You are on page 1of 16

File Notes:

This is your basic kritik of spreading. It’s separated into three separate impacts –
fairness, education, and linguistic nonviolence.

IN THE 1NC: just read the section tagged “spreading kritik 1NC”.

IN THE 2NC read the thing called “2NC overview” before anything (and tell the
judge you have an overview on the kritik in your roadmap. This section contains
important meta-issues and framework/Role of Ballot).

EDUCATION ARGUMENTS: If they’ve made arguments that resemble “spreading

is good for education”, read the whole block “2NC education”. If they haven’t
spent a long time on this in the 2AC (5+ minutes), you should go for it for the
WHOLE 2NC/1NR and refute every claim they make point by point, and read the
extensions as well.

ANSWERS AT THE END: I’ve included a number of things that begin with “2NC
AT ----“. The term “AT” stands for “Answer to” and refutes a common, anticipated
argument. So for example if they make a perm, you go to the “AT perms” section
and read that.

STRUCTURING THE 2NR: if you go for this argument in the 2NR, it should be the
ONLY argument you go for (its better to win one whole argument than half win
two arguments). You should begin with an overview, where you summarize each
of your three impacts (education, fairness, linguistic nonviolence), extend the role
of the ballot, and argue why it justifies dropping them. Then (much like the
2NC/1NR) do line by line refutation of their arguments in the 1AR.

With love,
Spreading Kritik 1NC
Spreading has become a framing device that shapes the educational and social opportunities and
exclusions in the debate space.

On face, spreading excludes many persons with various disabilities. People who have manual
and motor impairments cannot flow at the rapid rates necessary to participate in spread debate.
People who have auditory disabilities that prevent hearing the slurred syllables, tone, and pitch at
high speeds are similarly barred from meaningful participation in the activity.

Spreading also creates a class barrier to participating in policy debate. While resource
differentials are inevitable, spreading magnifies the impact of these resource differentials to
unnecessarily expand the scope of individuals barred from meaningful participation. Individuals
with lower socio-economic status often must work one or multiple jobs to contribute to their
family’s basic survival needs. The exhaustion created by working complicates taking a full
course load at schools, where students of lower-socioeconomic status must compete with
students of means personalized tutors and prep courses for tests that determine their futures.
Only once they have completed their economic work and their education can their work on
policy debate begin. We must in our spare time compete with major schools like Glenbrooks
North and Damien. We must compete with their coaches and squads of debaters, who cut and
update a plethora of files. Our school has no policy program, no expensive coaching
infrastructure, no access to the factors that otherwise create success in policy. We are the 51.4
million Americans the Census Bureau documented who live in crowded intergenerational homes
that have no room for us to practice spreading because our relatives are asleep. We are here
because a college debater gave his spare time to help us succeed and are otherwise entirely
untrained in policy debate.

The class and social impact of spreading’s exclusion has a global and local effect. In 2000, the
National Federation of High School Associations documented a statewide experiment in
Vermont. Directly because Vermont began enforcing state-wide speed rules in policy debate,
they saw a drastic “increase in the number of schools participating”.

While this impact is perhaps sufficient to justify a rejection of spreading, we also point to the
local effect – namely that spreading can and does exclude us from the debate space, especially
given our specific request to the affirmative prior to the round not to spread. Our resource
disadvantage leaves us comparatively unable to engage with speed debate.

While this is a sufficient reason to reject spreading as a practice, we also levy a normative
objection to the ontology produced by the practice of spreading.
Subpoint A is linguistic nonviolence.
In 1987, Carol Cohn presented a groundbreaking criticism of the sanitized language used to talk about nuclear
weapons and nuclear war. We quote her now because we see that spreading has a similar effect in disconnecting
individuals from the lived experiences of people they purport to discursively represent.1 Cohn writes:

