Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
NC Extension: A/t #4 “Effects Inevitable” 417
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2NC Extension: A/t 5 “Affirmative Ground” 418
- 2NC Extension: A/t - 6 “Reasonability” 419
- 1NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 420
- 1NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 421
2NC Extension: A/t #4 “Effects Inevitable” 4171) Effects Topicality is not inevitable. The Affirmative could transfer financial resources directly to Cuba. This allows them to claim good advantages like Cuban Democracy and Economy, and only takes one step so it is predictable for the Negative. 2) Effects Topicality is a reason to vote Negative. We can’t predict the future, and any links we win off the eventual topical action of the plan will necessarily happen after they have solved their advantages so we will get outweighted on timeframe. 3) Topicality as a burden requires that the plan on its face be topical. Topicality is a procedural issue that judges look at first – asking themselves, does the plan fall within the resolution – then only after this answer does the judge look to solvency. The affirmative therefore cannot possibly be topical because the plan isn’t a topical mandate. 2NC Extension: A/t #5 “Affirmative Ground” 4181) The Affirmative has too many benefits in debate. They get first and last speech, infinite prep time, and there is a literature bias in favor of change. It is more important to limit Affirmative ground so that the Negative can check these advantages. 2) They can win U.S. key warrants on financial transfer Affirmatives. They just have to choose a technology that only the U.S. has. The affirmative is always required to defend the topicality of the case that they choose to run. 3) The arguments they are afraid of are core parts of the literature. The best and most common argument against foreign aid is the cost and effectiveness of that assistance. The affirmative in this instance is excluding a foundational issue in the economic engagement literature. 2NC Extension: A/t - #6 “Reasonability” 4191) You should default to a standard of competing interpretations. Reasonability is arbitrary because every judge will have a different idea of what a “good” interpretation is. Weighing the costs and benefits of each interpretation and judging the plan based on the best one is the only way to put the round in the hands of the debaters, which encourages more education and is more fair. 2) The affirmative cannot define “reasonability” in an objective manner, one that isn’t blatantly biased by their strong self-interest in wanting their plan to be topical. For this reason, you must reject “reasonability” as a standard. 1NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 420A) Interpretation: The Affirmative must advocate only the immediate passage of a policy by the United States federal government. The term “Resolved” is modeled after Congressional resolutions and reflects the government’s passage of a law. WEBSTER’S, 98 [Revised Unabridged Dictionary] Resolve: 5. “To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal vote; -- followed by a clause “ B) Violation: The Affirmative does not defend fiat to pass a policy. They ask the judge to vote based on the fact that they are persuasive speakers, without any direct reference to advocating a policy resolution. C) Standards: 1) Predictable Ground: There is no limit to the number of different persuasive perspectives or identities that could appeal for an Affirmative ballot. Only a strict limit on the agent of the Affirmative guarantees a stable political process that creates ground. MEARSHEIMER, 95 [John, Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, International Security, v. 19, Winter] There is another problem with the application of critical theory to international relations. Although critical theorists hope to replace realism with a discourse that emphasizes harmony and peace, critical theory per se emphasizes that it is impossible to know the future. Critical theory, according to its own logic, can be used to undermine realism and produce change, but it cannot serve as the basis for predicting which discourse will replace realism, because the theory says little about the direction change takes. In fact, Cox argues that although “utopian expectations may be an element in stimulating people to act…such expectations are almost never realized in practice. Thus, in a sense, the communitarian discourse championed by critical theorists is wishful thinking, not an outcome linked to the theory itself. Indeed, critical theory cannot guarantee that the new discourse will not be more malignant than the discourse it replaces. Nothing in the theory guarantees, for example, that a fascist discourse far more violent than realism will not emerge as the new hegemonic discourse. 1NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 4212) Switch-side Education: Switch-side debate requires that teams defend things they do not believe in sometimes. Requiring the Affirmative to defend the federal government allows us to interrogate that agent and learn more than if we always read the same arguments on both sides. MITCHELL, 2 [Gordon, Associate Professor of Communication at University of Pittsburgh, 11/09, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2002-November/044264.html] Politically I have moved quite a bit since 1998, when I wrote that debate institutions should pay more attention to argumentative agency, i.e. cultivation of skills that facilitate translation of critical thinking, public speaking, and research acumen into concrete exemplars of democratic empowerment. Back then I was highly skeptical of the “laboratory model" of "preparatory pedagogy," where students were kept, by fiat, in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen. Now I respect much more the value of a protected space where young people can experiment politically by taking imaginary positions, driving the hueristic process by arguing against their convictions. In fact, the integrity of this space could be compromised by "activist turn" initiatives designed to bridge contest round advocacy with political activism. These days I have much more confidence in the importance and necessity of switch-side debating, and the heuristic value for debaters of arguing against their convictions. I think fashioning competitive debate contest rounds as isolated and politically protected safe spaces for communicative experimentation makes sense. However, I worry that a narrow diet of competitive contest round debating could starve students of opportunities to experience the rich political valence of their debating activities. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2011 2011 -> Voices of the Old Sea Norman Lewis 2011 -> Malevil Robert Merle 2011 -> The Elephant Keeper’s Children Peter Hoeg 2011 -> Jv packet •Mars Colonization Affirmative •Mars Colonization Negative 2011 -> Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) omb no. 1024-0018 2011 -> All America Looks Up to Virginia;” Virginia and the Declaration of Independence 2011 -> Rao bulletin 2011 -> Christopher Columbus was born between 25 August and 31 October 1451 in 2011 -> The Battle of Frenchtown (1855), Washington Territory: the Political and Demographic Context rev 9/4/11 2011 -> Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff Download 3.16 Mb. Share with your friends:
|