Resolved / Should Definitions

Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum Army Officer School 4 (5-12, # 12, Punctuation The Colon and Semicolon,
http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm) The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive: Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a
survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. b. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael Shaara wrote: (colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle [Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more paragraphs.) c. A formal quotation or question: The President declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon) what can we do about it? d. A second independent clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. e. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) f. The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock g.

formal resolution, after the word "resolved:"Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

Should denotes an expectation the aff will be enacted. American Heritage Dictionary 2k
Used to express probability or expectation

Ross Smith Ev / Decision Making

WE ARE ALL POLICY MAKERS. Debating about alternative government policies is the best way to instill a METHOD OF DECISIONMAKING that is useful in all parts of life.
Ross Smith, former debate coach at Wake Forest University, 7 (4/4/2007, Ross K., Challenge to the Community, https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox, JMP) Policy: a course of action undertaken by an agent. We are all policy makers every time we decide to undertake a course of action. Most policies are non-governmental. We have an obligation to ourselves and others to be good policy makers and advocates of good policies when dealing with others in our spheres of influence. Policy Deliberation and Debate: a METHOD for making and advocating better policy decisions. Intercollegiate debate about PUBLIC policy: a useful way of teaching the SKILLS needed for successful use of a METHOD of making and advocating good decisions. Public policy topics are especially useful because the research base is public. While we could debate about private actions by private agents, we have no way of poviding equal access to the kinds of information that would help make those debates good ones. There is a side benefit that some of what we learn about the public policy topics sometimes informs our later lives as citizens engaged in public deliberation regarding those same policies, but that is not the primary reason that public policy topics are necessary . Andy Ellis is a policy maker. He makes decisions about courses of action for himself and for/with others. But a topic about what Andy Ellis should do is inaccessable and, frankly, largely none of our business. But Andy Ellis has been well served by having the training in one of the better methods of choosing among and advocating whatever policies he is responsible for. That method is policy debate. Debate about public policy is a subset of debate about policy, a subset that is "debatable" because there is a common research base. The fact that the subject matter is at a remove from us personnally while still residing in the "public sphere" is a feature, not a bug.

Steinberg & Freeley Ev / Decision Making

A limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground is key to productive inculcation of decision-making and advocacy skills in every and all facets of life---even if their position is contestable thats distinct from it being valuably debatable---this still provides room for flexibility, creativity, and innovation, but targets the discussion to avoid mere statements of fact---T debates also solve any possible turn

Steinberg & Freeley 8 *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on
criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45Debate is a means of settling differences , so there must be a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest
policy, there before there can be a debate.

If everyone is in agreement

on a tact or value or

is no need for debate : the matter can be settled by unanimous

consent . Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus two equals four," because there is simply no controversy about this statement. (Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues, there is no debate . In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear
identification of a question or questions to be answered . For example, general argument may

occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration . How many illegal immigrants are in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity- to gain citizenship? Docs illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law
enforcement, housing, and businesses? I low are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should

we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification can!, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this "debate" is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy . To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies must be stated clearly . Vague understanding results in
unfocused deliberation and poor decisions , frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the

failure of the United States Congress to make progress on the immigration debate during the summer of 2007 . Someone disturbed by the problem of the growing underclass of poorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths might observe, "Public schools are doing a terrible job! They are
overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to do something about this" or. worse. "It's too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups

of concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions , they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of

clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow . But if a precise question is posedsuch as "What can be done to improve public education?"then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a
program of charter schools in at-risk communities" and "Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program"

They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference. To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing
more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. and

placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly

defined . If we merely talk about "homelessness" or "abortion" or "crime'* or "global warming" we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement "Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword" is debatable, yet fails to provide much basis for clear argumentation . If we take this statement to mean that the written word is more effective than physical force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose. Although we now have a general subject , we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad , too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned withpoems, novels, government documents, website development, advertising, or what? What does "effectiveness" mean in this context?
What kind of physical force is being comparedfists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might be. "Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Liurania of our support in a certain crisis?"