Talking about nuclear weapons is fun. The words are quick, clean, light, they trip off the tongue. You can
reel off dozens of them in seconds, forgetting about how one might interfere with the next, not to mention
with the lives beneath them. Nearly everyone I observed--lecturers, students, hawks, doves, men, and
women--took pleasure in using the words; some of us spoke with a self-consciously ironic edge, but the
pleasure was there nonetheless. Part of the appeal was the thrill of being able to manipulate an arcane
language, the power of entering the secret kingdom. But perhaps more important, learning the language
gives a sense of control, a feeling of mastery over technology that is finally not controllable but powerful
beyond human comprehension. The longer I stayed, the more conversations I participated in, the less I
was frightened of nuclear war. How can learning to speak a language have such a powerful effect?
One answer, discussed earlier, is that the language is abstract and sanitized, never giving access to
the images of war. But there is more to it than that. The learning process itself removed me from the
reality of nuclear war. My energy was focused on the challenge of decoding acronyms, learning new
terms, developing competence in the language--not on the weapons and the wars behind the words. By
the time I was through, I had learned far more than an alternate, if abstract, set of words. The content of
what I could talk about was monumentally different.

Noticeably, Cohn’s description of the language of Cold War defense intellectuals parallels the practices of spreading in
modern policy debate. The pleasure of commanding nuclear jargon in Cohn’s “arcane language” and focus on
technical process over content is mirrored in the pleasure of commanding breakneck speeds in debate and focus on
techne, producing a similar abstraction – and subsequent disconnect – from the subjects involved in the debate.

Christian Chessman, a former policy debater from the University of Florida writes about the ways in which spreading
parallels the linguistic conventions of nuclear defense intellectuals that Cohn criticized.

He writes: “spreading sanitizes the subjects we talk about. There's something to be said for fully
appreciating the topic at hand, or stopping to smell the verbal roses. If we're talking about the mass
slaughter and rape of men, women, and children, the gravity of that discussion bears pause and
consideration; it bears exploration in detail. "solves genocide johnson 12" does not evoke that kind of
humane connection. Spreading disconnects us from the things we talk about, which itself is probably
ethically problematic, but also means we get bad education; we only have a snippet snapshot of the
subjects we're discussing. We miss out on details that don't look relevant on face because we're just
certain we know what's relevant.”

No one has pointed out the ethical problems inherent with this desensitized disconnect than
Gordon Mitchell2. He writes that “The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is
highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune.
Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters
overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the
meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example,
news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an
affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator"
mentality [i]s one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational
institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily

COHN, 87 (Carol, Director of the Boston Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, and a Senior Research Scholar at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, “Slick 'Ems, Glick 'Ems,
Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb”, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, #TL07AA, Volume 43, June,

Mitchell 98 (Gordon R., Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the William Pitt Debating Union at the University of Pittsburgh. “Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic
debate”. Argumentation and Advocacy, Volume 35, Issue 2. Fall 1998. SLS
conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to
turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8)

The ethical problems inherent in spreading extend beyond the desensitized disconnect it
fosters. Bill Shanahan, inventor of the kritik, explains how spreading fosters a subjectivity
of militarism in everyday life3. “The second critical generation exposed violent forms of
domination throughout debate practice, including, at times insurmountable, access barriers
for those whose tastes ran less to insular, idiosyncratic policymaking. Brutalizing forms of
technique – that is, outrageous levels of speed in concert with impressive word economy
that conspired to leave even the most engaged participants desperate for more than a few
scribbles with a date, near slavish devotion to the afore-mentioned minutiae of flowing
where ink passes for argument and a drop is as good as a “kill,” and inevitable, speech
reconstruction by debaters during cross-ex and prep time, and by judges during extended
decision-time after debates – were a lightening rod of critical attention and served to help
reduce those access barriers for a whole host of alternative, different perspectives to enter
debate, now with concomitant opportunities to succeed.”

