans are shielded from such
difficult concepts the shorter w ill be our time remaining.
We must als o look closely at higher education in the United States, not from the shortsighted stance of im proving test scores, but from the urgent
perspectiv e of confronting ex traordinary threats to human surviv al. For the moment, some college students are exposed to an occasional
course in w hat is fashionably described as "global awareness," but such exposure usually sidesteps the overriding issues: We now
face a deteriorating world system that cannot be mended through sensitiv ity alone; our leaders are dangerously unprepared to deal with
catastrophic deterioration; our schools are altogether incapable of transmitting the indispensable visions of planetary
To institute productiv e student confrontations with surviv al im perativ es, colleges and univ ersities must soon take great risks, detaching themselv es from
a time-dis honored preoccupation with "facts " in fav or of grappling w ith true life-or-death questions. In rais ing these questions, it will not be enough to
send some students to study in Paris or Madrid or Amsterdam ("study abroad" is not what is meant by serious global awareness). Rather, all students
must be made aware - as a prim ary objectiv e of the curric ulum - of where we are heading, as a species, and where our lim ited surviv al
alternatives may yet be discovered.
There are, of course, many particular ways in whic h colleges and univ ersities could operationaliz e real global awareness, but one way, long-
neglected, would be best. I refer to the study of international law . For a country that celebrates the rule of law at all levels , and w hich explic itly
makes international law part of the law of the United States - the "supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution and certain Supreme Court
decis ions - this should be easy enough to understand. Anarchy, after all, is the absence of law, and knowledge of international law is necessarily
prior to adequate measures of world order reform.
Before international law can be taken seriously , and before "the blood-dimmed tide" can be halted , America's future leaders must at
least have some infor med acquaintance w ith per tinent rules and procedures. Otherw is e we shall surely witness the birth of a fully
ungov ernable w orld order, an unheralded and sinis ter arriv al in which only a shadowy legion of gravediggers would wield the forceps.

SCFI 2009                                                                                  Framework
                                                                                            ___ of ___
                                      Fiat Good – Rawls
Role Playing as policy makers is critical to liberal democracy – solves world peace
Rawls ‟99 (John-, Prof of politic al philosophy at Harvard, The Law of Peoples, P 55-56)

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                          Framework
                                                                                                                                        ___ of ___
                                                  Fiat Good – Democracy
Role Playing is key to democracy
Mitchell ‟00 (Gordon. R. -, Winter, Argumentation & Advocacy, ―Simulated Public Argument as a Pedagogic al Play on Worlds‖, Vol. 36 #3,

The lifeblood of American democracy courses through the ar teries of an active, deliberating citizenry capable of
participating meaning fully in public argument on pressing issues of the day . Giv en this , the surfeit of commentary noting widespread
citizen alienation and withdraw al from politic al affairs should not be taken lightly . It is incumbent upon those directing the processes of knowledge
production in society to reflect carefully on the ways in whic h their own practices structure the character of contemporary public interchange. The fate
of effor ts to right the course of American deliberative democracy will depend largely on choices made by those who have
power to influence prospects for citizen comprehension and engagement in argumentation over salient issues of public
interest. Giv en the grav ity of these concerns, teachers and students of argumentation should feel unique pressures, since argumentation pedagogy
has long been counted on to empower students as ex emplary participants in democratic public spheres of discussion.
In stark contrast to the restrictiv e pedagogic al spaces often generated in traditional, passiv e learning environments (as well as hyper-agonistic policy
debate formats ), active student par ticipation in simulated public arguments can provide oppor tunities for students to develop
strong senses of themselves as power ful agents of social transfor mation . This transformativ e awareness on the part of students is not
likely to result from top-down didactic proclamations by teachers or combativ e verbal assaults from debating peers. Instead, the most powerful forms of
personal agency discovered by students are lik ely to be those that are found of their own accords, invented in supportiv e and reassuring learning
env ironments. "It is through the nativ e language that students 'name their world' and begin to establish a dialectical relationship w ith the dominant class
in the process of transforming the social and political structures that im pris on them in their 'culture of silence'" (Freire and Macedo 1987, p. 159; see
also Freiere 1998, 1995; Grossberg).
The experience of role-play simulation provides occasions for students to imagine alternative worlds where everyday
characters populate spheres of discussion and receive recognition as impor tant sour ces of knowledge in public
arguments. In this w ay, role-play exercises free students to conceive of alternative modes of deliberation that receive only
limited practical expression in the current general climate of political apathy . In a progressiv e "pedagogy of hope" (see Freire 1994),
the first step tow ard changing unjust, exploitiv e or dangerous conditions in the world is to imagine alternativ e w orlds worth seeking. "[H]ope is
constituted in the need to im agine an alternativ e human w orld and to im agine it in a way that enables one to act in the present as if this alternativ e had
already begun to emerge" (Sim on 1992, p. 4).

