Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Resolutionality Presses:

Table of Contents
Resolutionality Presses:.............................................................................................................................1
Generic Intro:...............................................................................................................................2
Generic Voter against affirmative:...............................................................................................2
Generic Voter against negative:...................................................................................................2
Resolutionality a Voter:................................................................................................................2
1: Competition.......................................................................................................................................3
a) Requires an active participant..................................................................................................3
b) Requires an active opponent....................................................................................................3
2: Superior:............................................................................................................................................4
[comp/coop] must come first chronologically.............................................................................4
3: Cooperation......................................................................................................................................5
Requires a common goal..............................................................................................................5
4: Means................................................................................................................................................6
a) Motivation:...............................................................................................................................6
b) Not ends:..................................................................................................................................6
5: Achieve..............................................................................................................................................7
Value must be attainable:.............................................................................................................7

Resolutionality Presses 1{9} Resolutionality Presses:

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

Generic Intro:
The first issue I'd like to look at is resolutionality. That's not a word we use everyday, so let me explain
what it means. There is a question inherent in the resolution: is competition or cooperation superior as
a means of achieving excellence? The affirmative speaker has to answer that question in their case to
uphold the resolution. So has [he/she] done this? I don't think so. I'd like to specifically look at the
word ____

Generic Voter against affirmative:

Clearly, we see that my opponent has not answered the actual question of the resolution and thus has
not given you a reason to vote to uphold the resolution. They must show that competition is superior to
cooperation as a means of achieving excellence [emphasis on the word the rez press is based on], and
they have not done so.

Generic Voter against negative:

The negative speaker, therefore, has not negated the resolution because they have not shown that [insert
header of rez press here]. A vote to uphold the resolution in its actual meaning is still warranted.

Resolutionality a Voter:
Three reasons:
1) Theory: An affirmative ballot says that you have been convinced of the truth of the resolution.
They can't convince you of the resolution if they're argumentation does not discuss it
2) Fairness: We came here to debate the resolution, and only the resolution. We are not to be
expected to be prepared to debate just anything, and so you need to vote against a speaker who
is not arguing within the grounds of the resolution.
1. Brightline: They may be close to the resolution, but they have gone past the actual limit. It
doesn't matter how close they are if they aren't in clear boundaries. Debate is more fair
when there is an absolute standard to what is and isn't resolutional.
2. Precedent: Allowing someone to argue outside of the bounds of the resolution may not
seem to bad if they're close, but it sets a precedent of allowing non-resolutional cases,
allowing even greater degrees of unfairness and non-resolutionality in the future.
3) Education: We learn more if we here both sides of an issue. Because we can't expect to see, or
reasonably prepare for anything outside the resolution, we don't learn as much when the debate
falls outside that ground.

Resolutionality Presses 2{9} Resolutionality Presses:

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

1: Competition

a) Requires an active participant

Interp: inanimate objects or ideas cannot compete, the competitors must be people, groups of people,
or other conscious actors
Standard: competition - “rivalry between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in
common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the
latter.” - Random House Dictionary [the aff/neg definition didn't specify what kind of things are
competing. This one should be preferred because it gives us more information]
Violation: [Aff/neg] doesn't talk about competing people,
Voter: thus [aff doesn't uphold resolution] OR [neg isn't negating it]

b) Requires an active opponent

Interp: the opponent required by competition must be another person, group, or conscious actor, it
cannot be an idea, thing, standard, or past record.
Standard: a) competition - “[to]engage in a contest; measure oneself against others” - Princeton
Wordnet “Other” implies that they are of the same kind as yourself, and thus cannot be objective
standards.
b) Competition with oneself doesn't not conflict with the idea of working cooperatively. Competition
with other, does. You can't achieve a goal with someone's benefit and achieve it at their expense
simultaneously. Prefer competition with a competitor because it gives conflict to the resolution
c) Card:

“Competing with oneself” is not competition

Kohn, Alfie, “No Contest: The Case Against Competition,” Revised Edition, 1992, Houghton Mifflin,
New York NY, ISBN 0-395-63125-4, p. 6

“We sometimes assume that working toward a goal and setting standards for oneself can take
place only if we compete against others. This is simply false. One can both accomplish a task
and measure one’s progress in the absence of competition. A weightlifter may try to press ten
pounds more than he did yesterday, for example. This is sometimes referred to as “competing
with oneself,” which seems to me a rather unhelpful and even misleading phrase. A comparison
of performance with one’s own previous record or with objective standards is in no way an
instance of competition and it should not be confused with it. Competition is fundamentally an
interactive word, like kissing, and it stretches the term beyond usefulness to speak of competition
with oneself. Moreover, such sloppy usage is sometimes employed in order to argue that
competition is either inevitable or benign: since nobody loses when you try to beat your best

Resolutionality Presses 3{9} 1: Competition

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

time, and since this is a kind of competition, then competition is really not so bad. This, of
course, is just a semantic trick rather than a substantive defense of competition.”