While you may initially balk at the comparison between wars of weapons and wars of
words, Shanahan explains the importance of everday conduct in fostering subjectivities
and broader worldviews.4

“These vast research skills translated into a ferocious techne, one which combined the dazzling
speed and word economy from earlier generations with a level of unparalleled argumentative
sophistication. In the transition however, strategy had become mundane and repetitive. Debates
had begun to resemble its flows, practically inverting their representational relationship.
Specifically, flows have long resembled a terrifying Civil War re-enactment, where armies (or
arguments) are lined up against one another, thrown into battle, and those left standing (extended)
are sized up, with winners declared. The battlefield carnage might seem too distant and
inappropriate to desecrate in analogy. The violence “out there” is also ordered in the realities of
this essay and of debate rounds. Jayan Nayar argues for the absolute importance of struggling
against dominant, violent order-ings in all of our realities. Cf. “`We‟ are participants in ordered
worlds, not merely observers. The choice whether we wish to recognize our own locations of
ordered violence and participate in the struggle to resist their orderings, or whether we wish merely
to observe violence in far-off worlds in order that our interventionary participation “out there”
never destabilizes the ground upon which we stand. I suggest that we betray the spirit of
transformatory struggle, despite of our expressions of support and even actions of professional
expertise, if our own locations, within which are ordered and from which we ourselves order,
remain unscrutinized” (p. 628).”

Shanahan in 2004 [Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays] “Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism” September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol.
25. p3-4

Shanahan in 2004 [Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays] “Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism” September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate.
Vol. 25. P5
The unquestioned norms and behaviors performed by the affirmative are not neutral or temporary, but
actively cultivate and produce the subjectivities of the debaters who respond. Taken collectively, these
individuals produce a violent and unquestioned ontology. Bill Shanahan5 explains,

“Due to editorial constraints, this essay limits itself to drawing a narrow strand out of and across
contemporary debate theory and practice, in order to illustrate and lay to rest the “controversy.”
The strategy on which second-generation kritik-ing pivoted was exposing interpretation at the heart
of topicality. While of course much energy over the decades has been poured into interpreting the
topic, most of that energy was spent on ways of effectively limiting the topic by delimiting the
boundaries around it and creating itself through a constitutive outside. Little effort was devoted
previously to examining the relationship involved in affirming the topic. The activity of affirmation
was engaged unproblematically because the realities imbedded in it were so long habituated.
Topical relationships are, by no means, the extent and limit of this critical movement. Nonetheless,
tracing the contours of how this relationship changed so dramatically over the last seven or eight
years should help us to better understand why debate desperately needed kritiks and how kritik-ing
so handily became such an integral, inseparable part of debate.[continues 2 paragraphs later] One
important theoretical consideration emerged from the discernment of a previously unnoticed
topical function (that the topic might be considered to have particular functions at all was itself the
result of the gradual influx of discourse theory). Every year and before every debate, the resolved-
colon hails or interpellates debaters as affirmative subjects. Lacanian Marxist Louis Althusser,
while discussing the mirror-structure of bourgeois capitalist ideology, argues that it ensures “the
interpellation of „individuals‟ as subjects” and their mutual recognition of each other and
themselves.2 For debate, the topic hails affirmative debaters and their 1ac‟s answer that hail, either
explicitly or implicitly. Too often, debaters presume that if they do not debate something then it
does not matter. The second generation exposed this sentiment as fallacious and sought to
argumentatively contradict it in debate rounds. An unacknowledged topical hail no less hails
affirmative debaters. The implications are obvious and legion: Whether or not debaters accept the
topical hail, they still are interpellated by it and can be defeated by it, if their opponents respond
more effectively to it. The topic‟s relationship to everyone in the debate was exposed and debatable.

The form and content of the 1AC are co-constitutive and cannot be separated – the affirmative’s
performance is necessarily implicated by its deliberate and willful choice to spread. Carol Cohn
But learning the language is a transformative process. You are not simply adding new
information; new vocabulary, but entering a mode of thinking not only about nuclear weapons
but also about military and political power, and about the relationship between human ends and
technological means. The language and the mode of thinking are not neutral containers of
information; they were developed by a specific group of men, trained largely in abstract
theoretical mathematics and economics, specifically to make it possible to think rationally about
the use of nuclear weapons. That the language is not well suited to do anything but makes it
possible to think about nuclear weapons should not be surprising.
We therefore ask you to reject the affirmative‟s speech act as an act of linguistic nonviolence,
rejecting the duality of ordered militarism and desensitization their performance necessarily

Shanahan in 2004 [Bill, inventor of the kritik and former debate coach @ Ft. Hays] “Twilight of the Topical Idols: Kritik-ing in the Age of Imperialism” September 2004. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate. Vol.
25. p7-8

COHN, 87 (Carol, Director of the Bos3)ton Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights, and a Senior Research Scholar at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, “Slick 'Ems, Glick
'Ems, Christmas Trees, and Cookie Cutters: Nuclear Language and How We Learned to Pat the Bomb”, BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, #TL07AA, Volume 43, June,
2NC Overview –
Extend that spreading produces a form of policy debate that is both insular and exclusionary.