Diamond, 1995 (Larry, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution – ―Promoting Democracy in the 1990s,‖ 1.htm)
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming y ears and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression
tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime sy ndicates
that hav e made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones . Nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears
increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconven tional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by
the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality , accountability , popular sov ereignty , and openness.
The ex perience of this century offers im portant lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to
war with one another . They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselv es or glorify their leaders. Democratic
governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less lik ely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do
not sponsor terroris m against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another.
Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable clim ates for
inv estment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citiz ens, who organiz e to protest the
destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness
makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, w ithin their ow n borders, they respect competition, civ il liberties,
property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on whic h a new world order of international security and prosperity can
be built.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                       Framework
                                                                                                                                     ___ of ___
                                                  Fiat Good - Education
Advocacy of specific reforms that can‟t be implemented in this debate is a valuable educational and
political strategy
Streeten „99 (Paul, Econ prof @ Boston, Development, v. 42, n. 2, p 118)
First, Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analy sis . Just as physic ists assume an atm ospheric vacuum for some purposes,
so policy analy sts can assume a politic al vacuum from whic h they can start afresh. The physic is ts‘ assumption plainly would not be useful for the
design of parachutes, but can serv e other purposes well. Sim ilarly , when thinking of tomorrow‘s problems, Utopianism is not helpful. But for long-
term strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the Utopian vision gives a sense of direction, which can get lost in approaches
that are preoccupied with the feasible. In a world that is regarded as the second-best of all feasible worlds, everything
becomes a necessary constraint. All vision is lost. Third, excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the
status quo. In negotiations , it strengthens the hand of those opposed to any reform. Unless the case for change can be
represented in the same detail as the case for no change, it tends to be lost. Fourth , it is sometimes the case that the conjuncture of
circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of forces, unexpectedly, turns out to be favourable
to even radical innovation. Unless we are prepared with a carefully worked out, detailed plan, that yesterday could
have appeared utterly U topian, the refor mers will lose out by default. Only a few years ago nobody would hav e expected the end
of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, the disappearance of the Sov iet Union, the unification of Germany, the break -up of Yugoslavia, the
marketization of China, the end of apartheid in South Afric a. And the handshake on the White House lawn betw een Mr Peres and Mr Arafat. Fifth,
the Utopian reformers themselv es can constitute a pressure group, counterv ailing the selfinterested pressures of the obstructionis t groups. Ideas
thought to be U topian have become realistic at moments in history when large numbers of people support them, and
those in power have to yield to their demands. The demand for ending slavery is a historical example. It is for these fiv e
reasons that Utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their proposals and from thinking the unthinkable, unencumbered by the
inhibitions and obstacles of political constraints . They should elaborate them in the same detail that the defenders of the s tatus quo devote to its
elaboration and celebration. Utopianism and idealism w ill then turn out to be the most realistic vision. It is w ell known that there
are three ty pes of economis ts: those who can count and those who can‘t. But being able to count up to tw o, I w ant to dis tinguis h betw een tw o
ty pes of people. Let us call them, for want of a better name, the Pedants and the Utopians. The names are due to Peter Berger, who uses them in
a different contex t. The Pedants or technic ians are those who know all the details about the way things are and work, and they have acquired an
emotional v ested interest in keeping them this way. I have come across them in the British civ il serv ic e, in the bureaucracy of the World Bank, and
elsewhere. They are admirable people but they are conservativ e, and no good companions for reform. On the other hand, there are the Utopians,
the idealis ts, the vis ionaries w ho dare think the unthinkable. They are als o admirable, many of them y oung people. But they lack the attention to
detail that the Pedants hav e. When the day of the revolution comes, they will hav e entered it on the wrong date in their diaries and fail to turn up,
or, if they do turn up, they will be on the wrong side of the barric ades. What we need is a marriage between the Pedants and the
Utopians, betw een the technicians who pay attention to the details and the idealists who have the vision of a better
future. There will be tensions in combining the tw o, but they will be creativ e tensions. We need Pedantic Utopian Pedants w ho will w ork out in
considerable detail the ideal world and ways of getting to it, and promote the good cause with informed fantasy. Otherw is e, when the opportunity
arises, we shall miss it for lack of preparedness and lose out to the opponents of reform, to those who want to preserve the status quo.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                            Framework
                                                                                                                                          ___ of ___
                                                 Debate Good – Research
Traditional debate's focus on research is key to education and activism.
Dybvig & Iverson ‟2K (Kristin Chis holm, Arizona State Univ ersity , Joel O, ASU ―Can Cutting Cards Carve into Our Personal Liv es‖, igiv erson1000.html)
Addressing all of these differences is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we focus upon the research process involved in the more
research intensiv e forms of debate: National Debate Tournament (NDT) and Cross Ex amination Debate Association (CEDA) sty le debate. We have
surmised that research has several beneficial effects on debaters. Research creates an in-depth analysis of issues that takes students
beyond their initial presuppositions and allows them to truly evaluate all sides of an issue. Not only is the research involv ed in debate a
training ground for skills , but it als o acts as a motiv ation to act on partic ular issues. It is our contention that debate not only gives us the tools that