The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition

such as "Resolved: That the United States should enter into a mutual defense treatv with Laurania." Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative

interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy ; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging . The point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of difference , which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Part Scott Harris NDT Finals Ballot

http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=4762.0 For me the negative under develops the extent to which a forced choice that excludes the affirmative approach in every debate is essential. I think the negative should have developed more of a traditional limits type argument. The argument that allowing this affirmative to make the debate about their social location would enable every debate to be framed about a different social location and that there would be a tremendous incentive for fewer and fewer debates to talk about the topic. That the permutation is a bad idea because in the world of the permutation there would be a vested interest in more and more debates crowding out the political debates. In other words, I think the link to the loss of traditional political research and debate from embracing the affirmatives approach in some debates is not developed enough by the negative. The 2NR does say that under the affirmative vision there would be no limits to what the affirmative talks about but the focus is on how that impacts on the ability of the negative to prepare for debates rather than making it about an argument of what debate would look like in the world of the permutation. The negative could also have argued for the importance of Quare individuals specifically to discuss questions of politics and energy policy in particular or answered more specifically the affirmatives assertions that government policy had no relevance to them. The affirmative Quare specificity arguments are late breaking in the debate since they only appear in CX and in rebuttals but the negative does not really address them explicitly. Had these arguments for why the permutation was a bad idea been developed more I would most likely have voted negative in this debate. I am sure that Northwesterns reaction to this explanation will be to feel that is what we said. While I think it is the implicit intent behind their arguments I do not believe that these arguments as a response to the perm are explored sufficiently in the 2NR. I believe that the permutation absorbs most of the negatives offense for why policy debates will be good and then some debates that encourage performative resistance will also be good. I think the negative wins that the framework argument itself is not violent and that voting negative to exclude the aff would not be an act of violence. That does not mean, however, that there is not an inclusion advantage to voting affirmative.

Ballot continuesportion deleted

I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwesterns strategy in this debate round. This criticism is premised on the idea that they ran framework instead of engaging Emporias argument about home and the Wiz. I think this criticism is unfair. Northwesterns framework argument did engage Emporias argument. Emporia said that you should vote for the team that performatively and methodologically made debate a home. Northwesterns argument directly clashed with that contention. My problem in this debate was with aspects of the execution of the argument rather than with the strategy itself. It has always made me angry in debates when people have treated topicality as if it were a less important argument than other arguments in debate. Topicality is a real argument. It is a researched strategy. It is an argument that challenges many affirmatives. The fact that other arguments could be run in a debate or are run in a debate does not make topicality somehow a less important argument. In reality, for many of you that go on to law school you will spend much of your life running topicality arguments because you will find that words in the law matter. The rest of us will experience the ways that word choices matter in contracts, in leases, in writing laws and in many aspects of our lives. Kansas ran an affirmative a few years ago about how the location of a comma in a

law led a couple of districts to misinterpret the law into allowing individuals to be incarcerated in jail for two days without having any formal charges filed against them. For those individuals the location of the comma in the law had major consequences. Debates about words are not insignificant. Debates about what kinds of arguments we should or should not be making in debates are not insignificant either. The limits debate is an argument that has real pragmatic consequences. I found myself earlier this year judging Harvards eco-pedagogy aff and thought to myselfI could stay up tonight and put a strategy together on eco-pedagogy, but then I thought to myselfwhy should I have to? Yes, I could put together a strategy against any random argument somebody makes employing an energy metaphor but the reality is there are only so many nights to stay up all night researching. I would like to actually spend time playing catch with my children occasionally or maybe even read a book or go to a movie or spend some time with my wife. A world where there are an infinite number of affirmatives is a world where the demand to have a specific strategy and not run framework is a world that says this community doesnt care whether its participants have a life or do well in school or spend time with their families. I know there is a new call abounding for interpreting this NDT as a mandate for broader more diverse topics. The reality is that will create more work to prepare for the teams that choose to debate the topic but will have little to no effect on the teams that refuse to debate the topic. Broader topics that do not require positive government action or are bidirectional will not make teams that wont debate the topic choose to debate the topic. I think that is a con job. I am not opposed to broader topics necessarily. I tend to like the way high school topics are written more than the way college topics are written. I just think people who take the meaning of the outcome of this NDT as proof that we need to make it so people get to talk about anything they want to talk about without having to debate against topicality or framework arguments are interested in constructing a world that might make debate an unending nightmare and not a very good home in which to live. Limits, to me, are a real impact because I feel their impact in my everyday existence .