Disabled persons who lack the ability to flow or follow spreading are epistemologically barred
from meaningful participation by spreading as a practice. Such cases may seem marginal in large
part because these people never get their foot in the door – the barrier to participation is set
higher than they are able to access. As a result, these people are both functionally barred from
the activity AND left below the social radar, despite the fact that they are no less deserving of the
education and benefits conferred by policy debate.

Second, extend the class element of spreading – it exacerbates resource inequalities and
promotes success in the hands of the few. Why do you think the same schools win the TOC and
NFLs every year? The class element also precludes the ability to practice spreading in the sense
that (1) our time is already exhausted on work and school and (2) intergenerational households
are crowded such that we lack a place to practice spreading without disrupting the remainder of
the house. The National Federation of High School Associations evidence is damning insofar as
it is an empirical case study that proves the exclusion argument –level of participation is
negatively correlated with speed of debate. This is an independent voting issue.

Third, extend the linguistic nonviolence argument – spreading sanitizes and desensitizes debaters
to the humanity underlying their arguments, discouraging focus on the human lives behind their
arguments and instead incentivizing them to focus on the hypertechnical elements of debate. The
result is a spectator mentality which Gordon Mitchell says is embodied in debater celebrations of
suffering, which are all too common. Our Shanahan evidence says the repeated acceptance of
these norms begins to shape our very worldview, fostering militaristic subjectivities, which is
why debate arguments begin to resemble wars. Shanahan points out that how we behave in
debate translates into how we behave in the real world, and cements militarism as a foundational
assumption of our thinking. Cohn echoes this point when arguing that the language through
which content is expressed is not neutral, but actively shapes both the subject of speech and the
speaker themselves, meaning that the act of spreading produces a violent ontology.

Our kritik performatively solves for the militaristic norms of spreading by opening up a space in
which those norms are not dominant and normalized, but contested and problematized. Dr. Dana
Polson, in her ethnographic study of the debate community, explains this process:7

“Janice Cooper, college debater, agreed, finding traditional norms of debate restrictive to being
able to speak fully and freely: There’s a difference between a rule and a norm. ... But like the
norm is speed reading, and spreading, and having to affirm the national government. Those are norms that we don’t abide by because we feel as though you should be able to, like that should be a
space where you should come in and be able to like speak your piece. And you shouldn’t have to conform to certain types of restrictions. (Janice Cooper, interview, p. 2). Here, Janice affirms, in a sense, her self-creation of a space in

which she can speak freely. The interesting thing here is that no one has invited Janice to speak her mind in debate; the norms militate against that. However, Janice and other performance debaters thus create their own spaces

through speech. The practice of performance debate is so difficult, in part, because it breaks some of


many silences we construct around issues of power. Sometimes speaking your piece means
not just saying what‟s on one‟s mind, but breaking silences constructed to protect the
powerful from recognition. Bailey (1998) points out that “silence about privilege is itself a
function of privilege and it has a chilling effect on political discourse” (p. 16).Whiteness, for
example, is un-marked, normed, and therefore invisible and silent. Continuing to keep quiet
about whiteness continues the privilege. The practice of speaking out, then, is not the joining
of an in-progress conversation, or the addition of an alternative voice in some way. Instead,
there is an overwhelming silence that has to be broached in order to do the practice. Even
in schools where students of such marginalized social location are the majority, the
misrecognition and the avoidance hold, and these things are rarely discussed. How are these
metaphorical, conceptual silences seen in debate practice? How are they perpetuated?