we need to be active in the public sphere , but it also empowers some debaters with the impetus to act in the public sphere.
We ex amine the role of research by analy zing the arguments regarding the role of debate for critical think ing as well as the role debate has begun to
play in activ ism. Specifically , we closely examine the analy sis of Mitchell (1998) regarding the empowerment of debaters and the role of research in
academic debate. Nex t, w e provide analy sis of the role research plays in developing personal opinions and action based upon examples from our
collectiv e debate ex periences (Clandinin & Connelly , 1994) and conversations in situ. Finally , w e offer some potential pathw ays for future conv ersations
and investigations into the role of research in policy and parliamentary debate.
Mitchell (1998) prov ides a thorough ex amination of the pedagogic al im plication for academic debate. Although Mitchell acknowledges that debate
prov ides preparation for partic ipation in democracy, limiting debate to a laboratory where students practice their skill for future participation is criticiz ed.
Mitchell contends:
For students and teachers of argumentation, the heightened salience of this question should signal the danger that critical thinking and oral adv ocacy
skills alone may not be sufficient for citizens to assert their voic es in public deliberation. (p. 45)
Mitchell contends that the laboratory sty le setting creates barriers to other spheres, creates a "sense of detachment" and causes debaters to see
research from the role of spectators. Mitchell further calls for "argumentativ e agency [whic h] involv es the capacity to contex tualiz e and employ the skills
and strategies of argumentativ e dis course in fields of social action, especially wider spheres of public deliberation" (p. 45). Although we agree with
Mitchell that debate can be an even greater instrument of empowerment for students , we are more interested in ex amining the impact of the
intermediary step of research. In each of Mitchell's examples of debater s finding creative avenues for agency, there had to be a
motivation to act. It is our contention that the research conducted for competition is a major catalyst to propel their action, change
their opinions, and to prov ide a greater depth of understanding of the issues involv ed.
The level of research involved in debate creates an in-depth under standing of issues. The level of research conducted during a
year of debate is quite ex tensiv e. Goodman (1993) references a Chronic le of Higher Education artic le that estim ated "the lev el and ex tent of research
required of the average college debater for each topic is equiv alent to the amount of research required for a Master's Thesis (cited in Mitchell, 1998, p.
55). With this ex tensiv e quantity of research, debaters attain a high level of investigation and (presumably ) understanding of a topic . As a result of this
lev el of understanding, debaters become knowledgeable citizens who are further empowered to make infor med opinions and
energized to take action.
Research helps to educate students (and coaches) about the state of the world. Without the guidance of a debate topic, how many
students would do in-depth research on female genital mutilation in Afr ica , or U nited N ations sanctions on Iraq? The
competitive nature of policy debate provides an impetus for students to research the topics that they are going to debate. This in
turn fuels students‘ awareness of issues that go beyond their front doors. Advocacy flows from this increased awareness. Reading books
and articles about the suffering of people thousands of miles away or right in our own communities driv es people to become inv olv ed in the community
at large.
Research has also focused on how debate prepares us for life in the public sphere. Is sues that we discuss in debate have found their way onto the
national policy stage, and training in intercollegiate debate makes us good public advocates. The public sphere is the arena in w hic h we all must
participate to be activ e citizens. Even after w e leave debate, the skills that we hav e gained should help us to be better advocates and citizens.
Research has looked at how debate impacts education (Matlon and Keele 1984), legal training (Parkinson, Gisler and Pelias 1983,
Nobles 1985) and behavioral traits (McGlone 1974, Colbert 1994). These works illustrate the im pact that public debate has on students as they prepare
to enter the public sphere.
The debaters who take activ e roles such as protesting sanctions were probably not activ ely engaged in the is sue until their research drew them into the
topic. Furthermore, the process of intense research for debate may actually change the positions debaters hold . Since debaters
ty pic ally enter into a topic with only cursory (if any) knowledge of the is sue, the research process prov ides exposure to issues that w ere previously
unknown. Exposure to the literature on a topic can create, reinforce or alter an indiv idual's opinions. Before learning of the School for the America's,
hav ing an opinion of the place is impossible. After hearing about the systematic training of torturers and oppressors in a debate round and reading the
research, an opinion of the "school" was developed. In this manner, ex posure to debate research as the person finding the evidence, hearing it as the
opponent in a debate round (or as judge) acts as an initial spark of awareness on an issue. This process of discovery seems to have a sim ilar impact to
watching an investigativ e news report.
Mitchell claimed that debate could be more than it was traditionally seen as, that it could be a cataly st to empower people to act in the
social arena. We surmis e that there is a step in between the debate and the action . The intermediary step where people are inspired
to agency is based on the research that they do. If students are compelled to act, research is a main factor in compelling them to do so.
Ev en if students are not compelled to take direct action, research still changes opinions and attitudes.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                    Framework
                                                                                                                                  ___ of ___
                                           Switch Side Debating Good
Switch side debate is critical to our role-playing impacts, teaches empathy and is key to critical
Muir „93
(Star A,- Associate Professor of Communication at George Mason U., Philosophy and Rhetoric, ―A Defense of Contemporary Debate‖)
Only an activity that requires the defense of both sides of an issue , moving beyond acknowledgement to exploration and
advocacy, can engender such powerful role-playing. Redding explains that "debating both sides is a special instance of role-
playing,"43 w here debaters are forced to empathize on a constant basis with a position contrary to their own . This role playing,
Baird agrees , is an exercise in reflective thinking, an engagement in problem solving that exposes weaknesses and
strengths.44 Motiv ated by the know ledge that they may debate against their own case, debaters constantly pose arguments and counter-
arguments for discussion, erecting defenses and then challenging these defenses w ith a different tact.45 Such conceptual
flexibility , Paul argues, is essential, for effectiv e critical thinking, and in turn for the dev elopment of a reasoned moral identity .