Rules / Limits / Fairness Good

Rules are key to harness the educational value of intellectual contests this accesses the educational value of fun
Prensky, 01 Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas of education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice president at the global financial firm Bankers Trust (Marc, Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging, 2001, www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf) fun in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure puts us in a relaxed, receptive frame of mind for learning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases our involvement, which also helps us learn. Both fun and play however, have the disadvantage of being somewhat abstract, unstructured, and hard -to-define concepts. But there exists a more formal and structured way to harness (and unleash) all the power of fun and play in the learning process the powerful institution of games. Before we look specifically at how we can combine games with learning, let us examine games themselves in some detail.
So Like fun and play, game is a word of many meanings and implications. How can we define a game? Is there any useful distinction between fun, play and games? What makes games engaging? How do we design them? Games are a subset of both play and fun. In programming jargon they are a child, inheriting all the characteristics of the parents. They therefore carry both the good and the bad of both

Games, as we will see, also have some special qualities, which make them particularly appropriate and well suited for learning.
terms. So what is a game? Like play, game, has a wide variety of meanings, some positive, some negative. On the negative side there is mocking and jesting, illegal and shady activity such as a con game, as well as the fun and games that we saw earlier. As noted, these can be sources of resistance to Digital Game-Based Learning we are not playing games here. But much of that is semantic. What we are interested in here are the meanings that revolve around the definition of games involving rules, contest, rivalry and struggle. What Makes a Game a Game? Six Structural Factors The Encyclopedia Britannica provides the following diagram of the relation between play and games: 35 PLAY spontaneous play organized play ( AMES) noncompetitive games competitive games (CONTESTS) intellectual contests physical contests (SPORTS) (repreinted with permission from Britanica.com 1999-2000 Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.) Our goal here is to understand why games engage us, drawing us in often in spite of ourselves. This powerful force stems first from the fact that they are a form of fun and play, and second from what I call the six key structural elements of games: 1. Rules 2. Goals and Objectives 3. Outcomes & Feedback 4. Conflict/Competition/Challenge/Opposition 5. Interaction, and 6. Representation or Story. There are thousands, perhaps millions of different games, but all contain most, if not all, these powerful factors. Those tha t dont contain all the factors are still classified as games by many, but can also belong to other subclasses described below. In addition to these structural factors, there are also important design elements that add to engagement and distinguish a really good game from a poor or mediocre one. Let us discuss these six factors in detail and show how and why they lead to such strong engagement.

Rules are what differentiate games from other kinds of play. Probably the most basic definition of a game is that it is organized play, that is to say rule-based. If you dont have rules you have free play, not a game. Why are rules so important to games? Rules impose limits they force us to take specific paths to reach goals and ensure that all players take the same paths . They put us inside the game world, by letting us know what is in and out of bounds. What spoils a game is not so much the cheater, who accepts the rules but doesnt play by them (we can deal with him or her) but the nihilist, who denies them altogether. Rules make things both fair and exciting. When the
Australians bent the rules of the Americas Cup and built a huge boat in 1988, and the Americans found a way to compete with a catamaran, it was still a race but no longer the same game.

rules become increasingly more important as we grow older. The rules set the limits of what is OK and not OK, fair and not fair, in the game. By elementary school, kids know to cry
While even small children understand some game rules (thats not fair), cheater if the rules are broken. Monopoly and even Trivial Pursuit have pages of written rule sets, and b y adulthood we are consulting Hoyle, hiring professional referees to enforce rules, and even holding national debates the designated hitter, the 2 point conversion, the instant replay over whether to change them.

Fun debate is a prerequisite to education and retention

Prensky, 01 Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas of education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice president at the global financial firm Bankers Trust (Marc, Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging, 2001, www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf)
Fun and Learning People with the notion that learning cannot and should not be fun are clearly in an archaic mode. -Mark Bieler, former head of HR, Bankers Trust Company So what is the relationship between fun and learning? Does having fun help or hurt? Let us look at what some researchers have to say on the subject:

Enjoyment and fun as part of the learning process are important when learning new tools since the learner is relaxed and motivated and therefore more willing to learn.6 "The role that fun plays with regard to intrinsic motivation in education is twofold. First, intrinsic motivation promotes the desire for recurrence of the experience Secondly, fun can motivate learners to engage themselves in activities with which they have little or no previous experience." 7
"In simple terms a brain enjoying itself is functioning more efficiently." 8 "When we enjoy learning, we learn better" 9

Fun has also been shown by Datillo & Kleiber, 1993; Hastie, 1994; Middleton, Littlefield & Lehrer, 1992, to increase motivation for learners. 10 It appears then that the principal roles of fun in the learning process are to create relaxation and motivation. Relaxation enables a learner to take things in more easily, and motivation enables them to put forth effort without resentment.