The role of the ballot is to produce the most inclusive, educational debate space. The way
we frame and decide our educational debates over ideology will determine the strength of
that ideology‟s hold over us.
Louis Althusser, Marxist philosopher; Professor of Philosophy, Ecole Normale Superieure, 1970, “Ideology and Ideological State
Apparatuses,”, web paging
the ideological State apparatus
That is why I believe that I am justified in advancing the following Thesis, however precarious it is. I believe that
which has been installed in the dominant position in mature capitalist social formations as a result of a
violent political and ideological class struggle against the old dominant ideological State apparatus, is the educational ideological
apparatus. This thesis may seem paradoxical, given that for everyone, i.e. in the ideological representation that the bourgeoisie has tried to give itself and the
classes it exploits, it really seems that the dominant ideological State apparatus in capitalist social formations is not the Schools, but the political ideological State
apparatus, i.e. the regime of parliamentary democracy combining universal suffrage and party struggle. However, history, even recent history, shows that the
bourgeoisie has been and still is able to accommodate itself to political ideological State apparatuses other than parliamentary democracy: the First and Second
Empires, Constitutional Monarchy (Louis XVIII and Charles X), Parliamentary Monarchy (Louis-Philippe), Presidential Democracy (de Gaulle), to mention only
France. In England this is even clearer. The Revolution was particularly 'successful' there from the bourgeois point of view, since unlike France, where the
bourgeoisie, partly because of the stupidity of the petty aristocracy, had to agree to being carried to power by peasant and plebeian journèes revolutionnaires',
something for which it had to pay a high price, the English bourgeoisie was able to 'compromise' with the aristocracy and 'share' State power and the use of the State
apparatus with it for a long time (peace among all men of good will in the ruling classes!). In Germany it is even more striking, since it was behind a political
ideological State apparatus in which the imperial Junkers (epitomized by Bismarck), their army and their police provided it with a shield and leading personnel, that
the imperialist bourgeoisie made its shattering entry into history, before 'traversing' the Weimar Republic and entrusting itself to Nazism. Hence I believe I have good
reasons for thinking that behind the scenes of its political Ideological State Apparatus, which occupies the front of the stage, what the
bourgeoisie has installed as its number-one, i.e. as its dominant ide-ological State apparatus, is the educational apparatus, which has in fact
replaced in its functions the previously dominant ideological State apparatus, the Church. One might even add: the School-Family couple
has replaced the Church-Family couple. Why is the educational apparatus in fact the dominant ideological State apparatus in capitalist social formations, and
how does it function? For the moment it must suffice to say: 1. All ideological State apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to the same result: the
reproduction of the relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation. 2. Each of them
contributes towards this single result in the way proper to it. The political apparatus by subjecting individuals to the political State ideology, the 'indirect'
(parliamentary) or 'direct' (plebiscitary or fascist) 'democratic' ideology. The communications apparatus by cramming every 'citizen' with daily doses of nationalism,
chauvinism, liberalism, moralism, etc., by means of the press, the radio and television. The same goes for the cultural apparatus (the role of sport in chauvinism is of
the first importance), etc. The religious apparatus by recalling in sermons and the other great ceremonies of Birth, Marriage and Death, that man is only ashes, unless
This concert
he loves his neighbour to the extent of turning the other cheek to whoever strikes first. The family apparatus ... but there is no need to go on. 3.
is dominated by a single score, occasionally disturbed by contradictions (those of the remnants of former ruling classes, those of the proletarians
and their organizations): the score of the Ideology of the current ruling class which integrates into its music the great themes of the Humanism of the Great
Forefathers, who produced the Greek Miracle even before Christianity, and afterwards the Glory of Rome, the Eternal City, and the themes of Interest, particular and
one ideological State apparatus certainly has
general, etc. nationalism, moralism and economism. 4. Nevertheless, in this concert,
the dominant role, although hardly anyone lends an ear to its music: it is so silent! This is the
School. It takes children from every class at infant-school age, and then for years, the years in which the child is most