                                                               AT Kulnych
Kulynych concludes aff – citizen participation in policy debate is performative politics.
Kulynych ‗97 (Jessic a, Asst Professor of Political Science at Winthrop Univ ersity , Polity , Winter, n2 p315(32)
When we look at the success of citizen initiativ es from a performativ e perspectiv e, we look precisely at those moments of defiance and disruption that
bring the inv is ible and unim aginable into view. Although citizens were minimally successful in influencing or controlling the
outcome of the policy debate and experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical debate, the goal-oriented
debate w ithin the energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of per for mative politics. The existence of a goal-
oriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert policy makers and
consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens out of
the policy process, thereby refusing their construction as passive clients.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                                         Framework
                                                                                                                                                        ___ of ___
                                                                                            Spec c a ewr *
                                                                                       * * AT i i Fr m ok s * *

                                                                       AT Ontology
Ontological questioning must stop in the face of mass death – we need to prioritize
Davidson „89 (Arnold co-editor of Critical Inquiry, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Member of the Committees on General Studies in the
Humanities and on the Conceptual Foundations of Science at the Univ ersity of Chic ago, Critic al Inquiry, Winter, 1989)
I understand Levinas‘ work to suggest another path to the recov ery of the human, one that leads through or toward other human beings:
The dimension of the div ine opens forth from the human face….Hence metaphysic s is enacted where the social relation is enacted—in our relations
with men….The Other is not the incarnation of God, but precis ely by his face, in whic h he is disincarnate, is the manifestation of the height in w hic h God
is revealed. It is our relations w ith men…that giv e to theologic al concepts the sole signification they admit of.
Levinas places ethics before ontology by beginning with our experience of the human face: and, in a clear reference to
Heidegger‘s idolatry of the village life of peasants, he associates him self with Socrates, who preferred the city where he encountered men to the
country with its trees. In his discussions of skepticis m and the problem of others , Cavell also aligns himself with this path of thought,
with the recovery of the finite human self through the acknowledgment of others:
As long as God exists, I am not alone. And couldn‘t the other suffer the fate of God?…I w is h to understand how the other
now bears the w eight of God, shows me that I am not alone in the univ erse. This requires understanding the philosophical problem of the other as
the trace or scar of the departure of God. [CR, p. 470]
The suppression of the other, the human , in Heidegger‘s thought accounts, I believ e, for the absence, in his w riting after the war, of
the experience of horror. Horror is alw ays disconnected tow ard the human: every object of horror bears the imprint of the human
will. So Levinas can see in Heidegger‘s silence about the gas chambers and death camps ―a kind of consent to the
horror.‖ And Cavell can characterize Nazis as “those who have lost the capacity for being horrified by what they do.” Where was Heidegger‟s horror? How could he have failed
to know what he had consented to?
Hannah Arendt associates Heidegger with Paul Valery ‟s aphorism, “‟Les evenements ne sont que l‟ecume des choses‟ („Eve nts are but the foam of things‟).” I think one understands
                    The mass exter mination of human beings, how ev er, does not produce foam, but dust and ashes; and it
the source of her intuition.
is here that questioning must stop.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                          Framework
                                                                                                                                        ___ of ___
                                                      AT Reps / Discourse
Policy analysis should precede discourse – most effective way to challenge power
Taft-Kaufman ‟95 (Jill, Speech prof @ CMU, Southern Comm. Journal, Spring, v. 60, Iss. 3, ―Other Ways‖)
