Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files


**2NC/1NR/1NR Critical Security Affirmative



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page35/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   ...   75

**2NC/1NR/1NR Critical Security Affirmative

2NC/1NR Critical Security Affirmative- Overview




  1. Extend our 1NC Black’s Law and Cambridge Dictionary evidence, the phrase, “The Federal Government should curtail its domestic surveillance”, can only refer to the federal government’s surveillance

  2. Extend our violation- the affirmative does not reduce federal government surveillance, only local surveillance at the level of Chicago Public Schools. This puts them in a solvency double bind either: a) they only curtail federal government surveillance, in which case they cannot solve their internal links or b) they curtail both, in which case they are extra topical, extra topicality is a voting issue for predictability and ground- it allows the affirmative to claim advantages based on untopical portions of the plan text

  3. Extend our reasons to prefer- by curtailing non-federal government surveillance, the affirmative broadens the scope of the topic, a limited topic is better for our education since we will have in depth discussions on a small number of affirmatives. Also, by having a non-usfg actor, the affirmative does not link to many core negative generics, which are also vital for topic education

4. Prefer a competing interpretations model when evaluating topicality it’s the only objective way to determine what the words in the resolution mean

2NC/1NR Critical Security Affirmative- Education DA




In order for us to stay engaged on critical issues and effectuate change outside of this round, we need to debate on a limited resolution. This way, we will have more in depth knowledge on surveillance practices


Drew, 2010 [Julie, Sound bite saboteurs: public discourse, education, and the state of democratic deliberation. p. google books]

And the means of setting it right is not a naive objectivity but the vigorous contestation of ideas, focusing us on the political and cultural preconditions for democratic deliberation. Sound-bite sabotage both undermines this dynamic and dissipates our energies to make us afraid of conflict and politics as we slowly unburn the foundations of our own beliefs in individual freedom or the free market, thus remaking us without the intellectual and rhetorical skills needed to be free and prosperous. Sound-bite saboteurs short-circuit debate by truncating our thought processes with familiar sounding, but deceptively inac- curate, reassurance that silencing anyone who opposes the familiar and comfortable can only be right. There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. 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. (Mill 1975, 26-27) Third, we argue that, as a consequence, sound-bite saboteurs are responsible for a widespread and growing assault on the possibility and the desirability of democratic decision making. Sound-bite saboteurs, it turns out, are driving a political and cultural process that is eroding the preconditions for democratic deliberation.14 They use public relations tools to redivide key publics along cultural lines expected to be favorable to the saboteurs own narrow, private interest and to privatize conflict management in general. This process is clearest in the stridently partisan and extremist debates animating politics in Washington, D.C., and in state capitals across the country, but it is also manifest in the ways that these debates have turned moderate leaders on both sides of the aisle into endangered species. Cooperation, as a result, is now seen by many as a sign of weakness to be overcome bv remaining resolute despite the best available data (and this approach is seen as just common sense). Instead of understanding that to be free and prosperous we must "fully, frequently, and fearlessly" debate ideas directly with those who disagree with us, sound-bile sabotage encourages a cultural preference for holding our own isolated views "as a dead dogma, not a living truth" (Mill 1975, 44). Mill explains: There is a doss of persons ... who think it enough if a person assents undoubtingly to what they think true, though he has no knowledge whatever of the grounds of the opinion, and could not make a tenable defense of it against the most superficial objections. Such persons, if they can once get their creed taught from authority, naturally think that no good, and some harm, comes of its being allowed to be questioned. Where their influence prevails, they make it nearly impossible for the received opinion to be rejected wisely and considerately, though it may still be rejected rashly and ignorantly; for to shut out discussion entirely is seldom possible, and when it once gets in, beliefs not grounded on conviction are apt to give way before the slightest semblance of an argument. Waiving, however, this possibility—assuming that the true opinion abides in the mind, but abides as a prejudice, a belief independent of, and proof against, argument—this is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rational being. This i» not know- ing the truth. Truth, thus held, is but one superstition the more, accidentally clinging to the words which enunciate a truth. (Mill 1975, 45) Fourth, sound-bite saboteurs make it nearly impossible for us to understand the grounds of even our correctly held positions, let alone manage conflicts where we remain uncertain how to best proceed. They reframe conflicts to reconstruct common sense as an implicit background consensus to amplify fear of collective action that silences opposing views and truncates the processes that achieve political understanding. For instance, we disapprove of lying, yet we are regularly distracted from lies at the highest levels, in part, because even that truth (Iving is bad) is wrapped in confusions and held more like a superstition "accidentally clinging to words that enunciate a truth." Many of us cheer for our favored leaders when they wiggle out of a tight spot with a well-placed lie; and most top political com- munications advisors regularly recommend all sorts of truth bending, spinning, and outright lying whenever e



Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review