'vulnerable', squeezed between the family State apparatus and the educational State apparatus, it drums into them, whether it uses new or old
methods, a certain amount of 'know-how' wrapped in the ruling ideology (French, arithmetic, natural history, the sciences,
literature) or simply the ruling ideology in its pure state (ethics, civic instruction, philosophy).
Somewhere around the age of sixteen, a huge mass of children is ejected 'into production': these are the workers or small peasants. Another portion of scholastically
adapted youth carries on: and, for better or worse, it goes somewhat further, until it falls by the wayside and fills the posts of small and middle technicians, white-
collar workers, small and middle executives, petty bourgeois of all kinds. A last portion reaches the summit, either to fall into intellectual semi-employment, or to
provide, as well as the `intellectuals of the collective labourer, the agents of exploitation (capitalists, managers), the agents of repression (soldiers, policemen,
Each mass ejected en
politicians, administrators, etc.) and the professional ideologists (priests of all sorts, most of whom are convinced laymen').
route is practically provided with the ideology which suits the role it has to fulfill in class society:
the role of the exploited (with a `highly-developed' `professional; 'ethical, 'civic, 'national' and a-political consciousness); the role of the agent of exploitation (ability
to give the workers orders and speak to them: 'human relations'), of the agent of repression (ability to give orders and enforce obedience 'without discussion,' or ability
to manipulate the demagogy of a political leader's rhetoric), or of the professional ideologist (ability to treat consciousnesses with the respect, i.e. with the contempt,
blackmail, and demagogy they deserve, adapted to the accents of Morality, of Virtue, of 'Transcendence, of the Nation, of France's World Role, etc.). Of course, many
of these contrasting Virtues (modesty, resignation, submissiveness on the one hand, cynicism, contempt, arrogance, confidence, self-importance, even smooth talk and
cunning on the other) are also taught in the Family, in the Church, in the Army, in Good Books, in films and even in the football stadium. But no other ideological
State apparatus has the obligatory (and not least, free) audience of the totality of the children in the capitalist social formation, eight hours a day for five or six days
out of seven. But it is by an apprenticeship in a variety of know-how wrapped up in the massive inculcation of
the ideology of the ruling class that the relations of production in a capitalist Social formation, i.e. the relations of
exploited to exploiters and exploiters to exploited are largely reproduced. The mechanisms which produce this vital result for the capitalist regime are
naturally covered up and concealed by a universally reigning ideology of the School, universally reigning because it is one of the essential
forms of the ruling bourgeois ideology: an ideology which represents the School as a neutral environment purged of ideology
(because it is . . lay), where teachers respectful of the 'conscience' and 'freedom' of the children who are entrusted to the m (in complete confidence) by their 'parents'
(who are free, too, i.e. the owners of their children) open up for them the path to the freedom, morality and responsibility of adults by their own example, by
teachers who, in dreadful conditions, attempt to turn the few weapons
knowledge, literature and their 'liberating' virtues. I ask the pardon of those
they can find in the history and learning they `teach' against the ideology, the system and the practices in which they are trapped. They are a kind
of hero. But they are rare and how many (the majority) do not even begin to suspect the 'work' the system
(which is bigger than they are and crushes them) forces them to do, or worse, put all their heart and ingenuity into performing it with the most advanced
awareness (the famous new methods!). So little do they suspect it that their own devotion contributes to the maintenance and nourishment of this ideological
representation of the School, which makes the School today as 'natural', indispensable-useful and even beneficial for our contemporaries as the Church was 'natural,
indispensable and generous for our ancestors a few centuries ago. In fact, the Church has been replaced today in its role as the dominant Ideolo gical State Apparatus
by the School. It is coupled with the Family just as the Church was once coupled with the Family. We can now claim that the unprecedentedly deep crisis which is
now shaking the education system of so many States across the globe, often in conjunction with a crisis (already proclaimed in the Communist Manifesto) shaking the
family system, takes on a political meaning, given that the School (and the School-Family couple) constitutes the dominant Ideological State Apparatus, the Apparatus
playing a determinant part in the reproduction of the relations of production of a mode of production threatened in its existence by the world class struggle.

