Chicago Debate League 2013/14 Core Files
NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 422
Download 3.16 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 1NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 423
- 2NC Extension: A/t 1 “We Meet” 424
- 2NC Extension: A/t 2 “Counter-interpretation” 425
- 2NC Extension: A/t 3 “Counter standards” [1/4] 426
1NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 4223) Educational Quality: Focus on government policy is necessary to challenge suffering in the real world outside of this debate round. RORTY, 98 [Richard, Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford, Achieving Our Country] The cultural Left often seems convinced that the nation-state is obsolete, and that there is therefore no point in attempting to revive national politics. The trouble with this claim is that the government of our nation-state will be, for the foreseeable future, the only agent capable of making any real difference in the amount of selfishness and sadism inflicted on Americans. It is no comfort to those in danger of being immiserated by globalization to be told that, since national governments are now irrelevant, we must think up a replacement for such governments. The cosmopolitan super-rich do not think any replacements are needed, and they are likely to prevail. Bill Readings was right to say that “the nation-state [has ceased] to be the elemental unit of capitalism,” but it remains the entity which makes decisions about social benefits, and thus about social justice. The current leftist habit of taking the long view and looking beyond nationhood to a global polity is as useless as was faith in Marx’s philosophy of history, for which it has become a substitute. Both are equally irrelevant to the question of how to prevent the reemergence of hereditary castes, or of how to prevent right-wing populists from taking advantage of resentment at that reemergence. When we think about these latter questions, we begin to realize that one of the essential transformations which the cultural Left will have to undergo is the shedding of its semi-conscious anti-Americanism, which it carried over from the rage of the late Sixties. This Left will have to stop thinking up ever more abstract and abusive names for “the system” and start trying to construct inspiring images of the country. Only by doing so can it begin to form alliances with people outside the academy – and, specifically, with the labor unions. Outside the academy, Americans still want to feel patriotic. They still want to feel part of a nation which can take control of its destiny and make itself a better place. If the Left forms no such alliances, it will never have any effect on the laws of the United States. To form them will require the cultural Left to forget about Baudrillard’s account of America as Disneyland – as a country of simulacra—and and to start proposing changes in the laws of a real country, inhabited by real people who are enduring unnecessary suffering, much of which can be cured by governmental action. Nothing would do more to resurrect the American Left than agreement on a concrete political platform, a People’s Charter, a list of specific reforms. The existence of such a list – endlessly reprinted and debated, equally familiar to professors and production workers, imprinted on the memory both of professional people and of those who clean the professionals’ toilets – might revitalize leftist politics. 1NC Shell: Topicality – Critical Immigration 4234) Extra Topicality: Even if the Affirmative claims to call for government action, they are also claiming advantages off the ethics of their demand which occurs even if the government never acts. These are not tied to the resolution or predictable, and what passes for their plan isn’t remotely topical on its face, which is a requirement of topicality as a procedural issue. D) Topicality is a Voting Issue for Fairness and Education. 2NC Extension: A/t #1 “We Meet” 4241) They don’t meet. Our interpretation is that the Affirmative only gets to defend the immediate passage of a policy by the United States federal government. They only defend the desirability of a demand that will never actually get heard. You can tell their intent by the 1AC; they argue that their representations are more important than actual policy. 2) Even if they do defend government action, they also defend individual activism. We can’t prepare to debate the second part of their Affirmative, so we don’t have any links or specific cards against their project. This lets them artificially outweigh. Extend our Extra Topicality standard. 3) They do not meet our standard that the plan must be topical on its face. We argue that in C4 of the 1NC, they have conceded it, and they fail this test. 4) Hold them to the 1AC. We are forced to go for Topicality in the 2NR against these kinds of Affirmatives because they are challenging the links to all of our other arguments. If the 2AR can just say “Fine, we’ll defend policymaking,” then we will always lose because the 2NR would be meaningless. If the 1AC allows them to claim representations advantages, they should not get to clarify that later. 2NC Extension: A/t #2 “Counter-interpretation” 4251) Resolved is the framing word for the resolution, and it is designed to mirror Congressional resolution format. This proves that the context of policy debate is actual policy, enacted by the government. They are interpreting a word without looking at how that word fits in the overall structure of the resolution. And they fail to meet a reasonable interpretation of the word “resolved.” 2) They don’t meet their interpretation. If they are arguing that the policy of economic citizenship is desirable for the federal government to enact, then they should be arguing the merits of that policy change. Instead they are arguing the merits of including narratives in policy debates. These are completely different things. 2NC Extension: A/t #3 “Counter standards” [1/4] 4261) Voting Negative on Topicality does not exclude the Affirmative. They can run identity kritiks on the Negative, or discuss immigration issues from the context of government policy on the Affirmative. There are plenty of plans that respect the word “resolved” that can and should incorporate narratives of injustice and racism. They can also be activists in their schools, and attend rallies when they aren’t at debate tournaments. None of our arguments are excluding their voices. We can argue that Ground and Competitive Equity are important without being racist. 2) All of their arguments assume that we have an equal ability to engage them and challenge their advocacy, but individual narratives and identity politics are never predictable. Extend our MEARSHEIMER evidence. We will never be able to engage them because we can’t research their perspective before the round, which means we are always one step behind. Focusing on government policy gives the Negative a consistent target to research, so we can always adapt to new plan texts. 3) Switch-side debate is necessary to test our assumptions and determine what we should believe, rather than just arbitrarily believing every movement that asks for a donation. Extend our MITCHELL evidence. There’s another benefit of tolerance because we also learn that the things we thought we should criticize may not be so bad. MUIR, 93 [Star, “A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric) Yes, there may be a dangerous sense of competitive pride that comes with successfully advocating a position against one's own views, and there are ex-debaters who excuse their deceptive practices by saying "I'm just doing my job." Ultimately, however, sound convictions are distinguishable from emphatic convictions by a consideration of all sides of a moral stance. Moral education is not a guaranteed formula for rectitude, but the central tendencies of switch-side debate are in line with convictions built on empathic appreciation for alternative points of view and a reasoned assessment of arguments both pro and con. Tolerance, as an alternative to dogmatism, is preferable, not because it invites a relativistic view of the world, but because in a framework of equal access to ideas and equal opportunities for expression, the truth that emerges is more defensible and more justifiable. Morality, an emerging focal point of controversy in late twentieth-century American culture, is fostered rather than hampered by empowering students to form their own moral identity. 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:
|