The postmodern passwords of "polyvocality," "Otherness," and "difference," unsuppor ted by substantial analysis of
the concrete contex ts of subjects, creates a solipsistic quagmire. The politic al sympathies of the new cultural critics, with their
ostensible concern for the lack of power experienced by marginaliz ed people, aligns them with the political left. Yet, despite their adversarial
posture and talk of opposition, their discourses on intertex tuality and inter -referentiality isolate them from and ignore
the conditions that have produced leftist politics--conflict, racism, poverty, and injustice. In short, as Clarke (1991) asserts ,
postmodern emphasis on new subjects conceals the old subjects, those who hav e lim ited access to good jobs, food, housing, health care, and
transportation, as well as to the media that depict them. Merod (1987) decries this situation as one whic h leaves no vision, will, or
commitment to activism. He notes that academic lip servic e to the oppositional is underscored by the absence of focused collectiv e or
politically activ e intellectual communities. Provoked by the academic manifestations of this problem Di Leonardo (1990) echoes Merod and
laments : Has there ever been a historical era characterized by as little radical analysis or activism and as much
radical-chic writing as ours? Maundering on about Otherness: phallocentrism or Eurocentric tropes has become a
lazy academic substitute for actual engagement with the detailed histories and contemporary realities of Western racial
minorities, white women, or any Third World population. (p. 530) Clarke's assessment of the postmodern elevation of language to the
"sine qua non" of critical discussion is an even stronger indictment against the trend. Clarke examines Lyotard's (1984) The
Postmodern Condition in which Lyotard maintains that virtually all social relations are linguis tic, and, therefore, it is through the coercion that
threatens speech that we enter the "realm of terror" and society falls apart. To this assertion, Clarke replies : I can think of few more
striking indicator s of the political and intellectual impoverishment of a view of society that can only recognize the
discursive. If the worst terror we can envisage is the threat not to be allowed to speak, we are appallingly ignorant of
terror in its elaborate contemporary for ms. It may be the intellectual's conception of terror (w hat els e do we do but speak?),
but its projection onto the rest of the world would be calamitous ....(pp. 2-27) The realm of the discursive is derived from
the requisites for human life, which are in the physical world, rather than in a world of ideas or sy mbols.(4) Nutrition,
shelter, and protection are basic human needs that require collectiv e activ ity for their fulfillment. Postmodern emphasis on the discur sive
without an accompanying analysis of how the discursive emerges from material circumstances hides the complex
task of envisioning and working towards concrete social goals (Merod, 1987). Although the material conditions that create the
situation of marginality escape the purv iew of the postmodernis t, the situation and its consequences are not overlooked by scholars from
marginaliz ed groups. Robinson (1990) for ex ample, argues that "the justice that working people deserve is economic, not just
tex tual" (p. 571). Lopez (1992) states that "the star ting point for organizing the program content of education or political
action must be the present existential, concrete situation" (p. 299). West (1988) asserts that borrowing French post-structuralist
discourses about "Otherness" blinds us to realities of Americ an difference going on in front of us (p. 170). Unlik e postmodern "tex tual radic als " who
Rabinow (1986) acknowledges are "fuzzy about power and the realities of socioeconomic constraints " (p. 255), most w riters from marginaliz ed
groups are clear about how discourse interw eav es with the concrete circumstances that create liv ed experience. People whose lives for m
the material for postmodern counter-hegemonic discourse do not share the optimism over the new recognition of their
discursive subjectivities, because such an acknowledgment does not address sufficiently their collective historical and
current struggles against racism, sexism, homophobia, and economic injustice. They do not appreciate being told
they are living in a world in which there are no more real subjects. Ideas have consequences. Emphasizing the
discursive self when a person is hungry and homeless represents both a cultural and humane failure. The need to
look beyond tex ts to the perception and attainment of concrete social goals keeps writers from marginalized groups
ever-mindful of the specifics of how power works through political agendas, institutions, agencies, and the budgets that fuel