Now on to the line-by-line.

2NC Education –
Group the education debate –

Debaters often point to increased education as the primary benefit of spreading. Even if this were
true, access to that education would be limited to an insular minority, who likely already have the
resources to access education while simultaneously disadvantaging those who most need education.

However, we will also problematizes the idea that spreading produces a superior type of
education. Feminist pedagogues Laura Sjoberg and Ann Tickner explain how spreading
produces a bankrupt form of pedagogy, because it precludes the dialoguic coproduction of
knowledge. They argue that spreading does this in three ways: 1) replicating conversational
power asymmetries (I can‟t spread as fast as you), 2) disrupts common communication
languages (I cannot hear spreading and NOBODY can process spreading) and 3) prevents
good faith exchange (we requested you not to spread).8
Feminist research generally, and this book specifically, draws a distinction between
“communicating to” an audience (where the researcher as the authorial voice gathers
correct information and informs the audience of that information) and “communicating
with” an audience where knowledge is discovered in conversation with diverse others.
Floya Anthias (2002, 282) has characterized the moment of communicating with as a
“dialogical moment,” where “effective dialogue requires an already formulated mutual
respect, a common communication language, and a common starting point in terms of
power.” It also assumes good will of all the partners in the dialogue (Anthias 2002, 282).
Mutual respect, common language, good will, and common starting points in terms of
power can, of course, never be perfectly achieved. And even finding this rare and excellent
combination of qualities between researchers (or practitioners in the policy world) does not
guarantee success. Instead, conversations are difficult, and it is hard to avoid coming into
the dialogue convinced that one‟s own 9argument is correct and those of others are flawed.
Feminist conversations, then, are ideal-types, to be aspired to if never perfectly achieved.
Recognizing these limitations, “dialogue and diversity are seen as strengths” in feminist
theorizing (Ackerly, Stern, and True 2006, 5). Engaging in dialogues that aspire to
approximate the communicative ideal-type described above is not only an exercise in
theoretical methodology, it is itself theorizing. Marysia Zalewski (1996) tells us that theory
can be understood as explanation, critique, or practice; feminist conversations are an
exercise in theorizing feminist politics through practice.

The implication is that even if they produce more education, its BAD education – the quality of the
education suffers in the drive to mass produce it. Prefer education that is accessible and quality over
insular and bankrupt education.

Sjoberg and Tickner 2012. [Laura, Ph.D in IR from USC, author of 9 books, editor of the International Journal of Feminist Politics and Professor of IR and J. Ann, founder of feminist international
relations, IR Professor @ AU, frmr president of ISA, professor Emerita @ USC.] Introduction. Feminism and International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present, and Future. p11-12
Their form of education also reproduces social hierarchies of power – independent voting
issue. Dr‟s Sjoberg and Tickner write:9
The organization of this book as conversations, interlinked and layered at different levels,
is not just stylistic but substantive. Lucinda Peach (1994, 153) once noted that the
“emphasis on collaboration in feminist theorizing” means that feminist articles, books, and
other research products might look different from other scholarship, given the tendency of
feminists and feminisms to work in dialogue and conversation. This tendency is not
incidental; it is fundamental - feminisms‟ concerns for the relationship between
positionality and knowledge and for understanding relationships of domination and
subordination in politics suggest that dialogue is one of the most appropriate ways to
approach theorizing, analyzing, and practicing global politics