Letting other concerns trump rules of the game guts its effectiveness and participation Villa 96Dana Villa Political Theory @ UC Santa Barbara Arendt and Heidegger: the Fate of the
Political p. 37
If political action is to be valued for its own sake, then the content of political action must be politics in the sense that political
action is talk about politics. The circularity of this formulation, given by George Kateb, is unavoidable.

It helps if we use an

analogy that Kateb proposes, the analogy between such a purely political politics and a game. A game, writes Kateb, is

not about anything outside itself, it is its own sufficient worldthe content of any game is itself. What matters in a game is the play itself, and the quality of this play is utterly dependent upon the willingness and ability of the players to enter the world of the game. The Arendtian
conception of politics is one in which the spirit animating the play (the sharing of words and deeds)

comes before all elsebefore personal concerns, groups, interests, and even moral claims. If allowed to dominate the game, these elements detracts from the play and from the performance of action. A good game happens only when the players submit themselves to its spirit and do not allow subjective or external motives to dictate the play. A good game, like genuine politics, is played for its own sake.

Competitive debate is a dialogue between two teams. Their willful refusal to defend the resolution is an act to exclude the negative from meaningful participation in the dialogue. Placing a priority on a balanced topic exists to provide a voice for both sides. Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION
AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure. Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table. When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced. Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to understand what went on and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning: Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reach agreement which binds us to a common causeIf we are to be equalrelationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197). Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintains equality for the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective counter-word and undermining the value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

Its a voting issue and outweighs their offense their attempt to exclude the negative obliterates the pedagogical benefits of in-round dialogue. Fairness norms are vital because they allow both teams to be heard in a meaningful way. Debate as dialogue is vital to refine and develop positions, test ideas and is a prerequisite to meaningful political participation Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION
AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) A second reason to reject the topic has to do with its exclusivity. Many teams argue that because topicality and other fairness constraints prevent particular speech acts, debaters are denied a meaningful voice in the debate process. Advocates argue that because the negative excludes a particular affirmative performance that they have also precluded the affirmative team. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it views exclusion as a unitary act of definitional power. However, a dialogical perspective allows us to see power flowing both ways. A large range of affirmative cases necessitates fewer negative strategies that are relevant to the range of such cases. If the affirmative can present any case it desires, the benefits of the research, preparation, and in-depth thinking that go into the creation of negative strategies are diminished, if not eviscerated entirely. The affirmative case is obliged to invite a negative response. In addition, even when the negative strategy is not entirely excluded, any strategy that diminishes argumentative depth and quality diminishes the quality of in-round dialogue. An affirmative speech act that flagrantly violates debate fairness norms and claims that the benefits of the affirmative act supersede the need for such guidelines has the potential of excluding a meaningful negative response, and undermines the pedagogical benefits of the in-round dialogue. The germ of a response (Bakhtin, 1990) is stunted. While affirmative teams often accuse the negative of using a juridical rule to exclude them, the affirmative also relies upon an unstated rule to exclude the negative response. This unstated but understood rule is that the negative speech act must serve to negate the affirmative act. Thus, affirmative teams often exclude an entire range of negative arguments, including arguments designed to challenge the hegemony, domination, and oppression inherent in topical approaches to the resolution. Becoming more than just a ritualistic tag-line of fairness, education, time skew, voting issue, fairness exists in the implicit right to be heard in a meaningful way. Ground is just thata ground to stand on, a ground to speak from, a ground by which to meaningfully contribute to an ongoing conversation. Conversely, in a dialogical exchange, debaters come to realize the positions other than their own have value, and that reasonable minds can disagree on controversial issues. This respect encourages debaters to modify and adapt their own positions on critical issues without the threat of being labeled a hypocrite. The conceptualization of debate as a dialogue allows challenges to take place from a wide variety of perspectives. By offering a stable referent the affirmative must uphold, the negative can choose to engage the affirmative on the widest possible array of counterwords, enhancing the pedagogical process produced by debate. Additionally, debate benefits activism by exposing the participants to a wide range of points of view on topics of public importance. A debater starting their career in the fall of 2005 would have debated about China, landmark Supreme Court decisions, Middle East policy, and agricultural policy. It is unsurprising that many debaters contend that debate is one of the most educationally valuable experiences of their lives.

Thus, the unique distinctions between debate and public speaking allow debaters the opportunity to learn about a wide range of issues from multiple perspectives. This allows debaters to formulate their own opinions about controversial subjects through an in-depth process of research and testing of ideas. Putting the cart before the horse by assuming that one knows that the resolution is oppressive and cannot be meaningfully affirmed denies debaters the ability to craft a nuanced answer to the question posed by the resolution.

People will ignore the 1AC because you dont give the other side a fair chance to respond
Michael Underwood, summarizing Carl Hovland, communication at Yale University, 2000 (Psychology of Communication, www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/psy/hovland3.html) Whether or not you should include arguments for and against your case depends very much on your audience. If you know that they already agree with you, a one-sided argument is quite acceptable. If they are opposed to your point of view, then a one-sided message will actually be less effective, being dismissed as biased. Even if your audience dont know much about the subject, but do know that there are counterarguments (even if they dont know what they are) will lead them to reject your views as biased. Hovlands investigations into mass propaganda used to change soldiers attitudes also suggests that the intelligence of the receivers is an important factor, a two-sided argument tending to be more persuasive with a more intelligent audience.

Researching / Debating Government Good

Christopher C. Joyner is a Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, Spring, 1999 [5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377] Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student
Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional lawschool-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their

debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other
subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the

research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense.
former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally,

Keller, Whittaker, and Burke, 2001. [Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U.
of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost] Based on a review of the literature, the authors experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those deba tes, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured

think debates on important policy questions have numerous benefits: prompting students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them to investigate and analyze competing alternatives , compelling them to advocate a particular position, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a persuasive manner. We think engaging in these analytic and persuasive activities promotes greater knowledge by stimulating active participation in the learning process.
student debates in policy-oriented courses. The authors

Keller, Whittaker, and Burke, 2001. [Thomas E., James K., and Tracy K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U.
of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost] Policy practice encompasses social workers' "efforts to influence the development, enactment, implementation, or assessment of social policies" (Jansson, 1994, p. 8). Effective policy practice involves analytic activities, such as defining issues, gathering data, conducting research, identifying and prioritizing policy options, and creating policy proposals (Jansson, 1994). It also involves persuasive activities intended to influence opinions and outcomes, such as discussing and debating issues, organizing coalitions and task forces, and providing testimony.

social workers rely upon five fundamental skills when pursuing policy practice activities: * value-clarification skills for identifying and assessing the underlying values inherent in policy positions; * conceptual skills for identifying and evaluating the relative merits of different policy options; * interactional skills for interpreting the values and positions of others and conveying one's own point of view in a convincing manner;
According to Jansson (1984,pp. 57-58),

* political skills for developing coalitions and developing effective strategies; and * position-taking skills for recommending, advocating, and defending a particular policy. These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking.

Brad Hall Ev
Brad Hall, 8 Masters in Communication Studies from Wake Forest and Special Projects Manager with the Offices of Al and Tipper Gore (*eDebate+ Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair, 7-11-2008, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-July/075330.html) As someone who has (at least temporarily) left debate to do public policy-related research, I think Andy overlooks the benefits of the *process* of policy debate and its connection to his call for "political agency in the real world." Ross and others have made this point many times, but it is worth briefly reiterating: switch sides public policy debate enables activism by teaching a research and decision making process that is applicable outside of the insulated debate community. While debates do not directly change public policy (after all, Mohammed Ali Hammadi still roams the streets of Beirut), the skills of debate teach debaters how to help with "activist" causes once they leave debate. For example, policy debaters are taught the skills of researching a topic both quickly (finding one or two politics cards in 3 minutes) and in depth (consider that hundreds of high school debaters around the country are currently attempting to exhaust the debate over global warming and alternative energy). Debaters learn a number of other useful skills, from word economy to prioritization of the best arguments. But most importantly, the process of reflecting on this research and considering both sides of a public policy issue teaches the participants of debate a decision making process that is applicable to the rest of their life. Many, many traditional policy debaters have taken these skills and translated them into work at think tanks, law firms, universities, corporations, journalism, and other sectors. NDT Champion Larry Tribe has produced groundbreaking societal change through the law just to cite one example. Glenn Greenwald is one of the most popular progressive bloggers whose research acumen is obvious. Real change has been produced by these individuals (and many others), and it continues to be. The real question should be: how do alternative models of debate promote any of these skills/process, or if they don't (since they often base their existence on a criticism of these aspects of policy debate), what do they offer to activism outside of debate? It is somewhat noble to claim that the structures of debate are changed by alternative models (though this is often not the case), but unless you expect the actual channels of power like Congress to be similarly changed, what impact does non-traditional nonpolicy debate have on the "real world"? To return to the thrust of Andy's original post, there are few activities I would rather see public money be spent on than training high school and college students in traditional, switch sides policy debate.

AT: Delgado
Delgado wrote an article (shadowboxing: an essay on power) against the use of procedural fairness because it overlooks larger cultural factors that prevent the application of fairness equally. 1. Delgados arg is that the rich and the powerful have written the rules, so the claim to fairness overlooks that the rules themselves are unfair: they reward one type of participation for example, or overlook structural constraints on fairness. He uses 3 examples: a. tobacco label laws if warning labels on cigarretes are fair because you had an informed choice to smoke that benefits the stronger party the tobacco company and ignores things like addiction or social pressure to smoke.

b. Informed consent to medical treatment doctor has a responsibility to disclose risks of medical treatment but not liable to discuss patient fears, religion, alternative forms of treatment, etc c. date rape laws which define consent as verbal its fair for the man but overlooks other things that may be in play, such as when the woman feels coerced.

2.

the focus on legal rules tradesoff with questions of justice. His alternative is to advocate legal storytelling that essentially you cant look at procedural rules but in deciding a case it requires looking at the full story

Responses: 1. It doesnt apply to debate: Delgado is talking about the use of legal rules in a courtroom that define the civil or criminal liability of a stronger party against a weaker plaintiff. Debate has two important differences: a. Coercion isnt a factor participation in debate is voluntary and there arent legal consequences. There arent power differentials between the aff and neg and no ones life depends on winning a debate. b. Storytelling is inevitable in debate Debate is not a courtroom. Legal rules are nonnegotiable while the rules of debate are flexible and accommodating lawyers arent speaking for you according to predetermined rules, youre interpreting the rules yourself. Affirmatives craft interpretations of a topic and we debate about which interpretation is best

2. Procedural fairness establishes rights of participation for both sides. Throwing out the rules is worse its more arbitrary and power differentials would be magnified. Delgado never says throw out the rules. He says to incorporate legal storytelling into the rules. He never says

fairness is bad as an absolute, he says there is always context that informs judgments about fairness.

Fairness exists to ensure participation from both sides our framework allows for storytelling, they just have to ground it in a topical affirmative
Burch, 8 - Assistant Professor, Cumberland School of Law (Elizabeth, CAFA'S IMPACT ON LITIGATION AS A PUBLIC GOOD 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 2517, May, lexis) Given this shortcoming, the second procedural justice component is fairness. Fairness arguments are typically offered as policy reasons to trump pursuit of certain reform proposals and aggregate social goals; n101 however, I use fairness here (and in assessing CAFA) as a supplemental constraint rather than a substitute . Employing a deontological conception of fairness to balance utility aids in, not only distributing procedural costs and correcting procedural errors, but also in ensuring that the procedural system does not disproportionately favor or burden plaintiffs or defendants. n102 Put differently, process should disperse the risk of error and the cost of access as evenly as possible. Neither party [*2535] should have an advantage . n103 This idea of "fairness" as avoiding lopsided distribution of error can be likened to the concept of "neutrality." n104 To be sure, some imparity in distributing risks may be inevitable. Finally, although analogous to fairness, participation - manifested as adequate representation in the class context - humanizes process. n105 In its simplest form, participation necessitates that those who are bound by a decision have an opportunity to take part (and be heard) in adjudication. n106 Moreover, it encompasses inherent rights to present evidence, observe the proceedings, cross-examine witnesses, and hear the judge's decision. n107 And participation, even in class litigation, affords litigants dignity by granting them a forum in which to tell their story . n108 "Storytelling" has been criticized when used to demonstrate satisfaction with process as a proxy for "justice." n109 I use the term here, however, for its cathartic value only when situated within this larger [*2536] procedural fairness framework .

AT: Social Location Key

We cannot assume a priori that their authors have a unique insight on reality Hammersley, 93 Prof. Education and Social Research @ Centre for Childhood, Development and
Learning @ Open U *Martyn, British Journal of Sociology, Research and 'anti-racism': the case of Peter Foster
and his critics, 44.3, 11-93, JSTOR]

The second view I want to consider is sometimes associated with versions of the first, but must be kept separate because it involves a quite distinctive and incompatible element. I will refer to this as standpoint theory. Here people's experience and knowledge is treated as valid or invalid by dint of their membership in some social category.'7 Here again
Foster's arguments may be dismissed because they reflect his background and experience as a white, middle class, male teacher. However, this time the

implication is that reality is obscured from those with this background because of the effects of ideology. By contrast, it is suggested, the oppressed (black, female and/or working class people) have privileged insight into the nature of society. This argument produces a victory for one side, not the stalemate that seems to result from relativism the validity of Foster's views can therefore be dismissed. But in other respects this position is no more satisfactory than relativism. We must ask on what grounds we can decide that one group has superior insight into reality. This cannot be simply because they declare that they have this insight; otherwise everyone could make the same claim with the same legitimacy (we would be back to relativism). This means that some other form of ultimate justification is involved, but what could this be? In the Marxist version of
this argument the working class (or, in practice, the Communist Party) are the group with privileged insight into the nature of social reality, but it is Marx and Marxist theorists who confer this privilege on them by means of a dubious philosophy of history.l8 Something similar occurs in the case of feminist standpoint theory, where the feminist theorist ascribes privileged insight to women, or to feminists engaged in the struggle for womens emancipation. l9 However, while

we must recognize that people in different social locations may have divergent perspectives, giving them distinctive insights, it is not clear why we should believe the implausible claim that some people have privileged access to knowledge while others are blinded by ideology.

You should evaluate our arguments based on credibility and evidence reversion to personalized bases of knowledge eradicates the possibility of common knowledge and educational development. Hammersley, 93 Prof. Education and Social Research @ Centre for Childhood, Development and
Learning @ Open U *Martyn, British Journal of Sociology, Research and 'anti-racism': the case of Peter Foster
and his critics, 44.3, 11-93, JSTOR]

the assessment of substantive and methodological claims should be based on judgments about the plausibility and credibility of evidence with attempts to resolve disagreements such as that between
I suggest that Foster and his critics, being pursued through a search for common ground and an attempt to argue back from that to some conclusion that all will accept. By 'plausibility' here I mean what I referred to earlier as consistency with existing knowledge whose validity is taken to be beyond reasonable doubt. By 'credibility I mean (Martyn Hammersley) the likelihood that the process that produced the claim is free of serious error. Here I am assuming that factual claims vary in their credibility both according to their own content and according to the circumstances in which

Where a claim is neither sufficiently plausible nor credible to be accepted at face value, evidence for it must be examined in terms of its plausibility and credibility, and so on until a judgment can be made or until judgment must be suspended for want of the necessary evidence. Where there is initial disagreement, ideally this process will result in the acceptance by all of one or other of the two original positions, or (more likely) the construction of a third position( for example through clarification of the concept of racism); though unlike with foundationalism there is no guarantee offered that disagreement will be resolved. It seems to me that maximizing
they were produced.

the chances that agreement will be reached in this way, and that the resulting consensus will capture the truth, requires a research community operating on the basis of the following norms: 1 The overriding concern of researchers is the truth of claims, not their political implications or practical consequences. 2 Arguments are not judged on the basis of the personal and/or social characteristics of the person advancing them , but in terms of their plausibility and credibility. 3 Researchers are willing to change their views if arguments from common ground suggest those views are false; and, equally important, they assume (and behave as if) fellow researchers have the same attitude - at least until there is very strong evidence otherwise. 4 Where agreement does not result, all parties must recognize that there remains some reasonable doubt about the validity of their own positions, so that whenever the latter are presented they require supporting argument, or reference to where such argument can be found. 5 The research community is open to participation by anyone able and willing to operate on the basis of the first four rules; though their contributions will be judged wanting if they lack sufficient knowledge of the field and/or of relevant
methodology. In particular, there must be no restriction of participation on the grounds of personal characteristics religious or political attitudes. In my view, a

research community committed to the above norms maximizes the chances of discovering error in empirical and theoretical claims, and of discovering the truth about particular matters. It encourages the cumulative development of a body of knowledge whose validity is more reliable on average than that of lay views about the same issues. This is not to say that in any particular instance current research-based knowledge will be correct and commonsense wrong; simply that it will usually be closer to the truth. Furthermore, it should be noted that this advantage is bought at considerable cost in terms of the time taken to complete inquiries in this way, and (correspondingly)the limited size of the body of research-based knowledge that can be produced.

AT: Green & Hicks / Debaters Lose Conviction

Conviction emerges from discussion, not prior to it debate exists to establish and refine positions so that ideas may be subsequently chosen
Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) Those who worry that competitive academic debate will cause debaters to lose their convictions, as Greene and Hicks do in their 2005 article, confuse the cart with the horse. Conviction is not a priori to discussion, it flows from it. A. Craig Baird argued, Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under consideration (1955, p. 5). Debate encourages rigorous training and scrutiny of arguments before debaters declare themselves an advocate for a given cause. Debate creates an ethical obligation to interrogate ideas from a neutral position so that they may be freely chosen subsequently.

Defending an argument in a debate doesnt force you to be a real life proponent of it only subjecting your views to examination can establish their validity
Baird, 55 Professor of Speech at the University of Iowa (C. A., The college debater and the red china issue, Central States Speech Journal, 6(2), 5-7) A second indictment of you debaters is that if you discuss recognizing Red China you may fall victim to the Communistic propaganda. The assumption is that you may become inoculated. You may become brainwashed. The issue here is whether you may be gullible enough to swallow the "wrong" side of any subject whatever that "wrong" side isif you happen to argue it. This criticism is a vote of non-confidence in you. It amounts to the expression of the ancient distrust of democratic participation. The implication is that we Americans, even if we are reasonably well trained, are nevertheless incompetent to decide important questions. We cannot be trusted to push out into the troubled seas of propagandist^ conflict. Our only reply at this point is to invite those who fear open discussion on important issues, to read again any treatise on American government. We furthermore suggest a reading again of the great documents of our heritage. The principles in all of these documents steadily affirm that ours is a government by talk; that the secret voting is accompanied by popular assemblies and the free exchange of ideas and arguments; that all citizens share the right and ability to think, communicate, and decide, and that we can rely upon the molding of public opinion through these avenues of our democratic system. My other recommendation to those who look askance at free discussion and debate is to read again John Stuart Mill's Liberty of Thought and Expression. According to Mill, the opinion or side which we ignore or sidestep may be true. Or, continued Mill, the forbidden side or opinion which we ignore or sidestep may be partly true. Or, concluded Mill, even if one hundred per cent truth is on our side, our opinions or conclusions become valid and properly significant only if we subject them to examination. Indeed, as Mill suggested, our beliefs and convictions, unless under continual review, may become enfeebled or lost, and so "inefficacious for good."

Sound conviction can only happen after thoroughly researching and debating both sides of an issue it is hypocritical and immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides
Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason

(Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile)

In a tolerant context, convictions can still be formed regarding the appropriateness and utility of differing values. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters are hypocritical and sophistical, Windes responds with a series of propositions: Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under consideration. . . . This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issues and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence. . . , This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done by the careful testing of each argument pro and con. . . . The learner's sound conviction covering controversial questions [therefore] depends partly upon his experience in defending and/or rejecting tentative affirmative and negative positions.""* Sound conviction, a key element of an individual's moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasoned assessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues."" It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two opposing accounts are present on everything, and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. Debate might be rendering students a disservice, insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction.

AT: Resolved Before the Colon

A more reasonable interpretation is that the resolution posits a question that must be affirmed by the affirmative
Parcher, 2001 (Jeff, Re: Jeff P--Is the resolution a question? eDebate, www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html) (1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committtee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasize the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not.