SCFI 2009                                                 Framework
                                                             ___ of ___
                                        ba Bad*
                                   * * De t e * *

                       Debate Bad – Mitchell
Ignoring your personal advocacy only makes Debater a spectator activity.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                    Framework
                                                                                                                  ___ of ___
                             In-Round Activism Good – Kulnych

Micropolitial Movements that are started in the Debate round are key to
creating and organizing Change outside of the Round.
Kulynych 97 [Jessica, assistant professor of political science at Winthrop Universit y, „Performing Politics‟, Polity Winter v.XXX,
n.2 pages 336 and 346]

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                        Framework
                                                                                                                                       ___ of ___
                                                        Fiat Bad - General
Speaking in abstraction about what form the world should take through fiat ignores and marginalizes
all the people who would be affected,
Nayar „99 [Jayan, Fall, School of Law, Univ ersity of Warwic k Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems ―Orders of Inhumanity ‖]
Located within a site of privilege, and charged to reflect upon the grand questions of world-order and the human condition as
the third Chris tian Millennium dawns, we are tempted to turn the mind to the task of abstract imaginings of "what could be" of our
"world," and "how should we organiz e" our "humanity ." Perhaps such contemplations are a necessary antidote to cynicism and skepticis m regarding
any possibility of human betterment, a necessary revitalization of critical and creativ e energies to check the complacencies of the state of things as they
are. n1 However, im agining [*601] possibilities of abstractions--"world-order," "international society ," "the global v illage," "the family of humankind,"
etc.--does carry with it a risk. The "total" view that is the take-off point for discourses on preferred "world-order" futures risks
deflection as the abstracted projections it provokes might entail little consequence for the faces and the names of the
humanity on whose behalf we might speak. So, what do we do?

Policy making is unnecessary – we can pose questions about the state without taking on the role of
the policy maker
Foucault ‟84 (Michel, Professor in the History of Thought Systems at the College de France. 25 April Politics, Philosophy, Culture. 1988. p51-2)
I believ e too much in truth not to suppose that there are different truths and different w ays of speaking the truth. Of cours e, one can't ex pect the
gov ernment to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. On the other hand , we can demand of those who govern us a certain
truth as to their ultimate aims, the general choices of their tactics, and a number of par ticular points in their programs: this
is the parrhesia (free speech) of the governed, who can and must question those who govern them, in the name of the
knowledge, the experience they have, by virtue of being citizens, of what those who govern do, of the meaning of their
action, of the decisions they have taken.
How ev er, one must avoid a trap in which those who govern try to catch intellectuals and into whic h they often fall: "Put yourselv es in our place and tell
us what you would do." It is not a question one has to answer . To make a decision on some question implies a knowledge of
evidence that is refused us, an analysis of the situation that we have not been able to make. This is a trap. Nevertheless,
as governed, we have a perfect right to ask questions about the truth : "What are you doing, for example when you are hostile to
Euromissiles, or when, on the contrary, you support them, when you restructure the Lorraine steel industry , when y ou open up the question of priv ate

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                           Framework
                                                                                                                                          ___ of ___
                                               Fiat Bad – Dillon and Reid


Dillon and Reid 2002[ Michael and Julian, “Global Governance, Liberal Peace, and Complex Emergency,” Alternatives:
social Transformation & Humane Governence, Jan-March 2000, Vol 25 Issue 1, EBSCO.]