Violation: [aff] is talking about “competing with yourself” or trying to achieve a goal, or trying to
improve oneself, not about actual competition, which requires an opponent.
Voter: Affirmative is not upholding the resolution

Resolutionality Presses 4{9} 1: Competition

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

2: Superior:

[comp/coop] must come first chronologically

Interp: superior means that we should evaluate which one comes first in time
Standard: Superior = “taking precedence” - Webster's New International Dictionary, 3rd Edition,
Unabridged Precedence = “preceding in time” - Princeton WordNet
Violation: [aff's] case says that [competition] is the end goal. OR balanced negative shows that both
are present, but never that cooperation comes first.
Voter: [aff] is not upholding the resolution || [neg] is not defeating the resolution by showing the
presence of both.

Resolutionality Presses 5{9} 2: Superior:

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

3: Cooperation

Requires a common goal

Interp: It is only cooperation when everyone in the group is working to attain the same precise thing
as everyone else.
Standard: Cooperation - “To work or act together toward a common end or purpose.” - The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Kohn, Alfie, “No Contest: The Case Against Competition,” Revised Edition, 1992, Houghton Mifflin,
New York NY, ISBN 0-395-63125-4 p.50-51
Cooperation means more than putting people into groups. It suggests, rather, group participation
in a project where the result is the product of common effort, the goal is shared, and each
member's success is linked with every other's. Practically, this means that ideas and materials,
too, will be shared, labor sometimes will be divided, and everyone in the group will be rewarded
for successful completion of the task. -
Violation: [opponent] is using cooperation to mean any instance where people interact, whether
positively or negatively, or whether there goals are the same or not, or whether the goal is mutually
attainable, or not.

Resolutionality Presses 6{9} 3: Cooperation

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

4: Means

a) Not Motivation
Interp: “Means” refers to “an agent, tool, device, measure, plan, or policy for accomplishing or
furthering a purpose.” - Webster's New International Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Unabridged
Standard: that's what the dictionary says. [Affirmative] didn't define it.
Violation: The [affirmative's] value/criterion of motivation is not talking about a method, tool, or plan
for accomplishing a purpose, it's talking about the reason for having the purpose. The resolution
already implies that we have the purpose, or the motivation, and asks how to get to that goal. The [aff]
hasn't shown competition doing that.
Impact: Non-resolutional. You shouldn't vote affirmative because they haven't given you a reason to
prefer competition as a means.

b) Not Ends
Interp: the resolution doesn't ask us what the ultimate purpose of an activity is, rather, it asks how best
to go about accomplishing it.
Standard: Mean[s]: “Something intervening, intermediate, or intermediary.” - Webster's New
International Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Unabriged
Violation: The [affirmative] is claiming that competition is the ultimate purpose of [sports, businesses,
&c.], or that it is the initial motivator.
Voter: Not what the resolution is asking about. We may be operating in a competitive framework, that
does not mean competition is a better “means”. So the affirmative fails to uphold the resolution.

Resolutionality Presses 7{9} 4: Means

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

5: Achieve

Value must be attainable

Cross-Ex: Can we ever have your value completely? [If the value is something like progress, this
shouldn't even be necessary]
Interp: we need to be able to completely obtain the [aff/neg] value.
Standard: Achieve is defined as “To bring to a successful conclusion: carry out successfully:
accomplish. To cause to end: make to cease: bring about the end of.” - Webster's New International
Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Unabridged
Violation: Their value cannot be completely achieved.
Voter: 1. Non-resolutional. You can't substitute their value for excellence because it can't be achieved.
2. [if value is excellence]: excellence can't be completely achieved, therefore the resolution is
impossible to uphold, you can't vote aff. [Also works as justification for limiting the res to one value]

Resolutionality Presses 8{9} 5: Achieve

Joshua Mirth PARADE, Wisconsin

6: Excellence

Must prove a benefit

Interp: The [aff/neg] must show that they're side of the resolution produces a greater benefit than the
other, not just that it leads to less of a harm.
Standard: Excellence - “The state of possessing good qualities in an eminent degree” - Webster's New
International Dictionary, 3rd edition. The inclusion of excellence in the resolution clearly implies that
we are to look at what gives good qualities, not which one gives fewer bad qualities.
Violation: the [aff/neg] has only shown a potential harm to choosing [cooperation/competition].
Voter: This doesn't not [prove/disprove] the resolution.

Resolutionality Presses 9{9} 6: Excellence