Sjoberg and Tickner 2012. [Laura, Ph.D in IR from USC, author of 9 books, editor of the International Journal of Feminist Politics and Professor of IR and J. Ann, founder of feminist international relations, IR
Professor @ AU, frmr president of ISA, professor Emerita @ USC.] Introduction. Feminism and International Relations: Conversations about the Past, Present, and Future. p11
2NC Education Extension – Oversimplification (read if
time provides / you’re going for this K)
Christian Chessman, former policy debater from UF, explains that
education is further damaged through the argument
oversimplification produced by spreading.
He writes: Additionally - because of the high speed, we rely on simplistic heuristics to help
manage the arguments. this is a "reps k"; this is a "race team"; hell, even "this is a kritik". We throw
around words like "structural violence"; "genocide"; "discourse"; "hegemony; "resistance";
"oppression" with little regard to their meaning. For example; "structural violence" could refer to
anything from "violence that has been institutionalized" (like institutional racism) to "violence that is
the result of an overall structuring social principle" (marxists would say this is class) to "violence that
shows up in every day life but is non-physical" (the mis-tag people give to the Cuomo cards). Cuomo
would RADICALLY disagree with the marxist meaning of "structural violence", but because of the need
for heuristics they get lumped in together. The genesis of that need for heuristics is information
overload, caused by spreading. The problem with these heuristics is they simplify arguments which
are not simple, but differ in meaningful ways: these heuristics encourage anti-educational, simplistic
responses. Even "this is a cap K" is simplistic; and the 2AC to a cap K should vary WILDLY depending
on the type of cap K. We end up recycling the same arguments year after year on both sides of the
debate-aisle and don't really learn the nuances and depth that the literature provides.
2NC Education Extension – Argument Irresponsibility
(read if time provides / you’re going for this K)
Christian Chessman explains that spreading creates a culture of
argument irresponsibility that harms education.
He writes “if teams had to make their arguments at a slower speed, fewer ridiculous arguments would
slip by. A big reason nonsense gets by in debate is because we literally cannot hear what the opponent
is saying to determine whether or not its nonsense. Spreading mystifies confusing arguments and
gives them an excuse for being run that we just never question; instead of saying "I couldnt
understand what they said because what they said was nonsense", we say "I couldnt understand what
they said because they were talking so fast". How else do we explain the continued prevalence of
"timecube", "flat earth", "death good", "rape good" and other similar arguments in an otherwise
academic community?
2NC AT: Hard debate = Good debate
1) No link - our argument isn’t “debate should be easier”, it’s that debate’s participation barrier should not be
determined by one’s class or disability level. Circuit style speed debate is a capital-intensive process that
isn’t neutral – their conception of hard debate is weighed with ideological baggage.
2) Turn – harder debate for one team is easier debate for another – spreading makes it easy for well-
resourced teams to outcompete us simply by outspreading us – evening the playing field is a pre-requisite
to rigorous debate.
3) Turn – their form of debate isn’t rigorous or educational – cross apply our Sjoberg and Tickner evidence
about dialogic knowledge production.
4) Militarism outweighs – the production of violent subjectivities outweighs any nebulous benefits that
spreading might have.
2NC AT Reps Don’t Matter
1. False – extend Cohn – the language we use to articulate
content shapes the way we filter the content. Mitchell is
specific to debate on this question and demonstrates
how the sanitization produced by spreading leads to
celebrations of suffering. Prefer our debate specific
evidence to their generic evidence.
2. Exclusion matters - the affirmative participates in
constructing a participation barrier based on class and
disability – that’s an independent reason to drop them.
The National Federation of High School Associations
evidence impacts this argument saying participation is
directly connected to speed.
2NC AT Breadth > Depth
1. Misses the boat – our Sjoberg and Tickner evidence
indicate their education is bad education whether or not
its broad or deep.
2. Inaccessible – if we can’t access the education, it
doesn’t matter how much breadth you cover because we
can’t engage it.
3. Depth is superior – its better to read 100 pages of one
book than the first page of 100 books.
2NC AT Perms
Group the perm debate –

1. No perms – our kritik doesn’t have or need an alternative, so there’s

literally nothing to perm. Our reading of the 1NC and 2NC is a
counterperformance that disrupts the performance of the 1AC, and is what
the judge votes for.
2. Don’t need an alt – all we have to do is prove the affirmative advocacy
undesirable, which the kritik does, and then prove why voting against it
solves – that’s the Polson and Althusser evidence from the overview.

2NC AT: How fast is too fast?

1) About 4-5 words per second, adjustable to the request of the other team –
Sjoberg and Tickner say that all participants must be able to interact and
invest in the dialogic process of knowledge production to avoid the
reproduction of epistemic heirarchies.

2NC AT: Time Skew Inevitable

1) Turn – time skew is a question of gradients, not thresholds. Even if it‟s inevitable,
it‟s severity is not.
2) This is purely defensive – not a reason to reject our argument
3) Doesn‟t answer our militarism arguments – extend Shanahan – violent subjectivity
formation is an independent voting issue.