As a precursor to global governance, governmentality , according to Foucault's initial account, poses the question of order not in terms of the origin of
the law and the location of sov ereignty , as do traditional accounts of power, but in terms instead of the management of population. The management of
population is further refined in terms of specific problematics to which population management may be reduced. These ty pically include but are not
necessarily exhausted by the follow ing topoi of governmental power: economy, health, welfare, poverty , security , sexuality , demographic s, resources,
skills, culture, and so on. Now, where there is an operation of power there is know ledge, and where there is knowledge there is an operation of pow er.
Here discursiv e formations emerge and, as Foucault noted, in every society the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organis ed and
redistributed by a certain number of procedures w hose role is to ward off its powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to ev ade its
ponderous, formidable materiality .[ 34] More specifically , where there is a policy problematic there is expertise, and where there is expertise there, too,
a policy problematic will emerge. Such problematics are detailed and elaborated in terms of discrete forms of knowledge as well as interlocking policy
domains. Policy domains reify the problematization of life in certain ways by turning these epis temically and politically contestable orderings of life into
"problems" that require the continuous attention of policy science and the continuous resolutions of policymakers. Policy "actors" develop and compete
on the basis of the expertise that grows up around such problems or clusters of problems and their client populations. Here, too, we may also discover
what might be called "epis temic entrepreneurs." Albeit the market for discourse is prescribed and polic ed in ways that Foucault indicated, bidding to
formulate novel problematizations they seek to "sell" these, or otherwise have them officially adopted. In principle, there is no lim it to the ways in whic h
the management of population may be problematized. All aspects of human conduct, any encounter with life, is problematizable. Any problematization
is capable of becoming a policy problem. Governmentality thereby creates a market for policy, for science and for policy science, in whic h
problematizations go looking for policy sponsors while policy sponsors fiercely compete on behalf of their favored problematizations. Reproblematization
of problems is constrained by the institutional and ideological investments surrounding accepted "problems," and by the sheer difficulty of challenging
the inescapable ontological and epis temological assumptions that go into their very formation. There is nothing so fiercely contested as an
epistemological or ontologic al assumption. And there is nothing so fiercely ridic uled as the suggestion that the real problem with problematizations
ex ists precis ely at the level of such assumptions. Such "paraly sis of analy sis " is precisely what policymakers seek to avoid since they are compelled
constantly to respond to circumstances over which they ordinarily have in fact both more and less control than they proclaim . What they do not hav e is
precis ely the control that they want. Yet serial policy failure--the fate and the fuel of all policy--compels them into a continuous search for the new
analy sis that will extract them from the aporias in which they constantly find themselv es enmeshed.[ 35] Serial policy failure is no sim ple shortcoming
that science and policy--and policy science--will ultimately overcome. Serial policy failure is rooted in the ontological and epis temological assumptions
that fashion the ways in whic h global governance encounters and problematiz es life as a process of emergence through fitness landscapes that
constantly adaptiv e and changing ensembles have continuously to negotiate. As a particular kind of intervention into life, global governance promotes
the v ery changes and unintended outc omes that it then serially reproblematizes in terms of policy failure. Thus, global liberal governance is not a
linear problem-solv ing process committed to the resolution of objectiv e policy problems sim ply by bringing better information and knowledge to bear
upon them. A nonlinear economy of pow er/knowledge, it deliberately installs socially specific and radically inequitable dis tributions of wealth,
opportunity , and mortal danger both locally and globally through the very detailed ways in w hic h life is variously (policy ) problematiz ed by it. In
consequence, thinking and acting politically is dis placed by the institutional and epis temic riv alries that infuse its power/ knowledge netw orks, and by the
local conditions of application that govern the introduction of their polic ies. These now threaten to ex haust what "politics," locally as well as globally , is
about.[ 36] It is here that the "emergence" characteristic of governance begins to make its appearance. For it is increasingly recogniz ed that there are
no definitiv e policy solutions to objectiv e, neat, dis crete policy problems. The "subjects " of policy increasingly als o become a matter of definition as well,
since the concept population does not have a stable referent either and has itself als o evolv ed in biophilosophical and biomolecular as well as
Foucauldian "biopower" ways.

SCFI 2009                                                                           Framework
                                                                                        ___ of ___
                                 Fiat Bad - Bureaucracy
Role-Playing is BAD! It Leaves us Defenseless against the Logic of Instituti ons and Makes us Servants
of the Bureaucracy

SCFI 2009                                                   Framework
                                                               ___ of ___
                        Fiat Bad - Movements
(_) Political metaphors, aka fiat undermines critical movements.

(_) Fiat locks down other perspectives into a world of subjugation, your
assumption of things only guts your solvency and bites the K links.

SCFI 2009                            Framework
                                      ___ of ___
            Limits Bad – Exclusion

SCFI 2009                                                         Framework
                                                                     ___ of ___
                         AT Policy Making Good
(_) We solve your offense, critical discussions allow for policy-making.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                                    Framework
                                                                                                                                  ___ of ___
                                                                               e i c a ewos
                                                                          * * Spc i Fr m r k *

                                                         Methodology 1st
Methodology is key to effective policy making – vital to true education
Bartlett ‟90 (Katharine T., Professor of Law @ Duke Univ ersity , (Feminist Legal Methods, Harvard Law Review, February)
Feminists have developed ex tensiv e critiques of law n2 and proposals for legal reform. n3 Feminis ts have had much less to say , how ever, about what
the "doing" of law should entail and what truth status to giv e to the legal claims that follow. These methodological issues matter because
methods shape one's view of the possibilities for legal practice and refor m. Method "organizes the apprehension of truth;
it deter mines what counts as evidence and defines what is taken as verification." n4 Feminists cannot ignore method,
because if they seek to challenge existing structures of power with the same methods that [*831] have defined what
counts w ithin those structures, they may instead "recreate the illegitimate power structures [that they are] trying to identify
and undermine." n5
Method matters also because without an understanding of feminist methods, feminist claims in the law will not be perceived
as legitimate or "correct." I suspect that many who dismiss feminism as tr ivial or inconsequential misunderstand it.
Feminists have tended to focus on defending their various substantive positions or political agendas, even among
themselves. Greater attention to issues of method may help to anchor these defenses, to explain why feminist agend as
often appear so radical (or not radical enough), and even to establish some common ground among feminists.
As feminists ar ticulate their methods, they can become more aware of the nature of what they do, and thus do it better.
Thinking about method is e mpowering. When I require myself to explain what I do, I am likely to discover how to improve
what I earlier may have taken for granted. In the process, I am likely to become more committed to what it is that I have
improved. This lik elihood, at least, is a central premis e of this Article and its primary motiv ation.

SCFI 2009                                      Framework
                                                ___ of ___
                              Discourse 1st
(_) The use of discourse shapes our reality.

SCFI 2009                                                   Framework
                                                              ___ of ___
                             Discourse 1st
(_) Discourse shapes our reality, only by paving the way for new
movements in this frozen social plane can we hope to affect the real
world, if your policy makers-framework truly relies on the real world to
shape action, the neg. solves back and creates your framework.

SCFI 2009                                                                                                            Framework
                                                                                                                          ___ of ___
                                          Random Trash Austin Cut
Postmodern action allows for true action and change in our world.
Jayan Nayar, School o f Law at the Un iversity of Warwick, in 1999 (“Re-framing international law for the
21st century,” 9 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 599, Fall, 1999)-
Returning to this question of a change in our understanding of the world, I wonder if here lies the issue: what change to whose
understanding of the world? Why do I feel this insecurity? Why do I find myself constantly in this spiral of seeking direction, perhaps
even, sometimes, solace, from the vast "treasures" of "scholarly" expositions? Is it because I am afraid to shift my eyes from the "book"
to the world? Is it because I am afraid to see? I wonder if the searching for comfort in the mind relieves what is already known. When we
speak of a change in our understanding of the world, this heralded "epistemic transition" that is supposed to be the hallmark of
"post-modern knowledge," what we are really talking about is the way in which we who are afraid to accept our own
re sponsibility for the many expressions of violence in the worl d, although we know it, seek to find a means of making sense, from
a distance, of violence, of madness. By changing the way in which we understand the world intellectually therefore we postpone again
that time when pain and joy are allowed to filter into our hearts in lived emancipation, with all their messy repercussions. Instead we
remain largely untouched within this realm of theorized emancipation. It is not easy however to keep our distance. It requir es a lot of
effort in order to not see and feel. We have to keep ourselves constantly busy. This spiral of constant reinterpretations of violence
through so many theories becomes almost an anaesthetic. When I plunder through my "readings," as I search for further articulations
of "good ideas," with my daily musings over "theoretical frameworks," as I keep myself busy, I am diverted from asking why--what is
this all for? I know that if I stop, if I have a moment or two for reflection, if I deny myself the distractions of "good ide as," that question
re-emerges; in our quiet moments, if we allow ourselves quiet moments, we cannot hide from ourselves. If we take away the numbing
comfort and security of our professional reason for being, we are faced with the disconcerting uncertainties of our responsibility in being.
This is not easy. Yet, perhaps, it is only when we are pulled in every direction with doubt, conviction, pain and joy, that we are able to
share in the emancipatory wisdom of humanity that has been the lived life of generations before us and of generations to come. Life then
ce ases to be a problem to be solved. Rather it reveals itself as a journey to be traveled, and travailed. In all wonder, I take my
first tentative steps. And the directions for these steps must always be the subject of personal and collective judgment, nurtured
through conversation rather than orders, relationships rather than orderings, in located worlds rather than in the abstracted
"world," in living rather than in acting

(_) Dirty words are inevitable; by focusing on them we undermine
successful movements.


Shared By: