Sie sind auf Seite 1von 82

!"#$#!%&'()*%$)"+',%-(*..

/'
*01'2%!/#)'3%++)0''
4566'
(#")!$."'.7'()*%$)'
8-#9)"+#$0'.7'./&%,.3%'
+..-)"()*%$):!.3'
'



"Not eveiy uebatei can fit into the squaie hole of policy uebate. Some people neeu
iounu holes, oi obtuse ones oi no hole at all. I think each uebatei biings theii own
style to uebate. The question is, uo they take up a methou of uebate that allows
them to access that style."
'
'
$;<='>?@A?B'C?='?@'<DE?'4'FE?G='?HI'?JKEG'IAG'J<G=K'%BKEG@?K<LE'(EM?KE'
NIGO=;IPQ'$;E'!?BB'IJ'K;E'&II@:''-IC'<K';?='MERI>E'?'KESK'K;?K'PEIPBE'R?@'
AK<B<TE'KI'DEM?KE'IAK=<DE'IJ'K;E'KG?D<K<I@?B'PIB<RF'DEM?KE'=KFBE'?@D'>EK;ID:''
(EM?KE'<='UIIDV'
'
'
INTR0B0CTI0N: ........................................................................................................................................ 4
RESEARCB:.................................................................................................................................................11
BEBATE AB00T BEBATE: ...................................................................................................................1S
FRANEW0RK............................................................................................................................................17
WBAT IS P0LITICS 0R A P0LITICAL ACT. .............................................................................18
F0RCE TBE LINK BETWEEN TBEIR FRANEW0RK EvIBENCE ANB TBEIR
PARTIC0LAR ACTI0N.......................................................................................................................18
TBE RISK 0F A LINK..........................................................................................................................18
WB0 C0NTR0LS P0LITICS...........................................................................................................2u
FRANEW0RK CENTRAL..................................................................................................................21
CRITICAL FRANEW0RK ARu0NENTS IF Y00'RE NEuATIvE .......................................24
BEBATINu AFFIRNATIvE: ..................................................................................................................29
STRATEuIC AFFIRNATIvE TBINKINu! ....................................................................................S1
INP0RTANT C0NP0NENTS 0F Y00R AFF K STRATEuY.................................................S1
BEBATINu NEuATIvE:..........................................................................................................................S2
TBE LANu0AuE 0F TBE KRITIK.................................................................................................S4
TBE LINK BEBATE.............................................................................................................................S7
INPACT BEBATE.................................................................................................................................S8
TBE PERN0TATI0N..........................................................................................................................S9
TBE ALTERNATIvE: ..........................................................................................................................42
ALTERNATIvE TBE0RY ARu0NENTS...........................................................................................44
BEBATINu CRITICAL TEANS.............................................................................................................4S
SPEEB: .....................................................................................................................................................47
FL0WuANE-B0ARB: ......................................................................................................................49
WBAT IS EvIBENCE. ........................................................................................................................S1
0SE 0F EvIBENCE:.............................................................................................................................S1
CR0SS-EXANINATI0N: ....................................................................................................................S2
WBAT IS AN 0vERvIEW! ................................................................................................................S4
BEINu PREPAREB 0N TBE KEY ARu0NENTS......................................................................SS
BEINu A u00B EvENIF BEBATER! ..........................................................................................S6
CBIT-CBAT............................................................................................................................................S7
BEBATE 1u1 S0NNARY.......................................................................................................................S8
CAPITALISN K BIBLI0uRAPBY.........................................................................................................6u
BEBATE AB00T BEBATE BIBLI0uRAPBY...................................................................................64
FIRST PRI0RITY T0 FIRST ANERICANS BIBI0uRAPBY........................................................67
FRANEW0RK K S0PP0RTBEBATE AB00T BEBATE ...........................................................69
FRANEW0RK ANTI-K BIBLI0uRAPBY..........................................................................................71
BEIBEuuER K BIBLI0uRAPBY..........................................................................................................7S
WBITENESS K BIBLI0uRAPBY!........................................................................................................76
C0NN0N ANSWERS T0 KRITIKS ....................................................................................................8u

INTRODUCTION:

Bebate is what we make it! Theie is no one uefinition of uebate.
The puipose of this manual is to help offei you the knowleuge to cieate the base to
be an effective ciitical uebatei. I will use K, Kiitik, ciitique, ciitical, anu Kiitical all
inteichangeably to mean the same thing. You shoulun't cite this manual as eviuence
in a uebate iounu. You shoulu use the aiguments fiom the manual against youi
opponents in uebate iounus. This manual is piimaiily foi stuuents who compete in
cioss-examination oi policy uebate on the high school anu college level.
Theie aie many uiffeient peispectives on when the "Kiitik" was fiist utilizeu in
college uebate. I have heaiu a few uiffeient stoiies. All I can uo is go with my stoiy
on how I was attiacteu to this type of uebate. I was a foimei SI0 uebatei unuei the
uiiection of Bile. When I aiiiveu at SI0, they weie uoing something unique in
uebate. In the final iounu of CEBA in 1989, they playeu what we calleu }azz. Insteau
of uebating out the legal pieceuence of law with uonzaga, SI0 maue an aigument
that law is patiiaichial anu that we must question those notions befoie we can
uiscuss what is "just". I got involveu in the enviionmental ethic aigument anu founu
this concept of holism that was iathei attiactive anu seemeu like something to giasp
onto. To auu a little histoiy anu context, though, a gioup of uebateis at the
0niveisity of Texas in the 9u's began to call some of theii aiguments "kiitiks" to
uistinguish them fiom countei-plans, uisauvantages, anu othei tiauitional
aiguments being useu at the time. Woiking with coach Shanahan, Biouy, NcBiiue,
Emeison, NcPheison anu many otheis staiteu to biing philosophy moie explicitly
into policy uebates by attacking the unueilying assumptions of the uebate anu theii
opponent's aiguments insteau of taking the policy calculus anu the agent of action
foi gianteu." I think Bestei has a stoiy on "putting the K in uebate".
Bebate has changeu. Theie weie times when some people weieaie ieally goou at a
specific type of uebate. As they get bettei at this type of uebate, its logical that they
woulu want uebate to be what they weie goou at. The same is tiue foi the ciitical
uebatei. They woulu iathei uebate be something else that gives them a chance.
Neithei siue is wiong; the question is who can best uefenu what they uo. Even I was
taught that uebate was stock issues. Five piima-facia issues, like it was all in cleai
biight-lines. But as time has passeu, uebate has changeu. The technology, the
people, the methous anu woilu pieuicaments have all evolveu.
Not eveiy uebatei can fit into the squaie hole of policy uebate. Some people neeu
iounu holes, oi obtuse ones oi no hole at all. I think each uebatei biings theii own
style to uebate. The question is, uo they take up a methou of uebate that allows
them to access that style.
I also auvise you to ieau Sun Tzu's Ait of Wai. 0ne impoitant thing is to iespect
policy uebate, especially when it is uone well. You must assume eveiy iounu youi
opponent will be at theii best. Two things iise to the top in a goou uebate. Who has
a goou aigument anu who has goou eviuence to suppoit theii aigument.
NE'?GE'?BB'PEGJIG>?@RE'KE?>=W:#KX='?BB'?'PEGJIG>?@REWW'
The best K uebateis aie the ones who unueistanu how people misinteipiet what K
uebateis uo, anu how most aiguments maue against ciitical positions only function
aiounu false steieotypes. As you will see, if you uo not engage in faulty K uebate,
then most of the common theoiy aiguments to uismiss ciiticisms have no impact on
youi aigument. Stay aheau of the cuive. What aie people mostly saying, anu how
uo I avoiu uebating it oi, how uo I uefeat it sounuly. As you utilize this guiue, you
will see how you can play off of the misinfoimeu peispectives people have about K
uebateis. Nuch of this comes fiom people wanting to not go in the squaie hole, but
lack the knowleuge anu expeiience to take up the best methou. Anu thus we have
bau K uebate, just like we have bau policy uebate.
What is a Kiitik. I uo not want to give an exclusionaiy example that woulu pievent
ceitain aiguments fiom being a Kiitik. Tiauitionally, in uebate we weie taught the
basic S piima-facia issues that must be met to have a legitimate affiimative. Nany
aiguments weie what I woulu call piocess-oiienteu aiguments. As people weie
taught to have auvantages to theii plan, anu uisauvantages to the othei teams plans.
Theie then became the common theme of having a few components of a
(uis)auvantage that incluue - A: Link. B: 0niqueness C: Biink B: Impact oi L0BI.
The ability to have uniqueness within youi aigument was a key ueciuing factoi foi
many uebates. People woulu ueteimine uo you have a unique auvantage oi
uisauvantage. Foi many yeais in uebate, just an impact of causing economic
uowntuin anu moie unemployment was enough to win uebates. Then one uay
someone iealizeu that what we woulu feai the most is a wai. This impact giew to
an escalating wai that woulu then tuin nucleai. It was the uiive to finu the biggest
impact that coulu affect the most people. But it was also along the same
methouological lines as the scaie tactics utilizeu uuiing the colu wai. So foi many
yeais, people woulu look foi a unique link to the iisk of a nucleai wai. Theie weie
people who woulu aigue iacism as an impact, but many times because iacism exists,
anu is haiu to measuie, the iisk of a unique link to a nucleai wai outweigheu
inciemental mitigations of iacism. The same coulu be saiu foi sexism oi
homophobia. So what is a ciitique. It is the ciiticizing of the valuesiueals
philosophy embouieu within the basic suppoit foi the plan. This coulu be an
examination of moues, methous, ontologies, ethics, uiscouise oi solutions. What
maue it veiy haiu foi these impacts to be incluueu in uebate is how they compaie to
asking the question "Boes plan solve.". So theie has always been a neeu to tiy anu
have "solvency" in uebate, which means that if you ueal with pioblems that cannot
be "solveu", then it was haiu to win a uebate. Especially when people leain to use
aiguments like time-fiame to say that we neeu to woiiy about this shoit-teim
impact that we can calculate, iathei than impacts that we can nevei see solution oi
final impact fiom. So when you ieau a ciitique anu the othei team ieaus
"calculability goou", you can see wheie such an aigument gets its stiategic base.
'
'
#+'()*%$)'%'U%3)'."'%'$"%#-#-U'U".8-('7."'%(9.!%!0Y'
Is uebate a game oi is it a place to piactice auvocacy. This is wheie I finu a lot of
people ueciue they woulu iathei be a K uebatei than a policy uebatei. It's okay to be
both, but theie aie only so many touinaments anu so much piep, anu not eveiyone
has those iesouices. That's eithei a peisonal choice, oi one uictateu by coaches. But
foi those who choose an alteinative style of uebate, I offei you the Kiitical Bebateis
Banubook. In my opinion, many policy uebateis iefuse to tiy anu ieau the liteiatuie
of the philosophical K, anu finu themselves staiing at eviuence that they cannot
compiehenu. At most they look at a woiu on the block anu hope they have a file to
match it. I see this as a challenge of intellect. As a uebatei, it feels so gieat to know
the othei team cannot unueistanu what youi aiguments aie. The challenge is this:
!%-'#'U.'$,".8U,'$,)')Z$)-+#9)&0'$)+$)('%-('N#()&0'%!!)[$)('
$"%(#$#.-%&'[.&#!0'()*%$)'%"U83)-$+'%-('-.$'(".['%-0$,#-UY''
That ieally is the challenge. So you have to be ieauy. This guiue is an attempt to tell
you what the commonly useu aiguments aie anu I hope to pioviue some insight on
how to best auuiess the bau ones anu make the goou ones. I tiy to pioviue a lot of
checklists anu lists of things to be piepaieu foi.
Common Steieotypes:
K uebateis aie lazy
You say you win because you uance
You say you win because you'ie oppiesseu. (0ppiession 0lympics)
K uebateis aie cheateis
K's uon't uo anything

%"U83)-$1'
What is the uiffeience between youi aigument anu my aigument, anu why is that
impoitant.
0ne thing you will finu about my auvice in ielation to the way uebate aiguments aie
constiucteu ievolves aiounu notions of absolutism. If you can leain how to ciiticize
aiguments that foieclose thinking, you have maue youi fiist big step in being a
ciitical uebatei. When I uebateu we iefeiieu to this as !"#$%&'
A goou aigument is a goou aigument. I think it's calleu a Kiitik because it's not
about those things that can be measuieu objectively, anu thus, can be wiitten off in
favoi of moie "tangible" things that people have ueciueu to be ieal oi tiue. A goou
aigument says that:
a. Youi liteiatuie is bauyoui theoiiesschools of thought etc.
b. You uon't solve - a bettei K has a Kiitik of the iuea of "solvency"
c. You make things woiseImpacts inevitable absent "alt"
u. This is the most impoitant thing in this uebate -- IE - Impact calculus
Theie is much uebate about "uo you neeu an alteinative." In my view, the theoiies
about how the components of the K shoulu function aie only iesponses to the
methous chosen by the policy uebateis to answei the K. At fiist it was fiamewoik,
as though a K wasn't an aigument. Then, it was just the peimutation, pass the plan
anu say X is bau. Then, the K iesponse was, "well if that is all that can beat me, 1ni
will make suie we will not lose the peim." Aftei 1ai's ueciueu this was too much,
anothei stiategy came along: "What's the alteinative." Then, the stanuaiu iesponse
by the affiimative was that the negative was stuck with the status quo. So, the K
iesponse was iathei luciu, alteinatives like "We shoulu all love each othei" oi "we
shoulu voiu oui life of "uesiie"" oi "we shoulu embiace oui insecuiities". Theie was
no way foi these alteinatives to be actualizeu, which iesulteu in the categoiization
of K uebate as too "0topian", which spaikeu the aigument "utopian alteinatives aie
abusive". But K uebateis uug a little ueepei. Along with having this uebate about
youi ciiticism, you weie also foiceu to beat the policy teams on this "fiamewoik"
uebate, oi otheiwise it becomes a silvei bullet against youi bioau-baseu aigument.
Then some uebateis tiieu the floating pic (plan inclusive countei-plan). "We suppoit
all of youi affiimative except youi iepiesentations", anu then aigueu theie weie
iepiesentations in the 1ac that woulu make the plan woise. The floating pics theoiy
blocks became as populai as Neau caius then, so the K uebatei maue anothei move.
This time the alteinative changeu to iejecting the affiimative. Sounus simple iight.
With this stiategy, youi puipose is to piove that theie aie benefits to iejecting the
affiimative foim of politics.
The alteinative is to ieject the affiimative because they have a bau foim of "politics".
The teim politics is such a bioau teim, that you can then access many ieasons why
theii policy was bau. 0se of the State, ontology, epistemology, oi ethics..just a few
examples of wheie you can finu a place to uisagiee, anu then be piepaieu to aigue
why this is most impoitant.
I will say that theie aie stiategic ieasons to use the alteinative like a countei-plan.
Foi yeais the K uebatei was tiying to use theii impacts to outweigh the affiimative,
anu this was such an uphill stiuggle. But then if you get stiategic, you can make it a
uownhill joyiiue. If the alteinative solves the affiimative, then you only have to win
impacts to the affiimative fiom youi links that the alteinative uoes not link too.
This type of K uebating is much moie functional in fiont of people who have been
ueciuing uebates of plan vs. countei-plan.it is one way they can not totally
compiehenu the K, but still be able to see that it is piefeiable to the affiimative.
This is also a goou explanation as to why woiu exclusion countei-plans aie goou.
You iewiite the plan without a paiticulai woiu in it, anu then have aiguments as to
why this woiu you left out is a bau woiu anu not using it is bettei. People also use
the "eiasuie" methou, wheie they have a countei-plan that puts the woiu unuei
eiasuie. (Beiiiua) Some people uiaw lines thiough the uebatable woius in theii
plan, anu aie ieauy to aigue eiasuie solves bettei than uoing the plan without the
woiu. (IE - uon't foiget the past is one aigument).
Theie is no one-way to be a K uebatei, you ieally have to see the uiffeient stiategies,
anu choose those wisely baseu upon the eviuence anu the aigument you want to
make.
%'RI>>I@'=KG?KEHF'JIG'?@F'?GHA>E@K'M?=ED'H?>E'<='K;?K'<J'#'?>'?JJ<G>?K<LEQ'
?@D'#'R?@'PGILE'FIAG'?GHA>E@K='DI@XK'D<=?HGEE'C<K;'>EQ'K;E@'FIA'D<D'@IK'
GEJAKE'>F'?GHA>E@K:''#@'RI>PEK<K<LE'DEM?KE'CE'R?BB'K;<='K;E'@I'B<@O'?@D'K;E'
PEG>AK?K<I@:'
%'RI>>I@'=KG?KEHF'I@'K;E'@EH?K<LE'<='KI'J<@D'I@E'=>?BB'PB?RE'KI'D<=?HGEEQ'MAK'
GE?BBF'ESPBI<K'<K:''+KG?KEH<E='K;?K'?KKE>PK'KI'DE@F'ELEGFK;<@H'K;E'?JJ<G>?K<LE'
=?F='C<BB'ME'?@'AP;<BB'M?KKBE:'
Stiaight fiom the Bile:
Negative Cx of 1AC - 2N "Bo I have to uisagiee with eveiything you say."
1A - "N0" (I mean woulun't they look abusive if they saiu yes - Neg coulu nevei
win)
2N - "Who gets to choose wheie we uisagiee."
1A - "You uo" (If they say they uo, once again Neg coulu nevei win)
Anu theie you have it. I choose to uisagiee with:
Theii Language choice - IE Language Kiitiks
Theii Nethouology - IE Nethou Kiitiks
Theii iepiesentations - IE Repiesentations Kiitiks
Theii philosophy - IE ... it's nevei enuing...Theie aie infinite ways to uisagiee.
This sounus like a goou affiimative whine against the K iight. .....wiong..the next
step is impoitant. Why is this place wheie you uisagiee impoitant. The ieal
question becomes, why is it moie impoitant than the "plan".
When I attempt to ueteimine what woulu be a goou affiimative oi negative
aigument. I spenu time analyzing what eveiyone else is saying, anu constiuct a
logical aigument in my heauoi on papei, anu then go out anu finu the eviuence to
suppoit what I want to say. IE - See it as a uebate aigument, not just an authoi oi
eviuence. Aftei you see how you will utilize this aigument you have cieateu, finu
the eviuence that helps you engage the key pait of the uebate that you have
ueteimineu to be impoitant places of uepaituie. Sometimes you will finu that much
of what you have to say is fiom the same authoi, but that only causes people to think
youi aigument is "authoi" baseu iathei then cieateu as a competitive uebate
aigument.
Ny auvice on using the guiue is to ieau it once. Then choose youi aigument anu go
back anu ieau it again. It's okay to use the paiagiaphs oi sentences fiom this guiue
as youi aigument, I woulu piefei this much moie than saying "Nassey, 2u11" befoie
you maue the aigument. Bon't waste youi time with the cite, this guy is piobably
not as cieuible as you.
")+)%"!,1'
Choose an aiea of the libiaiy - You neeu eviuence to suivive the uebate aftei the
uebate. What is that. That is when the juuge(s) take 2u - Su minutes making theii
uecision(s) anu neeu eviuence to ieau to be iefiesheu on the aiguments. The best K
teams aie gieat ieseaicheis. But it ieally means they see what is neeueu foi
aiguments, anu then go out anu finu an aigument anu the liteiatuie that suppoits it.
I can't take the time to tell you how to be a gieat ieseaichei in this volume. I will say
that you neeu to spenu time at the libiaiy, oi cieate youi own. Theie seems to be
some unique value in books that helps ciitical uebateis. Theie aie a lot of books
online of couise, but theie aie so many moie that aie not. If youi stuff is fiom
books, people have a moie uifficult time poking holes in what you say. If youi stuff is
fiom online souices, youi opponents can ieau youi whole aigument anu aiticles
befoie they uebate you, anu the best K uebateis know how to take youi stuff, anu
lock you into a link in uefense of something. A goou Kiitik always has a link. You
have to uo the ieseaich to have those links. In uoing youi ieseaich, iemembei a
goou Kiitik is a goou aigument. As a uebatei, you must get goou at something,
befoie you can be goou at anything. Logical iight. In othei woius, take an
aigument anu stick with it until you make it win. Sometimes it takes a yeai, anu
sometimes it takes a weekenu. Bon't invest time in an aigument, then toss it asiue
aftei not succeeuing with it at fiist. Keep with it. This is wheie ieseaich becomes
impoitant. If you ieally know youi aiea of the libiaiy, as soon as the othei team
mentions the name of an authoi, you shoulu know what the most anu best
aiguments that coulu be maue by that authoi. If you haven't ieau it, then get the
citation, anu make suie you ieau it as soon as possible. Keep ieseaiching. 0ne
benefit you have as a kiitik uebatei that is stiategic is most tiauitional policy uebate
aiguments that aie fiamewoik oi topicality uo not have a lot of eviuence to suppoit
theii substantive uebate, while the K teams have eviuence iathei than theoiy blocks.
Spenu time at the shelves.
This is wheie gieat K uebateis spiout, is at the shelves of the ieal libiaiy. Bon't jot
uown the call numbeis anu go to each call numbei. }ot uown the call numbeis, anu
then spenu time in that whole section of the libiaiy. Lay youi bag uown. Set up
camp.
Step 1 - Pull off all books that seem eithei new oi ielevant.
To ueteimine new, it's easy, look foi the veiy white book tagcall numbei. The
whitei it is, the newei the book. Look at all new books (last 2 yeais) even if the title
is not that ciafty. I usually look on the inuex in the back of the book to see if theie
aie key woius anu then look at the chapteis.
Step 2 - Soit out the junk.
This is wheie you then go thiough the 2u books you pulleu of the shelf to take the
time to see if it's woith checking out oi skimming. I can usually tell how an authoi
wiites by ieauing a few pages, to ueteimine if they will be saying what I neeu.
Step S - Finuing aigument components, not paiagiaphs
It is okay to soak up the knowleuge each anu eveiy book offeis, but you uon't have
time to put each component of knowleuge into eviuence. If the wiiting is
explanatoiy oi "fact baseu", then you uon't ieally neeu it as eviuence. This is why I
like to flush out my whole aigument (uiaw it out in a chait with answeis to etc.),
anu then when I ieau, if it uoesn't fall into a pait of my aigument stiuctuie, then I
uon't "cut it" as eviuence, I soak up the knowleuge.
Step 4 Finish!
Bon't be the one who always hau stuff on theii jump uiive oi hau the caius cut, but
no tags. You have to finish. You can't uo eveiything at once, so you have to set uown
anu uo small piojects that iesult in finisheu usable items. Bon't take on new
piojects until you can finish the one you'ie on. 0theiwise yo'ie always only halfway
ieauy.
'
RESEARCB TIPS
- 7IBBIC'K;E'JIIK@IKE=Q'K;EF'BE?D'FIA'KI'HGE?K'PB?RE='
- *IIO=';?LE'K;E'ME=K'\?@=CEG='KI]W'
- (I@XK'RAK'ELEGFK;<@HQ'^A=K'GE?D'ELEGFK;<@H'_O@IC'C;?K'R?@'PI==<MBF'ME'
=?<D`'
- $;<@O'IJ'FIAG'?GHA>E@K'?='?'DEM?KE'?GHA>E@K'J<G=KQ'K;E@'J<@D'K;E'
EL<DE@RE'
- (I@XK'RAK'?'BI=<@H'P<ERE'IJ'EL<DE@REW:J<@D'?'MEKKEG'I@EW'
- UI'KI'\HIIHBE]'?@D'KFPE'<@'ES?RKBF'C;?K'FIA'C?@K'<K'KI'=?F''_FIA'C<BB'ME'
=AGPG<=ED`'
- 8=E'\aAIKE=]'<@'FIAG'=E?GR;E='
- *E'K;IGIAH;W#J'FIA'C?@K'KI'IC@'K;E'?GHA>E@K'FIA';?LE'KI'O@IC'>I=K'
IJ'C;?K'<='=?<DWC;E@'K;EF'=?F'?@'?AK;IG='@?>EQ'FIA'=;IABD'?BGE?DF'
O@IC'K;E<G'?GHA>E@K'
- UEK'R<KE=b8=E'C<O<='KI'>?OE'=AGE'FIAG'=EE<@H'C;?K'IK;EG'PEIPBE';?LE'
()*%$)'%*.8$'()*%$)1'
As I saiu eailiei, Bebate is what we make it. Nany uebates that involve the K incluue
an aspect of a "uebate about uebate" to help unueistanu how the aiguments
compete with each othei. I see these uebates as unnecessaiy, but they must be
compiehenueu if you evei want youi aigument to have impact in the uebate. In my
expeiience, once you unueistanu how to beat these aiguments, youi win peicentage
will inciease uiamatically. This is the gateway to victoiies with Kiitical uebate.
Switch siue uebate: Nuch of my infoimation I infei in the following uiscussion is in
the Bicks anu uieen aiticle Lost Convictions.
Back in 19S4 theie was tuibulence in the NBT Community conceining the topic.
Buins claims that the fiameis of the iesolution uiu not think uebateis woulu
succumb to Communist piopaganua anu aigue China goou, theie was an assumption
that people woulu aigue we must pull China away fiom Noscow.
The uebate about uebate occuiieu foi about 1u yeais, anu then in 1964 NcCiosky
anu Klopf ueclaieu the uebate about uebate closeu. It wasn't ieally closeu, they just
ueclaieu it closeu. Since then, theie hasn't been much uebate about switch siue
uebate in the liteiatuie beyonu the Nuii aiticle anu the Bicks anu uieen aiticle. I uo
have a thoiough list in the "Bebate about Bebate" Bibliogiaphy.
Ny peispective on auvocacy oveiiiues my love foi "the game" of uebate. I feel like
that the best way to ciitically test aiguments oi iueas cannot be founu in the heau-
on uenial of yesno oi gooubau. As the aiguments play out foi switch siue uebate,
they begin with the concept that the best way to leain about something is to
ieseaich both siues of the issue. 0ne of the best aiguments foi "switch siue" uebate
is baseu upon this concept of leaining the most about something. Bowevei, the key
question becomes shoulu a stuuent have to veibalize things they uisagiee with.
Shoulu you publicly uttei iacism is goou foi the puipose of having a uebate. The
pait about leaining both siues can happen without actually saying it in the uebate,
the uesiie to win in uebate foices you into ieseaiching both siues. Bo you ieally
neeu to uttei things you uisagiee with. I feel that you shoulu not, especially in
uebate. If you aie an inuiviuual that has expeiienceu any foim of oppiession, why
woulu you want to play the iole of the oppiessoi. This is wheie I also feel ciitical
thinking can be bettei testeu. We uon't have to uisagiee that sexism exists anu is
bau, we can uisagiee on how we shoulu combat it. It's wheie you uisagiee that
becomes impoitant. }ust saying yesno stifles cieative thinking that can ieally offei
functional helpful tests foi ciitical iueas.
,EGE'?GE'=I>E'HIID'?GHA>E@K='JIG'C;F'DEJE@D<@H'=I>EK;<@H'FIA'D<=?HGEE'
C<K;'<='M?DV''_?BB'DEM?K?MBE'IJ'RIAG=E`'
1. Public utteiance is public commitment - shoulu not sepaiate speech fiom
conviction
2. Policy uebate is public uebate - when we sepaiate is when aumin sees as a game
anu uebate uies
S. Shoulu not value technique ovei substance - Theie aie times wheie substance
shoulu be seconuaiy.
4. Speakingveibalizing evils uoes not help to unueistanu, but uiaws one close to
the miuule
S. Technique in uebate uoes not tianslate into effective communication skills
6. Focus on technique is exclusionaiy on all levels - BScollegeanu juuging pool
8. Shoulu not uivoice the ihetoiical fiom the uialectical
9. Without conviction, naiiow topics uo not iesult in a positive euucational
expeiience
1u. Shoulu not uecouple the sinceiity piinciple fiom aigument piesenteu by uebatei
11. Accepting stiict notions of switch siue uebate foices one to ieplace beliefs with
appieciation foi the piocess.
#='DEM?KE'G;EKIG<R?B'IG'D<?BERK<R?BY'
Ny contention in this uebate is that it is both. To have effective agency outsiue of
uebate foi most who paiticipate, we neeu to iespect the ihetoiical anu uialectical
benefits of uebate.
#='RI>PEK<K<LE'DEM?KE'\PAMB<R'DEM?KE]Y'
Ny contention is in line with Nuiphy's contention that a public utteiance is a public
commitment. We contenu that uiscouise uoes cieate ieality, anu those who watch
the uebates aie uefinitely effecteu. The uesiie to cieate the publicpiivate
uichotomy shoulu be iesisteu foi many significant ieasons.
+;IABD'DEM?KEG='ME'JIGRED'<@KI'?GHA<@H'JIG'C;?K'FIA'D<=?HGEE'C<K;'?@D'
=EP?G?KE'RI@L<RK<I@'JGI>'=PEER;Y'
Ny position is that uebate can be a tiaining giounu foi uiscussing those issues that
aie impoitant to you, anu give you agency foi uealing with youi own peisonal
oppiessions anu inequalities. We also contenu that we will always uebate negative,
anu feel that going negative, uoing ieseaich, anu having uiscussion is a place wheie
you can get all of the theoietical benefits of switch siue uebating, without utteiing
the veiy woius that fostei peisonal oppiession.
#='<K'<>PIGK?@K'KI'9EGM?B<TE'K;<@H='FIA'D<=?HGEE'C<K;Y'
Ny contention is that this veibalization seives to pull a stuuent to the centei, thus
explaining the iole of uebate as a foim of cultuial technology. Resolutions aie
uesigneu to poitiay an auia of inclusiveness, while seiving to only allow one siue to
be heaiu. Ny contention is that speaking affiimative is wheie you finu conviction,
anu the auvantages of leaining to effectively auuiess oppiession that effects youi
own peisonal agency is bettei than attempting to acquiie a nebulous methou of
veibalizing that seives as a tool to coopt iauical beliefs.
[%"$#!#[%$#.-'9+:'!.3[)$#$#.-'
Paiticipation is moie impoitant than competition. The benefits of an euucational
foim of uebate being able to access moie people is bettei than a bankiupt foim of
euucation that is accesseu by less people.
3F'RI@KE@K<I@'<='K;?K'I@E'IJ'K;E'ILEG?GR;<@H'PGIMBE>='C<K;'E>P;?=<='I@'K;E'
H?>E'=KG?KEHF'IJ'=C<KR;'=<DE'DEM?KE'C?='K;E'PGIMBE>'IJ'EBEL?K<@H'KER;@<aAE'
ILEG'=AM=K?@RE:'
Bebate has maue a tuin fiom the game envisioneu in switch siue to the moueling of
policy makeis in the legislative halls. The ieason foi claiming it is 0K to value
technique ovei substance was because we weie not moueling the legislative halls,
anu aie cieating oui own game. Now many uebateis constiuct aiguments
attempting to equate oui foium with the legislative halls, anu thus offeiing a methou
of euucation that has been ueemeu un-accessible by past pioponents of switch siue
uebating.
0sing switch siue uebate to foice stuuents to uefenu views that aie not theii own is
attempting to use uebate to piouuce the libeial citizen, thus tieating uebateis as
"subjects" to be conveiteu one at a time to become a tool of global goveinance using
univeisal noims foi the exceptionalist subject to govein the woilu. Theie is a goou
uebate to be hau about if this is goou oi bau.
+$"#!$'+N#$!,'+#()'()*%$)'3%/)+'()*%$)'%'7."3'.7'!8&$8"%&'
$)!,-.&.U0
The uebate about uebate highlights how communication becomes an object,
instiument, anu fielu of cultuial goveinance. This is a piouuction in the powei of
cultuial goveinance thiough thiee mechanisms
1. To sepaiate speech fiom conviction
2. Becouple sinceiity piinciple fiom aigument piesenteu by uebatei.
S. Foices one to ieplace beliefs with appieciation foi the piocess

ANSWERS T0 N0IR
Nuii's suppoit foi switch siue uebate is baseu upon univeisal noims such as
toleiance anu pluialism, though Nuii attempts to claim that uebate maintains a
sense of moial uevelopment. We must examine how Nuii ieassigns conviction to
the piocess of geneiating moially sounu juugment. Nuii sees switch siue uebate as
a tool foi uelibeiative uemociacy anu game of fieeuom. This notion of switch siue
uebate pie-configuies a uelibeiative moial theoiy of uemociacy.
I will also make it known that theie was a moment befoie the meigei wheie people
attempteu to piouuce publications to tiy anu piomote NBT uebate ovei CEBA
uebate, anu othei foims of uebate, because of the incieuible shiinkage of the NBT
uebate community. So some of these wiitings hau a puipose at the time that wasn't
fai fiom Nauison Avenue.
Theie is no iulebook on uebate, noi is it totally agieeu upon that we aie uoing
"switch siue uebate". In the past, iesolutions weie veiy geneiic, anu people just
basically affiimeu the iesolution. Nost affiimatives weie the same. Now that we
have a geneiic (but specific) iesolution, anu people inuuctively infei theii plan as
affiiming the iesolution, we aien't switching siues on a geneiic issue; we aie
uebating whatevei the affiimative says.
If you aie aiguing iacisms exists, anu the othei teams says switch siue uebate goou,
you say "switch siues then".anu aigue that the claim to know is how we keep
iacism hiuuen. Those aiguments wheie uebateis claim theii only giounu is "iacism
bau" is a uouble tuin to theii switch siue uebate goou aiguments.
7"%3)N."/'
7G?>ECIGO1'$;EGE'<='@I'I@E'>E?@<@H'KI'c7G?>ECIGOXQ'<K'DEPE@D='I@';IC'<K'<='
ME<@H'A=ED'<@'K;E'DEM?KE:'
This aigument has become quiet common in many uebates. Foi me, I feel it is just
an impact uebate, but foi many it becomes a iules type aigument. The iuea that
some issues have no ielevance because of the cieation of a false biight-line that
cieates a uistinction between what impacts count anu which ones uon't isn't veiy
logical to me. When I uebateu theie was this uebate about whethei you can
sepaiate values fiom policies. Nost ciitical thinkeis woulu agiee that these two aie
insepaiable.
0bviously, when K uebateis say fiat is illusoiy, the policy uebateis aie not blown
away, but iathei feel as though we agiee to pietenu to be policymakeis. So the fiist
uecision you make as you piepaie foi uebates is "Who aie we. What aie we uoing."
Bo I want to play in a woilu of Fiat.
CX question: Will youi plan be passeu. Will you uefenu the 0SFu uoing youi plan.
You have to be piepaieu to answei these questions without waveiing. Nost K teams
lose many uebates on fiamewoik oi alt theoiy because they aie not consistent in
how they jump thiough the policy 1u1 gauntlet of aiguments anu assumptions.
Example: If you aie going to "K" up the impacts the negative ieaus, i.e., nucleai wai
scenaiios oi enviionmental collapse..then its okay to give the othei team giounu to
make those aiguments, just make suie you stay tight on making suie they get no
leaps of logic within theii eviuence as they move thiough theii link chains to ieach
theii impacts. But theie is no neeu to say "no link" to the aigument that you uo
something if you can beat the aigument othei ways.
Some people like to see fiamewoik as place wheie you can aigue a whole
conglomeiation of things anu hope that in the enu, they can aigue they aie one of
those things, anu thus theii appioach is bettei. Examples: Realism goou, oi
pieuictions goou, oi secuiitization goou oi piagmatism goou oi utilitaiianism goou
oi feai of ueath goou....theie aie moie, but I think you get the point. You neeu to
be able to auuiess these aiguments with a methou.
Ny fiist suggestion is have a K of the iuea of fiamewoik. This can be utilizeu as
offense against the way they aie using whatevei aiguments they choose. Some
aiguments woulu be geneiic "iules bau" aiguments, oi exclusionaiy iueologies bau.
Ny seconu suggestion is to use the language of uebate when necessaiy. Example -
Who contiols uniqueness on fiamewoik. Well. The 0S has been at wai eveiy yeai
since its inception. We have many small wais aiounu the globe, enviionmental
ciises, natuial uisasteis pusheu by those enviionmental consequences, economic
uowntuins anu spiials. Noie wais aie likely to gain contiol of the oil to feeu the 0S
petioleum cultuie. Anu this is wheie theii "fiamewoik" iueologies have gotten us,
so why woulu we continue. ...The K uebatei contiols uniqueness on fiamewoik.
Now, lets get moie specific: What about uebate. Well most of the people that
succeeu in the cuiient uominantpopulai methou of policy uebate aie many times
piivilegeu anu have many weeks of summei camp, aie white anu male. Nany of the
aiguments in the uebate about uebate will woik to help you on what the cuiient
foim of uebate teaches you. What aie we uoing. What is oui puipose. What is
euucation.
As a K uebatei, you want to punish people foi aiguing fiamewoik. To uo this, you
neeu to be ieauy to be on the attack when they ieveal theii "fiamewoik"
inteipietation.
N,%$'#+'[.&#$#!+'."'%'[.&#$#!%&'%!$Y'
This is an impoitant question foi uebateis. If someone uses sexist oi iacist
language, is that goou politics. Boes it effect if plan will solve oi not. I once heaiu a
juuge tell a uebatei that if one team useu iacist language, but the plan solveu, then
he woulu vote foi the plan, but uock theii speakei points. To me, this leaus us into a
uiscussion about "in iounu impacts". This may be one of the ways kiitiks maue theii
way into uebate. It became stiategic to only go foi sexist language in the uebate if
the othei team useu blatant sexist language. People woulu aigue that uiscouise is
the most impoitant because what happens in the uebate aie the only "ieal" impacts
in the uebate. SexistRacistBomophobic language cieates an unwelcome anu
unfaii playing fielu foi those whom such language uoes violence against. To me, all
uebate speeches aie political, anu the uecision has a lot to uo with politics. A laigei
question is one that investigates how ethics, uiscouise, epistemology, ontology oi
peifoimance uefines the political act. The plan can only aspiie to the value of the
political act attempting to suppoit it. This is wheie youi ieseaich woulu attempt to
be bettei than theiis on how much of a iole the aiea you choose to uisagiee at has
on the success of the political act. Theie aie so many ways to investigate the
"political".
7."!)'$,)'&#-/'*)$N))-'$,)#"'7"%3)N."/')9#()-!)'%-('$,)#"'
[%"$#!8&%"'%!$#.-'
Eveiy fiamewoik aigument they make shoulu be foiceu to tie itself to the politics of
the 1ac. They may ieau 1uu caius on how theie aie goou policy actions, anu how we
neeu policy, but it's a question of theii policy. Keep tight on this uebate. This is
wheie CX becomes impoitant once again.
$,)'"#+/'.7'%'&#-/'
I nevei likeu this concept veiy much, eithei theie is a link, oi theie is not. Bowevei,
many people uisagiee. Theie aie many ways that smait policy teams aie now
putting togethei moie substantive aiguments into theii fiamewoik aigument.
Combining this iuea that the negative K has to uefenu the status quo anu that theie
is a chance the affiimative might acciuently mitigate a laigei pioblem in a iisk
calculus. Theie aie many uiffeient ways to say we must act. Theie aie also some
common aiguments that say Kiitiks uo nothing, anu we neeu ciitique anu action.
These aie the kinu of uebates wheie K uebateis get stuck with weighing theii "non-
unique" impacts against the "iisk" of a link the affiimative may have to some laige
extinction impact. Nany juuges fall on the siue of extinction when this happens.
This means you neeu to stay focuseu on what is the most impoitant issue in the
uebate. This also means you can't just spot them extinction. When they say 1uu%
iisk of extinction, you have faileu to uo youi pait in inuicting theii aiguments. Be
ieal. Theie is no way any affiimative on any topic implementeu woulu actually
"solve" extinction, evei. That's moionic anu only in uebate uoes that make sense.
It's youi job to make suie it uoesn't make sense. You have to inuict theii impact by
claiming theii eviuence uoesn't say it will occui. You then have to make suie you
piove theie is no inteinal link in how theii affiimative coulu actually be the single
factoi in auuiessing extinction. Y00 CANN0T SP0T TBEN TBEIR ABvANTAuES 0R
TBEIR BISABvANTAuES. Then you shoulu also have some things to say about the
iueology behinu the politics of feai utilizeu by theii authois. Foi a lot of this you
uon't neeu eviuence. Reau the "makes no sense BA" if you have to.
Pieuictions uebate: Realism uebate: (Neaisheimei anu Nuiiay) Science goou
uebate: 0tilitaiianism uebate:
All of these aie uebates you neeu to be ieauy to answei. Some of Neaisheimei's
aiguments say we neeu to pietenu to be iole playeis. This is somewhat of a uebate
about uebate aigument. Youi answei shoulu be slanteu towaius claiming that even
if we weie "iole-playing", that uoes not ueny that we shoulu not leain in the uebate
iounus how ceitain iueologiesphilosophies cause impacts in oui woilu. That
aigument woulu only supeichaige youi aigument if you aie inteisecting with theii
iuea of "political". If you aie saying we aie just uebateis, anu making othei
aiguments that uo not engage the "political", then you open youiself up to moie of
the fiamewoik theoiy aiguments most policy teams make against K teams.
N,.'!.-$".&+'[.&#$#!+Y'
Nany people call this "ceue the political." This aigument claims that if we uo not
engage in politics, then the iight wing will take ovei, anu all of the impacts you
iuentify in youi ciiticism will be woise. Youi answei to this aigument has to be a
uniqueness style aigument. Nany people like to position themselves as not falling
within the "evil" pait of the political spectium, while still enuoising the same type of
policies. You have to be able to uefenu why youi position of not engaging politics, if
you uo (hopefully youi aigument is about the political), anu I think one position you
can take is to aigue that what you call the "political" is a veiy limiteu view of wheie
politics happens. But I think the best aigument to make is that you aie challenging
those who they claim you woulu be ceuing too, in this uebate. If you win the othei
teams aiguments only ieify the existing political system, then challenging theii
aigument is a challenge to that political. You'ie not ceuing, you aie engaging. This
aigument woiks best foi the policy teams when you choose to not engage the "state"
by uoing such things as iefusing to affiim the 0SFu. Be piepaieu.
Beie is an example:
!EDE='PICEG'KI'?HHGE==<LE'?@D'GE?RK<I@?GF'EB<KE='K;?K'C<BB'R?A=E'ESK<@RK<I@'
?M=E@K'PIB<K<R?B'E@H?HE>E@K'
Cail *IHH= (Los Angeles Campus . Faculty Piofessoi) 6dde "The uieat Retieat"

Anothei aigument that uovetails with this one is:
%GHA<@H'K;?K'GEPGE=E@K?K<I@='DEKEG><@E'GE?B<KF'DE=KGIF='EJJERK<LE'PIB<K<R?B'
?RK<I@'
2?GL<=Q'55 (Baiiyl, lectuiei in IR . anu the challenge of postmoueinism, 2uuu, p. 189-)
'
7"%3)N."/'!)-$"%&'
+%3[&)'f6'g'7G?>ECIGO'h'<@KEGPGEK?K<I@1'$;E'=IBE'PAGPI=E'IJ'K;E'M?BBIK'<='KI'?@=CEG'K;E'
GE=IBAK<I@?B'aAE=K<I@1'<='K;E'E@?RK>E@K'IJ'?'KIP<R?B'PB?@'MEKKEG'K;?@'K;E'=K?KA='aAI'IG'?'
RI>PEK<K<LE'PIB<RF'IPK<I@Y'
This is an inteiesting uesciiption of what uebate shoulu be. Theie is no place that
makes it this. Theie is no iulebook, oi agency that caiiies such a iule out. Is uebate
supposeu to answei the iesolutional question, oi is the iesolution just a fence the
plan has to fall into. voting affiimative in a lot of uebates uoes not answei the
iesolutional questions. Nost affiimatives aie not auequate inuuctive logical steps
that piove the geneial statement of the iesolution tiue. What am I saying. I am
saying that theie aie fallacies in logic that one must iecognize when people want to
stait talking about whethei we aie uebating the "tiuth" of the iesolution.
All biius can fly.
An ostiich is a biiu
Theiefoie anu ostiich can fly...
Nost affiimatives aie ostiiches, not blue jays oi iobins, anu thus aie examples of the
iesolution, but not necessaiily iepiesentative of the geneial tiuth of the iesolution.
'+%3[&)'f4'g'7G?>ECIGO1'$;<='DEM?KE'<='?MIAK'EL?BA?K<@H'<J'?'KIP<R?B'PB?@'<='MEKKEG'K;?@'K;E'
=K?KA='aAI'IG'?'RI>PEK<K<LE'PIB<RF'IPK<I@Y'
Nany people go out of theii way to make suie we know this is "policy" uebate. We
have the "policy uebate " iounu iobin. At fiist this uistinction was one baseu on
seeing the uiffeience between CEBA anu NBT. Then the uistinction was useu to
iuentify the uiffeience between CEBANBT anu Pailiamentaiy uebate. Now it is
being useu to tiy anu cieate uistinctions between aigument styles in the CEBANBT
community.
By accessing the affiimative thiough theii "politics" you aie evaluating if the topical
plan is bau, but this phiase tiies to make it only a uniqueness issue. 0nce again,
wheie uoes this type of thinking oiiginate fiom that says this is the best way to
compaie something; this is answeieu by who contiols uniqueness. The simple,
"youi kiitik is a non-unique uisauvantage" aigument is useu a lot heie. You have to
leain how to aigue that each inciemental link makes the status quo woise.
Remembei, a goou aigument says you fiame the pioblem bauly, you uon't solve, anu
you make things woise. Also, youi puipose is to builu in access points to theii
affiimative with youi aigument that allow you to voiu theii fiamewoik aiguments.
They spenu time on fiamewoik, while you'ie spenuing time accessing theii
fiamewoik with youi aigument. I ieally want to stiess that most
fiamewoiktopicalityK theoiy aiguments aie slanteu towaius "faulty" K uebate
anu steieotypes. If you can uisconnect theii theoiy (i.e., fiamewoik scieens) fiom
youi aigument, then you will win most of the time. Beie is youi euucation tuin,
claim that this then foices teams to actually go out anu ieseaich youi aigument.
0nce you get goou at voiuing theii misinfoimeu aiguments, youi success iate
shoulu iise uiamatically.

+%3[&)'fi'g'.AG'<@KEGPGEK?K<I@'<='K;?K'K;E'@EH?K<LE'HEK='KI'DEJE@D'?'RI>PEK<K<LE'PIB<RF'
?BKEG@?K<LE'
?:'[GED<RK?M<B<KF'h'K;EGE'?GE'><BB<I@='IJ'GEPGE=E@K?K<I@='K;?K'CE'R?@XK'PGED<RK'h'K;E'GE=IBAK<I@'
=?F='8+7U'=I'CE'=;IABD'DEM?KE'K;?K'h'PGED<RK?M<B<KF'<='OEF'KI'J?<G@E=='
M:')DAR?K<I@'h'PIB<RF'D<=RA==<I@='JI=KEG'MEKKEG'<@JIG>ED'DEM?KE'K;?K'R?@'ME'?D?PKED'KI'K;E'GE?B'
CIGBD'

R:'+C<KR;'=<DE'DEM?KE'=IBLE='?@F'G<=O'IJ'DEM?KE'ME<@H'A@EK;<R?B'h'K;E<G'?GHA>E@K='?GE'M?=ED'<@'
?'B?RO'IJ'A@DEG=K?@D<@H'IJ'K;E'?RK<L<KF'?@D';IC'<K'CIGO='KI'=;?PE'=KADE@K='- %MMIKKQ455d

This is the type of fiamewoik aigument wheie you shoulu lean moie on youi
fiamewoik Kiitik. This aigument makes so many assumptions about a "Kiitik",
incluuing (!)(**(!+,*)-+*)##*(!+*%)&+*"-*&).+*(!+*%)&+*)-/0&+1(%2*"-*3)1*)##*4+*50(*$1*
"1+*4)--+#*)(*"1+*($&+2*4+3)0%+*(!+,6-+*1"(*75"#$3,*)-/0&+1(%8*)19*%"*(!+,*&0%(*4+*:*
)-/0&+1(%'*
So this aigument is saying that the only way the negative can uisagiee, is with a
countei-plan. Bmmm. That's it huh. Seems somewhat abusive. 0bviously, if youi
aigument is a case tuin, it woulu compete. This aigument has such a naiiow
inteipietation of politics. Nost goou Kiitiks will ciiticize this naiiow inteipietation
of politics, anu shoulu be ieauy to aigue how this way of thinkingpolitics is bau.
The aigument that theie aie millions of iepiesentations aie tiue, unfoitunately the
negative shoulu be talking about the ones that weie offeieu up in the 1ac. They hau
9 minutes to speak, they chose what to say, that is calleu a political act. Any
aiguments saying they aie not stuck to theii iepiesentations aie pietty much
legitimizing the affiimative seveiing links fiom the 1ac.
Beie aie some common TFiamewoik authois people ieau. If you ieally want to be
the amazing K uebatei you shoulu know what each anu eveiy one of these authois
say. If you can finu a camp fiamewoik file lying aiounu, you can actually see how
they aie useu. Reau these people. Stuuy them. If you aie a K uebatei in high school
anu college, then you might as well get on with knowing the basic authois people
ieau against you. That is pait of ieseaiching. When they say one of these authois'
names, you shoulu know what the eviuence can say.
Beie aie some veiy populai authois useu against ciiticalalteinative teams:
Nichael Ignatieff, 2uu4 - Caii Piofessoi of Buman Rights Piactice, Biiectoi of the Caii Centei foi Buman Rights
Policy at the }FK School of uoveinment, Baivaiu 0niveisity, The Lessei Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Teiioi,
p. 2u-1
Ruth Lessl Shively 2uuu - Associate Piofessoi of Political Science at Texas A&N, Political Theoiy anu Paitisan
Politics, p. 182-S
Auolf u. uunueisen, 2uuu - Associate Piofessoi of Political Science at Texas A&N, Political Theoiy anu Paitisan
Politics, p. 1u8-9
}ohn Rawls. 1999, The Law of Peoples, p. S6-S7
Alan Coveistone, 199S - "An Inwaiu ulance: A Response To Nitchell's 0utwaiu Activist Tuin," BRu, 0RL:
http:www.wfu.euuStuuent-oiganizationsuebateNiscSitesBRuAiticlesCoveistone199SChina.htm
0wen u2, 0niveisity of Southampton (Baviu, "Reoiienting Inteinational Relations: 0n Piagmatism, Pluialism
anu Piactical Reasoning", Nillennium: }ouinal of Inteinational Stuuies, vol. S1, No. S,
http:mil.sagepub.comcgiiepiintS1S6SS)
Fine, 2uuu - Bepaitment of Sociology Noithwestein 0niveisity - uaiy, "uANES ANB TR0TBS: Leaining To
Constiuct Social Pioblems In Bigh School Bebate", 1uS-1u4.

Boggs, 1997 - Piofessoi of Political Science, '97 - Cail, National 0niveisity, Theoiy & Society 26, Becembei, p.
76u-1.
Sankaian Kiishna, 199S - Piofessoi of Political Science at the 0niveisity of Bawaii, Alteinatives, v. 18
Best anu Kellnei, 2uu1 - Steven Best, Assoc. Piof Phil. Anu Buman. 0 Texas anu Bouglas Kellnei, Phil. 0f Eu.
Chaii, "Postmouein Politics anu the Battle foi the Futuie," Illuminations,
www.uta.euuhumailluminationskell28.htm
Nuii 199S - Stai A. PBIL0S0PBY ANB RBET0RIC, "A Befense of the Ethics of Contempoiaiy Bebate," v26, n4,
p.288
Shampa Biswas, 2uu7 - Piofessoi of Politics at Whitman College, Becembei 2uu7, "Empiie anu ulobal Public
Intellectuals: Reauing Euwaiu Saiu as an Inteinational Relations Theoiist," Nillennium: }ouinal of Inteinational
Stuuies, vol. S6, No. 1, p. 124
}ohn }. Neaisheimei, 199S - Realism heavyweight champion, Inteinational Secuiity, vol. 2u, No
Alastaii }.B. Nuiiay, 1997 - Politics ANB Realism
Fuyuki Kuiusawa 2uu4'Constellations vol 11 No. 4
Touu Nay, 2uuS, PBIL0S0PBY & S0CIAL CRITICISN - vol S1 nos S-6 - pp. S17-SS1
Baviu E. NcClean, 2uu1 - The Cultuial Left anu the Limits of Social Bope - Piesenteu at the 2uu1 Annual Confeience
of the Society foi the Auvancement of Ameiican Philosophy.
P. B. LI0TTA, 2uuS - Secuiity Bialogue - vol. S6(1): 49-7u


!"#$#!%&'7"%3)N."/'%"U83)-$+'#7'0.8X")'-)U%$#9)'
Theie is a time when you uebate teams that will not uefenu anything. This is one
ieason why the 1
st
Piioiity to 1
st
Ameiicans aigument was a successful uebate
aigument. Teams that choose to uefenu nothing, iely upon a meta-aigument that
might say absolutes aie bau. 0i we neeu to be in constant change. (See Nann anu
BeLeuze anu uuattaii.)
You neeu a ciitical aigument that says not taking a stance on anything oi constant
uefeiial bau. Some people like to make this aigument in ielation to a fiamewoik
aigument that might say lack of uebate about politics oi incluuing eveiyone cieates
woise long-teim violence oi that theie aie times we neeu to excluue to pievent
violence. If you aie a peison who feels you have to stiuggle uay to uay with
oppiession such as sexism oi iacism, then you shoulu have an auvantage ovei those
who piivilege just thinking oi empty space in the place of a chance to engage in
ievolutionaiy politics.
Raasch is one example. This aigument says that exclusions aie goou, anu we must
uebate about issues, not let it be.
Agonism goou is anothei aigument that woulu say they avoiu the neeu foi
contestation.
Begemonic competition is moie of a theoiy aigument that woulu say the affiimative
allows no space foi you to uebate, anu will use that auvantage to win a competition.
This foim of unfaii competition can be iuentifieu as hegemonic as opposeu to
coopeiative competition, wheie uisagieeing is iequiieu. These aie examples, anu
you may finu youi own. }ust make suie you have a stiategy.
$.[#!%&#$0
Woius can benu. Woius can be inteipieteu uiffeient ways. 0nce a iesolution is
wiitten, it is what it is. Theie is no one stanuaiu "pieuiction" people make about
legitimate aiguments, only an expecteu iehashing of past aiguments. Foi high
school uebateis, the topics seem to be less politically cieateu, anu I finu them much
moie accessible to cieative anu innovate uebate. I will iuentify some of the key
uebates you shoulu be ieauy foi when you ieau youi affiimative.
It baffles me at how the foice of technology is evei changing oui ability to ieseaich
anu access moie infoimation at a fastei pace, people stait to feel like we neeu to
limit the possible inteipietations of the topic. Why uo we want a limiteu topic.
This is baseu upon the peispective that foi us to have goou, euucational uebate, we
neeu to make suie the iesolutions aie naiiow enough so that eveiyone woulu have
eviuence on all of the possible affiimatives. If we allow too many affiimatives, then
we can't possibly ieseaich all of them. It's ouu that people say this, but at the same
time ieau the same scenaiios anu Neau eviuence yeai aftei yeai.
Theie is a laigei abstiact ieason why I feel people like limiteu iesolutions. If you
finu a methou anu can become an expeit in oiganizing anu technically managing
eviuence in the uebate, then a limiteu topic benefits youi style. Too me, theie is a
peuagogical ieason why policy uebateis piefei limiteu topics. Foi kiitik uebateis,
theii aiguments aie bioau enough to catch a laige amount of possible affiimatives.
Which leaus to the question, aie geneiic aiguments gooubau foi uebate.
I feel that a goou aigument is a goou aigument. If something is so piominent that it
applies to a lot of things, then maybe it shoulu be uiscusseu, iathei than being
wiitten off as geneiic. Anu, like I saiu, it's not like the policy uebate woilu is uoing
nothing moie than ieguigitating the same extinction scenaiios yeai aftei yeai.
Some people like to have offense on topicality. I useu to be of the school that saiu
that we have to ieject the topic, but have become moie of a suppoitei of we can ie-
inteipiet the topic. Naybe you want to "affiim the iesolution of xxxxx (inseit topic)
as a metaphoi foi...."
You have to be cieative, but you have to affiim something. It ieally is an uphill
battle to just ieject the iesolution.
If you have an inteipietation though, then you have the ability to have offense on the
"competing inteipietations" by claiming that the noimative ieasons you have to
inteipiet the topic this way aie moie impoitant than the competitive ieasons you
have foi limiting the topic uiscussion.
Theie aie topics wheie theie aie uebates about how we shoulu inteipiet ceitain
woius that ieally uo come uown to noimative ieasons to piefei vs. competing
inteipietations.
Example #1- A topic that says to X "nations".especially like Afiica anu Eastein
Euiope. You have youi affiimative that pioviues X to a people who aie being uenieu
"nationhoou" anu utilize theii aiguments in the liteiatuie on why they shoulu be a
nation as youi topicality eviuence.
Example #2 - A topic that gives "uevelopment" assistance. Theie aie many authois
who wiite that the teim "uevelopment" is iacist. So if you choose to not be
tiauitional moues of "uevelopment" assistance, you have some goou ieasons to
piefei youi inteipietation that goes beyonu how it limits the topic.
!?@'FIA'GE?BBF'R;II=E'I@E'DEJ<@<K<I@'?='ME<@H'G<H;K'ILEG'K;E'IK;EGY'
This is wheie I think false uichotomies aie cieateu, when we attempt to asceitain
one inteipietation as a legitimate inteipietation, but not the most limiting
uefinition. Shoulu you ieally lose a uebate foi this. You ieally neeu some "offense"
on limiting inteipietations. 0ne example is to aigue the negative inteipietations
ovei-limits, anu theii inteipietations excluues impoitant uebate. Weigh the amount
of goou in uepth uebate gaineu ovei the inciemental amount of bau uebate lost.
Beie is my bolu statement foi this section. Topics aie fiameu baseu upon 2
impoitant factois - What eviuence is available (what uoes the mainstieam liteiatuie
say) anu how woulu this woik in uebate (what giounu woulu negative anu
affiimative have)! These 2 fiaming factois aie a piouuct of
iueologicalontologicalepistemological peispectives that aie juxtaposeu to othei
peispectives on these issues, but offeieu up in the iesolutions as neutial. The
woiuing anu "key phiases" foice uebateis to eithei to take up the mainstieam siue
while on the affiimative, oi have to uebate the topicality gauntlet. Not all topics aie
this way, noi is it in inheient in a uebate topic. But the cuiient college topic piocess
uoes suffei fiom this illness. We shoulu open up topics to allow the alteinative
liteiatuie base go affiimative. When you'ie negative, you answei the affiimative. So
iauicalalteinativeminoiity solutions to topic pioblem aieas aie nevei an
affiimative option without having to uebate topicality in most uebates.
#@'FIAG'DEJE@=E'IJ'FIAG'<@KEGPGEK?K<I@'I@'KIP<R?B<KF'K;EGE'?GE'i'K;<@H='FIA'
=;IABD'ME'=?F<@H1'
g'')DAR?K<I@'<='>I=K'<>PIGK?@KQ'@IK'RI>PEK<K<LE'EaA<KF:'
g''[?GK<R<P?K<I@'<='>IGE'<>PIGK?@K'K;?@'RI>PEK<K<LE'EaA<KF:'
g'!I>PEK<K<LE'EaA<KF'JGI>'B<><K<@H'K;E'GE=IBAK<I@'<='=AM^ERK<LE'?@D'DEM?K?MBE:''
0IAG'P?GK<R<P?K<I@'?@D'EDAR?K<I@'RB?<>='I@'?'@IG>?K<LE'BELEB'?GE'@IK:'
-."3%$#9)'")%+.-+'$.'[")7)"'0.8"'#-$)"[")$%$#.-'.8$N)#U,'$,)#"'
7%#"-)++:'
'
$,)'$.[#!%&#$0'U%8-$&)$V'
You neeu to be ieauy to walk thiough the gauntlet of peifecteu T aiguments if you
want to be a successful K uebatei. Ny view is that you shoulu win most oi all of
youi negative iounus, anu unstoppable success ieally uepenus on you having a goou
affiimative. So if you want to be goou on the affiimative, one thing you have to be
able to uo is piove youi aigument as pioceuuially legitimate.
Beie aie some things that you neeu to be awaie of.
1 - Be cleai in CX what youi affiimative affiims. If you aie shauy, inconsistent oi
abusive, you will be punisheu when uebating a uebatei that is goou at winning the
aigument that you have to be about the iesolution. Cioss Examination is youi pass
oi youi ueath sentence.
2 - Bon't "N0-LINK" out of aiguments. You shoulu engage in moie "N0 INTERNAL
LINK" style aiguments. Be honest, if people aie ieauing Neau oi Beaiuen, why not
go aftei the pait of the aigument that says once you link, you cause nucleai wai.
Eveiy time you set up to answei a negative aigument, you must think about how
this will inteiact with topicality.
S - Be ieauy to iuentify uebatable negative giounu. This is impoitant to a lot of
ciitics. Nake suie you iuentify aiguments that most teams aie ieauing on the
negative.
4 - Be ieauy to explain how youi inteipietation of the topic neithei exploues the
topic, noi ovei-limits the topic. This also means you shoulu always have an
inteipietation of the topic.
S - If you uo not ieau a plan, be ieauy to make aiguments that woulu ultimately say
"ciitical giounu" is moie impoitant than countei-plan giounu. You aie saying that
piocess style aiguments iemove uiscussion away fiom unueistanuing the issues.
The typically "yes we know that, let's uo something about it" shoulu not fly heie.
Youi aigument neeus to be that "action" without tiue unueistanuing eithei pacifies
oui neeu foi ieal change, oi iesults in negative consequences.
6 - Know the histoiy of uebate anu you will get by much easiei. Back in the eaily
9u's in CEBA some people weie ieauing plans, while otheis weie not. The
community was huge then. Theie weie ovei Suu teams at CEBA Nationals. The
uiveisity of appioach in the iesolution biought uebate to its highest paiticipation
numbeis. Now the attempt to say we must uebate like "X" only takes us back to the
uays wheie anyone can qualify foi the NBT because we uon't have many schools
uoing NBT uebate. Who can NBT meige with next, once the "CEBA style" has
phaseu out. (It won'tPuttingtheKinuebate)
7 - Bave ieasons why youi methou of affiiming the iesolution is goou foi uebate.

Theie aie some aiguments that most teams who ieau topicality might make. Now
many times these will oveilap with fiamewoik aiguments. What you neeu to uo is
be ieauy to uebate them anu have youi answeis wiitten uown.
;"0*3)1*%),*$(*"1*(!+*1+/)($<+*
=!+-+*$%*)*("5$3)#*<+-%$"1*">*,"0-*)>>*
?@(-)*A="5$3)#*
?>>+3(%*="5$3)#*
B"(()*!)<+*)*C#)1*
D*E5+3*
F$%3"0-%+*$%*+@(-)G("5$3)#*
H0#+%*/""9*
F+4)($1/*)4"0(*(!+*%()(+*/""9*

()*%$#-U'%77#"3%$#9)1'
Ny view of how to uebate ciitically on the affiimative has changeu ovei the yeais.
Theie weie times when I felt like the iesolution was just a bau iuea, anu thought
that aiguments saying ieject the iesolution on the affiimative weie legitimate. I
owe a lot to Shanahan because he anu I hau some heateu aiguments about some
issues, anu one thing I leaineu is that you shoulu waip the meaning of the topic,
iathei than say it has the powei to shut you out.
N0T ALL CRITICAL AFFIRNATIvES TBAT TALK AB00T 0PPRESSI0N 0R
BISCRININATI0N ARE PR0}ECTS!
Be ieauy to play off of this. This is a common mistake people want to make against K
affiimatives, so they can finu theii "pioject stiategies" fiom the 199u's. Yes, some
teams useu to call theii aigument a pioject. But that uoes not mean you aie one.
"E>E>MEGQ'C;E@'PEIPBE'R?@@IK'J<@D'D<GERK'?GHA>E@K='?H?<@=K'FIAQ'K;EF'C<BB'
KGF'?@D'RI@KGIB'K;E'JG?><@H'IJ'K;E'DEM?KEQ'?@D'RI@=K?@KBF'GEPGE=E@K'FIA'?='
=I>EK;<@H'FIA'?GE'@IK:''$;<='<='I@E'IJ'K;E'M<HHE=K'R;?BBE@HE='?='?'/'DEM?KEGQ'
E=PER<?BBF'I@'K;E'?JJ<G>?K<LE. You neeu to contiol the fiaming of what you uo anu
what you say, which begins with a goou CX anu a consistent inteipietation of youi
affiimative.
view of what you can uo:
Ciiticize itReject It oi The glass ceiling of iueology: This is wheie people say "the
iesolution says x" anu we uon't want to say that, vote affiimative to ieject the
iesolution.
Poke Fun at it: These types of methous coulu use satiie, iiony, metaphois oi othei
methous of attempting to ovei-iuentify with the iesolution as people might say.
Re-inteipiet: This is wheie the best ciitical uebateis finu theii spot. 0nce again,
you make youiself topical, but at the same time finu ciitical ways to leveiage how
youi inteipietation of the topic is noimatively bettei, anu use the
benefitsauvantages fiom youi ciiticismaffiimative as way to impact tuin theii
inteipietation.
Some stiategies involve using statements like "The puipose of this uebate" oi "The
fiamewoik foi this uebate is"... What you uo stiategically is get ieauy to go big in
the 2
nu
constiuctives anu iebuttals on why youi X statement shoulu be the focus,
anu taking on the peispective that you will not lose this uebate. Then if they uon't
uebate you theie, it's an easy win. If they uo, you shoulu be ieauy. That is uebate.
Common questionsaieas of concein you shoulu have when wiiting a ciitical
affiimative!
Bo I ieau a plan.
Will I link to the statism uebate.
Will I be able to compete with the best K uebatei.
What is my answei to fiamewoik.
What is my answei to topicality.
Bow will I outweighfiame shoit-teim uisaus.
Can I iuentify negative giounu.
Bow will I auuiess counteiplanscountei-auvocacies.
Bow will I answei the capitalism kiitik.
Cioss X is so impoitant foi the K uebatei. You live anu uie by CX. You can't say you
will uefenu "passage of plan" but then say no link "we uon't pass plan" as youi fiist
answei to BA's oi CP's. (BA - Bisauvantage ---- CP - Counteiplan)
This biings me to the next thing to consiuei when ieauing a Plan, you will have to
combat countei-plans. uoou policy uebateis have a stoiage closet full of vaiious
executive oiuei (X0) countei-plans, states countei-plans, couits countei-plans..so
if you ieau a plan, you have to consiuei how uo I uefenu against these aiguments.
If you choose to ieau a plan, one stiategy is to say that ontology oi ethics come fiist,
anu if youi plan can be legitimateu on an ontological level, then you woulu want to
be piepaieu to aigue that this is what is most impoitant i.e., ontology comes 1
st
. You
woulu claim this uebate comes befoie looking at the impacts of the plan.
Some people tiy to be ciitical by ieauing a plan with ciitical impacts. 0ne thing to
consiuei is that if you uebate the best K teams, you most likely will suffei fiom youi
own cognizance of knowing that you link. If you have ciitical impacts, then an
alteinative that is K baseu will piobably solve youi affiimative impacts bettei than
using the "state" pei se.
You have to make those stiategic uecisions. Figuie out wheie you woulu like to
foice the uebate. If you woulu iathei have "gotta have a plan" uebate than a "CP of
the week" uebate, then you shoulu not ieau a plan.

+$"%$)U#!'%77#"3%$#9)'$,#-/#-UV'
When you wiite youi affiimative, taking into consiueiation the items above is veiy
impoitant. Beie aie a couple of samples on how to stiategically appioach youi
affiimative.
N0KE WAREXTINCTI0N INEvITABLE APPR0CB (v0IB TBE BA INPACTS)
This type of appioach says we aie all going to uie, so impacts about ueath aie
iiielevant. What is most impoitant is X..might it be whitenessvalue to life etc.
Then you aigue how the secuiitizationfeai of ueathnuke waiviolence etc.. aie
iooteu in the inability to unueistanu "value to life" oi whiteness....
The stiategy heie is that if you win theii impacts aie inevitable, anu only by focusing
on youi affiimative can we auuiess those pioblems, then the only escape fiom the
"negative" impacts is thiough the affiimative.
#3[."$%-$'!.3[.-)-$+'.7'0.8"'%77'/'+$"%$)U0'
In combination with this appioach, you neeu leveiage on how the cuiient "political"
oi policy-making system fails us in youi affiimative aiea. Anu that "fiaming" type of
aiguments that attempt to excluue ceitain iueologies peipetuate uomination,
oppiession anu impeiialism oi whatevei impacts you choose in youi affiimative.
What this uoes is put you aheau on the eviuence siue of the uebate in the 1ac, iathei
than foicing the 2ac to ieau so much eviuence. This also gives the 1ai a pie-pieppeu
aigument extension. 0ne thing you shoulu uo foi youi affiimative is have youi pie-
wiitten extensions to key aiguments you want in the 2ai vs. negative off case
positions, wheie the 1ai piep foi them is shoit, anu piecise on things that you may
not be ieauy foi. Anothei impoitant thing to have ieauy is 1ai extension eviuence.
Youi 2ai piep foi extension of eviuence shoulu also be uone, anu this allows you to
spenu youi piep on compaiing the impoitant issues. Eviuence extensions also help
make suie you uon't foiget an impoitant aigument that is maue within youi
eviuence that the 2ai consistently extenus. You have infinite piep, the question is
what uo you piep.
The next thing you have to consiuei with youi affiimative is how you will answei
othei teams Kiitiks. You'ie not just going to uebate policy teams. This is wheie the
affiimative feels like they have the euge. The negative has the euge in a sense that it
gets to choose wheie to uisagiee. The affiimative neeus to have theii peimutation
eviuence ieauy that says the gooubenefits of the affiimative outweigh othei ciitical
linksimpacts. You must finu youi "money" peimutation eviuence. You must also
figuie out how you will ieau uisauvantages to the alteinative of theii kiitik.



()*%$#-U'-)U%$#9)1'
#J'=I>EI@E'HEK='AP'?@D'=PE?O='JIG'@<@E'><@AKE=Q'#'R?@'J<@D'?'PB?RE'KI'D<=?HGEE:'
You uon't have to agiee with eveiything they say, just finu one place to uisagiee, anu
have goou aiguments on why this is the impoitant place to uisagiee.
Beie aie some key iules to follow when uebating on the negative. When I say iules,
I mean goou iueas that ieally uo play an impoitant iole in winning oi losing.
Rule #1 - Bow uoes theii answei apply to theii affiimative.
Example - They ieau a speaking foi otheis K against you when you ieau youi Kiitik
in the 1nc. The fiist thing you must ask youi self is how uoes this apply to the
affiimative moie.
Rule #2 - Nevei ieau a Kiitik that has a minimalspeculative link.
Finu a conciete place of uisagieement.
Rule #S - Nevei uiop the peimutation.
Especially in the 2NR.
Rule #4 - Bon't be soft on the voting issues. If they aie going to ieau "X" is a votei
on theoiy aiguments, then you shoulu also play this game with many of the absuiu
aiguments they make like "peim uo the alt".
Rule #S - Be cleai about what youi alteinative is in the 1NC anu consistent in CX
anu the 2NR.
Beie aie some things to consiuei when woiking on youi negative aigument.
Fiist anu most impoitant, what aie most people saying anu how uo most people
unueistanu "kiitiks". Some high school camps put out the K toolbox. Nany college
teams have these "toolboxes" also. Analyze those things. 0ne impoitant thing is to
unueistanu how people attempt to unueistanuuebate kiitiks as though they aie
mechanical anu continuously similai. Some people have geneiic caius that aie
taggeu "The alteinative fails" oi "the alteinative ceues the political". You must
engage the "the alteinative" aigument that assumes all Kiitiks aie the same. A goou
K uebatei unueistanus they aie all infinitely similai, but infinitely uiffeient.
When you cieate a K, many people want to say "Whats the
alteinative.".immeuiately. But this is all situational.
If peison X is punching peison Y..anu you tell peison X to stop.it huits peison Y
anu that's bau..uoes peison X neeu an alteinative "something" to punch, oi maybe
is just not punching a goou iuea. Bon't oveicomplicate aiguments. Nake them
simplei. So now, if my alteinative is to just say no to the affiimative, then most of
the aiguments that people typically make when they aie on the affiimative, make no
sense. All of the peimutation aiguments make no sense, because you aie iejecting
the affiimative. All of the alteinative abusive, moving taiget aiguments make no
sense, because youi alteinative is ieject the affiimative. Anu as stateu, you must
piove that theie is offense in saying no to the affiimative. 0ne goou ieason, in my
minu, is uniqueness, seeing that we must change what we aie uoing; otheiwise the
affiimative impacts aie inevitable unuei the cuiient paiauigm.
Now to uo this, you must come back anu ask the question, what makes my aigument
bettei than a non-unique uisauvantage. This is uone thiough a couple of stiategic
methous.
This is what I call common points of inteisection, wheie you can stake out a place
you aie going to uisagiee, anu then be ieauy to uebate why this is impoitant.
Common points of inteisection:
The use of the "State".
The iepiesentations useu to justify the affiimative.
The epistemology oi ontology oi ethics..
The methou of the affiimative in how they uebateu oi intellectually oiganizeu theii
affiimative.
The values oi iueologies enuoiseu by the affiimative case.
The language useu by the affiimative.
What you must be ieauy to uebate, is how this point of inteisection anu
uisagieement is moie impoitant than the auvantages of plan that the affiimative
might achieve. Some people like to make aiguments such as N0ST RE}ECT EvERY
INSTANCE. 0ne of the best aiguments is something like the ueoige eviuence saying
EACB ACTI0N BY TBE STATE REIFIES TBE STATE. These type of aiguments help
you tiansgiess past the "non-unique" uisauvantage obstacle. I have a couple of
obseivations heie. 1
st
- If the affiimative claims "iisk of a link" then you get
inciemental impacts to youi links of youi ciiticism, because they have nullifieu the
ioll of uniqueness anu thiesholu aiguments. 2
nu
- 0se the aigument that the
alteinative is a move away fiom the continuation of the pioblem, which makes the
alteinative of iefusal to engage in acts that ieify the iueology the only unique action
that can gain tiaction on a move towaius change.

$,)'&%-U8%U)'.7'$,)'/"#$#/'
I think this is one key aiea of the uebate that you must give a lot of attention. I will
uiviue this up into affiimative anu negative language. What I want to highlight heie
is that theie aie 4 basic uebates in eveiy "kiitik" uebate that you must be involveu in
when you have those uebates. If you'ie affiimative, you shoulu oiganize youi
fiontlines wheie you aie having these 4 basic uebates. This also helps the 1ai
extensionsline by line in a way that tells the 1ai that theie aie 4 basic uebates. The
Language of the K is wheie you take uebate language that people aie useu to
unueistanuing, anu integiating youi aigument into uebate. Nany people tiy to be K
uebateis, anu they aie saying the same thing, but not in the Language of the K. As
much as you want to be tiue to youi "authoi" oi aigument, you have to use the
language that tiansgiesses youi ciiticism into the uebate, oi if you'ie affiimative
you neeu the language that allows you to compete with the ciiticism. This becomes
veiy appaient on the peimutation uebate, wheie people say the peimutation, but
nevei iuentify the net-benefits to the peimutation. A goou K uebatei is veiy awaie
of this necessity. As the negative, when people only say "peim".you neeu to say
that iuentifying "net-benefits to the peimutation in the 1ai aie new, anu thus
illegitimate.
Theie aie 2 components of common ciitical aiguments that I uo not incluue below
that neeu a section of the K uebate if they aie ielevant.
The fiist is the "Root Cause" uebate. This is useu by ciitical uebateis to voiu out the
affiimative impacts. If they link to X anu X is the ioot cause of theii impacts, then
youi aigument becomes a simple case tuin. Anu even if not a case tuin, they still
uon't solve if you win this aigument. If you'ie affiimative, anu this is pait of theii
ciiticism, one BA to the alteinative is "ioot cause focus bau" oi since it's youi
affiimative, you shoulu be ieauy to have a ioot cause uebate.
The seconu is the "impacts inevitable" aigument. This is somewhat similai, except
sometimes you may want to say "extinction inevitable" oi "nuke wai inevitable"
which allows theii impacts to be solely uepenuent on time fiame aiguments that
cannot be connecteu to Neau oi Beaiuen, because those authois aie too geneiic.
0nce again, you can't spot the affiimative theii auvantages.
Below aie my examples foi the language of the kiitik. I heai people ask what shoulu
my "fiontline" look like against a kiitik, anu I think below you will finu that if it is
not a necessaiy component of the "uebate" aigument, then it is not ieally woith
youi time to make the aigument. The language of the K is the explanation of how
youi aigument impacts the uebate.
-)U%$#9)'&%-U8%U)
The Link Bebate
7I+*!)<+*$%"#)(+9*JJJJJJ*#$1.%*$1*(!$%*9+4)(+'**K0-*+<$9+13+*>"-*(!+*#$1.*9+4)(+*$%*JJJJJJ*
)19*JJJJJJ'8*
G7L+-+*$%*)*#$%(*">*"0-*#$1.%'*MN''ONNPNN8*A*

The Impact Bebate
7=!+-+*$%*1"*3)%+*%"#<+13,'*I+*$19$3(*(!+$-*)9<)1()/+%*)19*%"#<+13,*Q$(!*"0-*JJJJJJJ*
+<$9+13+'8*
7=!+*$&5)3(*("*"0-*#$1.%*">*JJJJJJJJJ*$%*9+&"1%(-)(+9*$1*"0-*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ*+<$9+13+'*7*
7=!+*$&5)3(%*">*(!+*3-$($3$%&*"0(Q+$/!*(!+*$&5)3(%*">*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJJ8*

The Peimutation Bebate
7=!+*5+-&0()($"1*>)$#%*4+3)0%+*$(8R*
- 79"+%*1"(*%"#<+*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJJJ8*
- 79"+%*1"(*%"#<+*(!+*$&5)3(*">*(!+*3-$($3$%&*4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJ8*
- 7(!+-+*)-+*JJJJJJ*9$%)9<)1()/+%*("*(!+*5+-&0()($"1'*=!+,*)-+*NNNM'*N''O'*NN8*
*
The Alteinative Bebate (If you "solve the aff")
7=!+*)#(+-1)($<+*$%*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ'8*
S>*(-0+*A*7=!+*)#(+-1)($<+*%"#<+%*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*)19*(!+-+*)-+*1"*9$%)9<)1()/+%*("*(!+*
)#(+-1)($<+'**D1,*-$%.*">*)1*$&5)3(*("*)1,*">*"0-*#$1.%*&+)1%*,"0*<"(+*1+/)($<+'8*
7=!+*)#(+-1)($<+*%"#<+%*(!+*$&5)3(%*">*(!+*3-$($3$%&*4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ'8*
7=!+-+*)-+*+@(+-1)#*$&5)3(%*(!)(*(!+*)#(+-1)($<+*)99-+%%+%*(!)(*(!)(*)>>$-&)($<+*9"+%*
1"('**=!$%*$%*"0-*JJJJJJJJJJJ*+<$9+13+*)19*(!+,*)-+*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ'8*
S>*)1,*A*7=!+*9$%)9%*("*(!+*)#(+-1)($<+*9"*1"(*"0(Q+$/!*(!+*1+(*4+1+>$(%*">*(!+*
)#(+-1)($<+*Q!+1*Q+*3"1%$9+-*"0-*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ*#$1.%*)19*$&5)3(%*)/)$1%(*(!+*
)>>$-&)($<+'8*
%77#"3%$#9)'&%-U8%U)'
The Link Bebate
7=!+$-*#$1.%*)-+*1"(*)4"0(*0%'**=!+$-*JJJJJJJJJJJJ*+<$9+13+*)19*JJJJJJJJJJJJ*+<$9+13+*9"*1"(*)4"0(*(!+*
)>>$-&)($<+'8*
7I+*!)<+*$%"#)(+9*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ*#$1.*(0-1%*$1*"0-*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ*+<$9+13+'**K0-*#$1.*(0-1%*)##"Q*0%*("*
)33+%%*(!+$-*$&5)3(%*4+((+-*(!)1*(!+$-*#$1.%'8*
S>*(-0+R*7=!+*1+/)($<+*#$1.%*("*(!+$-*"Q1*)-/0&+1(*$1*(!+$-*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ*+<$9+13+'8*

The Impact Bebate
7=!+*$&5)3(%*">*(!+*3-$($3$%&*)-+*1"(*4)%+9*"1*#$1.%*("*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJJJ'8*
7=!+*$&5)3(%*">*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*"0(Q+$/!*(!+*$&5)3(%*">*(!+*3-$($3$%&*4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJJJ8*
7K1#,*4,*%"#<$1/*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*$&5)3(%*3)1*Q+*4+*)4#+*("*)99-+%%*(!+*1+/)($<+*$&5)3(%*4+3)0%+*
JJJJJJJJJ8*

The Peimutation Bebate
7=!+*5+-&0()($"1*$%*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ'*K0-*+<$9+13+*S%*JJJJJJJJJJJJJT-+)9*$(*$>*O)3U*
7=!+-+*)-+*JJJJJJJJJ*1+(*4+1+>$(%*("*(!+*5+-&0()($"1'**=!+,*)-+**MN''ON'PN'*
7=!+*5+-&0()($"1*%"#<+%*(!+*3-$($3$%&8*
7=!+*5+-&0()($"1*%"#<+%*3)%+8*
TS>*M)-U*7I+*!)<+*&"-+*5+-&0()($"1*+<$9+13+JJJ*T-+)9*)1"(!+-*3)-9U*

The Alteinative Bebate
7=!+*)#(+-1)($<+*9"+%*1"(*%"#<+*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJJJ8*
7=!+*)#(+-1)($<+*9"+%*1"(*%"#<+*>"-*(!+*$&5)3(%*">*(!+*3-$($3$%&*4+3)0%+JJJJJJJJJ8*
S>*-+#+<)1(R*7=!+*)#(+-1)($<+*9"+%*%"#<+*>"-*+@(+-1)#*1+(*4+1+>$(%*">*(!+*3-$($3$%&8*
7I+*!)<+*JJJJJJJJJJ*9$%)9<)1()/+%*("*(!+*)#(+-1)($<+'**=!+,*)-+*MNNON''PN''8*
7=!+*9$%)9<)1()/+%*("*(!+*)#(+-1)($<+*"0(Q+$/!*(!+*1+(G4+1+>$(%*">*(!+*)#(+-1)($<+*<%'*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*
4+3)0%+*JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ8

$,)'&#-/'()*%$)'
Nevei entei a uebate with a losing stiategy. 0ne key step towaius putting a check
on such woulu be to make suie you have a link. In othei woius, make suie you can
finu a cleai place of uisagieement.
$,)'&#-/')9#()-!)'
A cleai place of uisagieement begins with goou link eviuence. When the yeai staits,
you use geneiic eviuence that pioviues goou examples that match what the
affiimatives aie uoing. But a goou anu uangeious K uebatei uoes not stop theie.
They then begin to finu specific link scenaiios with impacts foi specific affiimatives.
The best link aiguments aie when youi eviuence quotes the othei teams authois as
a link, then you know you'ie on top of the uebate. Being a ciitical uebatei is about
uoing ieseaich. This is the way to win the heait of the policy juuge who happens to
be setting in the back of the ioom. Show them you ieseaich, anu uon't be a sloppy,
utopian K uebatei. Be ieal.
Befoie the uebate staits you shoulu take a piece of papei anu wiite links acioss the
top. Begin to numbei youi links along with what eviuence you have in the 1nc that
is going to connect the affiimative with the ciitique. If you have one that is
uepenuent on new 2nc link eviuence, list those last, anu ieau the eviuence as you get
to them. Be cleai anu concise on how many links you have. Nuuuleu uebates favoi
tiauitional uebate styles. The auvantage of this is eithei the 1ai answeis all of youi
link aiguments, oi they answei none oi some, which means you get a cleai link.
I call this =!+*V$1.*=-)5. If you have a link, it uoesn't mattei how many answeis the
affiimative makes, you have a link. Youi stiategy heie is to get the 1ai boggeu uown
in uenial, going to each link aigument tiying to win an impossible battle. Technical
1ai's sometimes foiget that they can't answei eveiything. These aie aiguments you
want them to be tiying to answei. A goou uebatei is capable of guiuing the othei
team into going foi the aiguments you know they cannot win.
7"%3#-U'$,)'.$,)"'$)%3'
This is one of the impoitant paits of being a K uebatei is youi ability to contiol the
fiaming of the uebate. This means tuining away all misiepiesentations of theii
aiguments anu contiolling the way theii aigument shoulu be peiceiveu. This is tiue
on both the affiimative anu negative. I talk about it heie, because you have to keep
the images of the 1ac in peispective as the uebate evolves so the othei team is still
foiceu to uefenu what they saiu in the 1ac, iathei than being able to skiit out of theii
1ac anu uefenu veiy minimal positions in the 2ai. They speak last; you have to leave
a lasting impiession. The 2ni is the haiuest speech in the uebate, anu you shoulu be
able to iefeience the eailiei pait of the uebate to avoiu affiimative shape shifting.
This also means you neeu to have goou CX questions anu answeis to help fiame
youi aigument anu theii aigument. When you speak, talk to the othei team, uon't
talk to the juuge. Refei to things as "youi authois" anu "youi ihetoiic". Any mis-
fiaming of you shoulu always be cleaieu up in CX.
#3[%!$'()*%$)''
This pait of the uebate becomes impoitant fiom a meta-abstiact peispective. Boes
youi aigument even compete with the affiimative. If you aie tiying to just stiaight
up outweigh the affiimative, then you neeu to have a stiategic aspect to youi
aigument such as: must always ieject oi value to life outweighs iisk of wai oi each
action ieifies the Kiitik. Nost juuges will think some action is always goou, unless
you can uemonstiate youi aigument on a few levels.
The fiist level is the uenial of solvency. Built into youi ciiticism shoulu be
aiguments that the affiimative uoes not solve, that theii liteiatuieknowleuge base
is flaweu. Then you must ueny the inteinal links to theii aiguments.
Then you neeu to engage in how the affiimative makes things woise, the case tuin
poition of youi aigument.
The next level is wheie you attempt to engage in why this place you uisagiee is
impoitant. You shoulu be ieauy to have an extensive uebate about why theii
____________ is impoitant to theii politics anu the outcome of theii plan.
-Ethics fiist0ntology fiistvalue to Life fiist
As you can see, if you win youi off-case, then you shoulu be piotecteu fiom most of
what the 1ac has to say. This is why some teams choose to only ieau 1 0ff, anu
nevei go to case. It ieally uepenus on what you want to uo. Sometimes you neeu a
case uebate because you can ieau many othei inuepenuent ciiticisms of the
affiimative that aie not tieu to youi laigei off case position.
Bo not allow youi impact eviuence to make the pioblemimpact seem inevitable oi
unsolvable. What you woulu like to uo is impact youi aigument as the ioot oi as key
to the impacts of theii aiguments i.e., Root of all violence - Root of all oppiession -
This way you can get a no solvency anu a case tuin if you have a link. You aie uoing
just like the policy teams, when you say tiy oi uie, but in this instance its change oui
"fiamewoik" oi uie. In othei woius, if we continue to enact policy thiough the
uominant paiauigm, then we will all uie oi most will suffei anu uie, while some live.
It's also goou to have an impact that says we shoulu avoiu each anu eveiy instance.
This is best iepiesenteu by the Bainut uebate, on "Nust ieject eveiy instance of
iacism". Lay it out in the 2nc as an inuepenuent impact, anu see how they ueal with
it. 1ai fumble means you have an easy impact that outweighs the affiimative. If you
get goou at it, it uoesn't mattei what the 1ai uoes.

$,)'[)"38$%$#.-'
Remembei in the beginning wheie I saiu a key stiategy foi speaking fiist is to piove
the othei team nevei uisagieeu with you. In competitive uebate we call this the
peimutation
WBEN Y00'RE AFFIRNATIvE
As you can see, most of what I have wiitten is baseu on being negative. If you'ie
affiimative the peimutation can also be a tool foi you. Nany people wiite theii
affiimatives so as to not take an absolute stance on something, oi say veiy little, anu
that then allows them to say, "yeah, that too". As the affiimative, you want to have
some clutch peimutation stiategies that aie uesigneu to say eithei it is okay to have
a little bau within youi politics anu we shoulun't ieject politics baseu on theii lack of
peifection. Theie is a book calleu IuentityBiffeience that gets to some of these
issues. You neeu peimutation eviuence, anu it woulu be nice to have extension
eviuence foi the 1ai. Anothei impoitant thing to utilize is the language of uebate.
Iuentify anu explain the net benefits to the peimutation in the 2ac. Bon't just thiow
the woiu aiounu, but use it to stiategically engage pioving that youi aiguments uo
not uisagiee to a level that woulu justify voting against the affiimative. The ciitic
ieally wants to know the net benefits vs. the uisauvantages to the peimutation.
WBEN Y00'RE NEuATIvE
This seems to have become a silvei bullet against uebate aiguments that uo not
seem piocess oiienteu. Ny pioblem with the "peimutation" is people act like
aiguments aie a machine, anu if I iemove the batteiy it won't iun. The peim is like
the batteiy. An aigument is not like a machine, anu I hope you leain to uebate
outsiue of the Caitesian paiauigm. This means that theie is no one singulai foui
letteis oi woiu that shoulu be able to eliminate an entiie aigument with many
uiveise links anu impacts. You as the uebatei neeu to be able to take on the
peimutation. 0ne stiategy some people have employeu is to let the 1ni take the
peimutation, anu spenu the whole time on it if neeueu. I encouiage you to set some
stanuaius foi what you think a peimutation can be, anu how it shoulu function. You
cannot just wiite off all peimutations as bau, because when two teams that aie moie
K oiienteu uebate each othei, this is ieally the only uebate to be hau many times.
Beie is youi tiick. You want to foice the 1ai into ueciuing; uo I go foi the no link
aiguments, oi the peimutation. A goou block means the 1ai cannot answei all of
youi iuentifieu links you list in the 2nc anu all of youi peimutation eviuence anu
aiguments. As you stiengthen youi links, you'ie cieating uisauvantages to the
peimutation. As you stiengthen youi peimutation, you shoulu be auuing moie
links. If they just go foi no link aiguments, you will still beat them with youi
peimutation aiguments that aie also links anu impacts.
- Answei the specific peim - Bon't just gioup them oi ieau a big oveiview.
}ust like you shoulun't be able to apply one peim to youi aigument, you
shoulun't be able to apply one geneiic "peim" block against all peims.
- 0se the whole 1ni if necessaiy - Nake suie you foice the 1ai into a stiategic
uecision on this.
- 0se the language of uebate - what aie the auvantages anu uisauvantages of
peim
- Bave them wiite out all peimutations
- Bon't uiop ?@F peimutation ELEG
- Youi links aie youi uisauvantages to the peim - if you hau no link then the
peim woulu make sense.
Beie aie some examples of how people woulu make these aiguments. Whenevei
they use one-lineis like the ones below, a woiu that is neithei a claim oi a waiiant,
you neeu to have a way to apply the "makes no sense BA". People aie hanueu blocks
wheie he woius aie wiitten on theie, but nevei pioviue an explanation. I see these
as illegitimate anu so uo most ciitics as long as you iuentify them as such. When I
saiu set stanuaius above, I mean uo something like say:
The peimutation has S iequiiements to be legitimate.
1. Nust say what the peimutation is.
2. Nust have a claim anu a waiiant
S. Nust have net benefits iuentifieu by the 2ac - 1ai sanubagging is abusive.
Then you can apply this aigument to all of theii peimutations that aie not
aiguments.
SANPLES:
C+-&*G**
C+-&*9"*4"(!*G*
C+-&*9"*(!+*)#(*A*
Aiguments like "peim uo the alt" make no sense. You neeu you be able to say, "the
alteinative is ieject the affiimative"..giant this aigument..vote negative.not a
ieason to vote affiimative.no net benefit iuentifieu. Auuitionally, this seveis the
auvocacy of the 1ac anu I have uiscusseu eailiei why the affiimative must be
accountable foi the speech acts of the 1ac.
C+-&*9"*(!+*5#)1*(!+1*(!+*)#(*A*This aigument misunueistanus what a K is anu
piobably what an aigument is to be honest. If you have any links into why the
affiimative is bau, then it makes no sense to uo this. Also, if you have an alteinative
that solves the affiimative impacts aigument, then theie is no ieason to iisk the
links. This is also no uiffeient than a time-fiame peimutation anu functions like
youi iegulai policy uebate time-fiame peimutation.
D19*(!)(*W0%($>$+%*5+-&*9"*(!+*)#(*A*You have to watch out foi this popping up in the
1ai. The 2ac will say alt is abusive in some way, anu then the 1ai will spin this
aigument to say the tag above. 2ni neeus to be ieauy.
?<+-,*"(!+-*$1%()13+*5+-&*A*This aigument maue sense when people weie using
abusive alteinatives that saiu "we shoulu all love each othei" as I uemonstiateu
eailiei. This is baseu on the iuea, that if we all loveu each othei, then we coulu uo
the plan anu the alteinative of love woulu keep any of the impacts fiom occuiiing.
The solvency foi the alteinative oveiwhelms the links to the kiitik is the basis of this
aigument. 0nce again, if youi alt is not a utopian alt, then you aie uebating about
the politics of the 1ac, anu thus all we aie only talking about the instance of the 1ac.
Also, this peimutation is a "utopian peimutation". I think K uebateis neeu "utopian
peimutations bau" aiguments, but if they say utopian alteinatives aie bau, anu you
uon't have a utopian alteinative, then all of those aiguments anu impacts apply to
the affiimatives utopian peimutation.
=$&+*X-)&+*C+-&*A*Biscusseu above. They nevei allow foi a tiue test of
competition. These peimutations maue sense in a policy woilu wheie some
uisauvantages weie time baseu like elections, but that is not tiue in all instances,
anu iaiely in most instances.
X""(1"(+*5+-& - Coulu say 2 things. Peim - footnote the affiimative oi that theii
peimutation footnotes the affiimative. I am not suie why this tests the competition
of the two aiguments, but you neeu to figuie out what you woulu say if someone
attempteu to uo this.
E(-$.+(!-"0/!*5+-& - Eiasuie might be goou woiu heie also. This has been a
piouuct of Beiiiua. The ieason woulu be to not foiget the baggage that has come
along with the woiu.
Y0@()5"%$($"1*5+-&*A*Z%+*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*("*W0@()5"%+*Q$(!*(!+*3-$($3$%&*)%*"1+*Q),*">*
019+-%()19$1/*(!+*Q"-#9'**T%)&5#+U*A*Theie aie uiffeient ways people use this
aigument. Some people use it to say youi ciiticism is impossible without my
affiimative. I see it as moie like my ciiticism isn't necessaiy absent youi affiimative.
This uoes not seem to be a ieason why the affiimative shoulu win oi the ciiticism
shoulu be ignoieu, unless you mishanule the aigument, oi woist case, uon't answei
it.
C+-&*9"*(!+*5#)1*)19*(!+*)#(+-1)($<+*$1*"(!+-*$1%()13+%*A*I have not concluueu why
this makes sense yet. This is a common aigument maue, anu uoes make sense to
some people. It is a plan plus type of peimutation which captuies all the net
benefits of youi alteinative. But, if you have links, they nevei access youi alteinative
anu if youi alteinative is to ieject the affiimative, then it ieally makes no sense. But,
many policy teams make this type of aigument no mattei what the alteinative
woulu be. If it's a "Ciitique" then some people assume all of theii typical policy style
aiguments apply. Youi links aie youi shielu against this aigument.
Nany of the peimutations maue by most teams uo not focus on iemoving theii links
to the affiimative, but aie moie oiienteu towaius making assumptions about the
alteinative. Be awaie of this. When you ueciue how you will ueploy youi
alteinative, you must consiuei how it will function in the woilu of peimutations.

$,)'%&$)"-%$#9)1'
I hau a uiscussion eailiei about the concept of the alteinative in uebate. Theie aie
instances wheie you might neeu an alteinative. Bowevei, I want to say that some
people who wan the "kiitik" to be vieweu as outlanuish, teach you to use the Kiitik
with those alteinatives that assume you can fiat minuset shifts. I say uon't uo it.
When I say use a ieject the affiimative type alteinative, heie is an example:
The alt is to refuse the politics of the 1AC - this political act is key to exposing the fissures of
dominant ideology which is the most productive method of dissent
burke 2007
In the case of sexistiacistshomophobic language, sometimes the alteinative is
neeueu if you want people to have a uiffeient woiu to uesciibe theii woilu. Theie
aie also instances wheie alteinative fiamewoiks exist to auuiess ceitain issues oi
conceins. Nany times this is liteiatuie uepenuent. Theie was a time that whenevei
you saiu you hau an iuea foi a K, someone woulu say "what's the alteinative.".
Theie aie some inteiesting ways of thinking about this notion of alteinative.
Sometimes its goou to just say, "uon't uo it"...0thei times though, theie neeus to be
anothei option, oi things will continue to be uone the only way that people know
how...This is wheie you neeu to be uoing youi ieseaich. Campbell hau an
inteiesting aigument claiming that we must stop oi bieakthiough oi out of the
cuiient fiamewoik oi paiauigm if we can evei finu the space to see othei
alteinatives. Right now, uominant moues of thinking pievent the uiscoveiy of newly
possible alteinatives. So the alteinative question is seconuaiy to the piimaiy neeu
of escaping a uominant paiauigm. In many uebates you will have to feel out how
you want to fiame the alteinative. If it's a team that gives you the leeway to ieau the
alteinative like a countei-plan, then play with it. But iemembei, if you want a soliu
aigument; just fulfill the 4 levels of aigument uiscusseu eailiei:
a. Youi liteiatuie is bauyoui theoiiesschools of thought etc.
b. You uon't solve - a bettei K has a Kiitik of the iuea of "solvency"
c. You make things woiseImpacts inevitable absent "alt"
u. This is the most impoitant thing in this uebate i.e., impact calculus
Then, it uoesn't mattei how youi theoiy aiguments get inteipieteu. Fiom this, I
want you to see how getting to play in the woilu of "alteinatives" is only anothei
avenue foi you to be able to seal the uebate moie easily by playing off of theii bau
unueistanuing of ciitical aiguments. Nake suie you get A-B lockeu uown, anu
winning an alteinative type aigument below is just bonus shots at winning.
ALTERNATIvES TBAT "S0LvE" TBE AFFIRNATIvE
0ne simple oveiview to lay out in the 2NC is one that allows the ciitic to see the
uebate fiom a meta-level. Like:
=!+*)#(+-1)($<+*%"#<+%*(!+*)>>$-&)($<+*A*=!$%*$%*"0-*JJJJJJJJJ*+<$9+13+*$1*(!+*M13'*
=!+-+*)-+*1"*9$%)9<)1()/+%*("*(!+*)#(+-1)($<+2*)1,*-$%.*">*)*#$1.*("*)1,*">*"0-*$&5)3(%*
&+)1%*,"0*Q"0#9*<"(+*1+/)($<+'*
When you iun this type of alteinative, this is wheie you want to situate youiself in
the uebate iounu.
A - They uiu not ueny you coulu solve theii affiimative auvantages. (like a CP)
B - They uiu not ieau any uisauvantages to the alteinative. (IE - no offense against
the CP)
Any policy juuge can unueistanu this aigument, anu see why at a meta-level the
affiimative cannot win if they uiu not ueny those two claims.
Theie aie theoietical issues with how you fiame youi alteinative that you shoulu
consiuei when taking this appioach. Some examples incluue the iuea that you fiat
eveiyone's attituues, oi that you uefenu X as youi alteinative, but then say it
eventually solves the affiimative. You ieally aie uepenuing on the othei team letting
theii guaiu uown on those theoiy aiguments to get youi alteinative to function in
the uebate. I challenge you to make uebate "make sense". Bon't let it be some
fantasy woilu wheie aiguments become ungiounueu. Be the giounueu uebatei.
Keep things simple!
ALTERNATIvES TBAT INCL0BE TBE "PLAN"
This type of alteinative has to uo with having something like a ciitique of language
oi iepiesentations that weie useu in the 1ac. Youi aigument woulu be that we
shoulu suppoit the affiimative plan, without the 1ac iepiesentations. This woulu be
the 1nc anu 2nc alteinative. Some people have iefeiieu to this as a floating pic. I
think it is a goou way to show the politics of the 1ac was bau. 0ne pioblem with this
type of stiategy is when the 2ac stanus up anu ieaus auu-on auvantages of
iepiesentations that aie goou that you uo not have a iepiesentationlanguage K
against, anu thus plan has moie auvantages than youi alteinative without the
iepiesentations. Sometimes this makes sense, othei times it's haiu to unueistanu.
Sometimes it's okay to push the baiiieis anu see what you can get away with.
Especially if you know that you will tuin the affiimative with youi aigument
without them accessing theii auvantages, then you can tiy othei ways to seal the
uebate.
ALTERNATIvES TBAT "RE}ECT" TBE AFFIRNATIvE
These aie my favoiite because you escape the theoiy aiguments that people have
cieateu in iesponse to bau ciitique uebate. Think of it this way, if someone stoou up
anu saiu we aie all going to uie, anu then convinceu us of this. Theii next move was
to offei a solution. We look at it anu ueciue, nah, it won't actually solve. Woulu the
senatois just go home anu get ieauy to uie. No, they woulu come back anothei uay,
with anothei iuea; most likely tomoiiow, anu not with the affiimative plan. So it's
nevei tiy oi uie. If you neeueu an alteinative it might be goou to say we coulu view
X fiom X fiamewoik as opposeu to the one useu by this plan, but that's not ieally
neeueu. Tiy oi uie assumes people thiow theii up theii hanus anu give up. By
saying ieject the plan, you'ie not saying let's all give up. You'ie saying not this
affiimative in hopes that anothei "senatoi" will finu a bettei way to auuiess the
pioblem. The fallback to tiy oi uie shoulu also help you if you have some "post-
plan" impacts. Roll-foiwaiu policies. You know, 2ac says we uon't solve, we might
ueciease a iisk, means that affiimative loses contiol ovei howwho.what methous
will be useu to auuiess this concein that they have elevateu to extinction. If the
status quo is violent, then the affiimative opens the uooi foi any action necessaiy
that is not theii plan to auuiess the impacts they iuentify. If people want to be
policy makeis, then be ieal. Politics of extinction is uangeious. You neeu a stiategy
to play off of this.
ALTERNATIvE TBE0RY ARu0NENTS
Theie aie a couple of theoiy aiguments you shoulu be able to uispel immeuiately
when they aie maue.
D#(+-1)($<+*$%*&"<$1/*()-/+( - If you have a cleai cioss-x anu have a consistent place
wheie you uiscuss the alteinative anu the way you uesciibe the alteinative nevei
changes, you shoulu be fine.
D#(+-1)($<+*$%*Z("5$)1 - This makes sense in some instances wheie alteinatives aie
something of the amoiphous "we shoulu all love each othei" oi "eveiyone shoulu
embiace a theoiy of non-violence". This is not going to happen. Theie is no way it
can happen. You must position youi alteinative against the affiimative plan.
D#(+-1)($<+*>$)(%*&$19%+(*%!$>(%*- This aigument is similai to the lastone. In cioss-
xpolicy uebate we have a somewhat "social contiact" that we uebate the
iesolutions anu pietenu the policy is passeu. Though all of this is uebatable as fai as
why we have "fiat" anu is it even necessaiy, the key thing to iealize is that you tiuly
shoulu not tiy anu fiat a minuset shift foi anyone beyonu those whom you aie tiying
to peisuaue. What I mean is that the ievolutionaiy eneigy it takes to get ieal change
gets unueimineu by iueas that aie too fai out theie to possibly be tiue. People stait
taking impoitant iueas less seiiously because they weie poitiayeu in such
impossible ways.
()*%$#-U'!"#$#!%&'$)%3+'
It is so inteiesting to see people tiy to compiehenu how to uebate othei ciitical
teams. Theie have been teams that talk about how they will uisagiee befoie the
uebate, anu then have a uebate fiom that point. Theie is always a place to uisagiee.
If you stanu up foi nine minutes anu speak, I will always finu a place to uisagiee.
Then I neeu a uebate on why that place of uisagieement is impoitant. So how uo
you uebate K teams. You engage the liteiatuie. If you'ie affiimative, you most
likely will be going foi a peimutation. If you aie negative, then you neeu to uo goou
ieseaich against the aiguments theii authois aie making. Within all of the K
liteiatuie mostly, theie aie uebates about the issues being uiscusseu. You can't iun
fiom ieseaiching the othei team, you neeu to take them up on theii aigument. A
goou example is Nietzsche. If you ieau one of the many Nietzsche aiguments on the
negative, you know that many ciitical authois take some of what they leain fiom
Nietzsche. It is almost unavoiuable in acauemia. What you have to uo is finu the
liteiatuie wheie the uiscussions occui. If youi affiimative, you might want some of
those aiguments about how youi authoi is Nietzschean, to make the peimutation
aigument. Nany of these uebates aie ieally ueciueu by who has uone the best
ieseaich. That is uisplayeu by uoes the negative team ieally have a link oi not. If
the negative gets a link, usually the affiimative will lose. It is funny ieauing the
online uiscussions about uebating against ciitical affiimatives, anu most people
ieally assume a ciitical affiimative is only giiping about uebate, oi nevei has any
political value. As a ciitical uebatei, you have to give the ciitical affiimatives some
iespect, but come to unueistanu that these aie new styles of uebates, anu the
methous can change. If they uon't have to be topical, anu you give them the giounu
to not ieau a plan, then you neeu to have a goou uefense of why the peimutations
shoulu be evaluateu uiffeiently. You uon't have to uisagiee with eveiything they
say, just finu one place. Remembei that. If you aie affiimative, then you get to
pietty much cheat as much as you want with youi 1ac, as long as you aie ieauy to
uefenu what you uo. A goou K team will have a fiamewoik style aigument that says
uebate goou, so be caieful. But if you'ie uebating a team that nevei ieaus T oi
fiamewoik, why ieau a plan anu give them links. Think about some of these things.
At the same time, why aie you not always uebating this way. (without a plan) As
stateu above, the best auvice is to uo youi ieseaich anu piepaie. Engage theii
aigument. Bave some uisauvantages to theii alteinative ieauy, if they offei one.
Eveiything I have saiu above about finuing a place to uisagiee anu pioving why that
is impoitant applies to uebating eveiyone. That is uebate. When people tiy to think
of a ciitical affiimative as anything moie than an aigument, they misunueistanu
what the aigument ieally says. Theie will be anothei euition of the ciitical uebateis
hanubook that incluues a moie in uepth uiscussion on uebating othei teams ieauing
moie ciitical aiguments that talks about specific types of affiimatives. The
following uiscussion on piaxis etc. will actually give moie insight on how to uebate
"ciitical" teams.
3)$,.(b["%Z#+b7."3'%-('!.-$)-$1
I feel like this is a place wheie people can ieally finu how to best expiess
themselves. Take the peisonal test. uive a 9 minute speech any way you want about
anything you want. Bave youi S best fiienus listen to you. Naybe they aie not
uebateis. Puipose: Finu out how to best expiess youiself. Some people aie gieat
stoiy telleis, otheis aie poets. Challenge the noims of uebate that say you have to
speak a ceitain way to uebate. Theie is no one uefinition of uebate. Bebate ieally is
what we make it. Now, to succeeu, you neeu to unueistanu wheie some of the
conventions in uebate come fiom. When I say unueistanu, I mean ieally attempt to
asceitain why things have become the way that they aie.
0ne example is how uo we make this event "objective". It is haiu foi people to
paiticipate in a "competitive" event, if the winnei is ueteimineu subjectively. This
becomes a lot of people's complaint against non-eviuence foims of uebate. Besiues
just speaking anu peisuauing, something shoulu be auueu to make people engage in
ieseaich, anu have suppoit foi theii aiguments. So then, like a couit of law, we have
eviuence. Like a couit of law, we have cioss-examination. Like a couit of law, we
biought in teims like "piesumption". Eviuence became a ueciuing factoi, but theie
was also this pioblem of aigument iesponsibility. If I make anu aigument, then you
shoulu have the iesponsibility to answei, otheiwise I woulu be iight. Because if that
weie not the stanuaiu, anu we only evaluate youi aiguments baseu upon if I answei
them oi not, then I woulu selectively only "answei" youi woist aiguments. So then
came the buiuen of iejoinuei. Along with this iuea, came the iuea that silence is
consent. Like law, if I sue someone anu they uo not ieply, then theii silence is a
gianting of the aigument. Fiom this peispective, the speeu of uebates began to
inciementally climb. Speeu has been useu in uebate foi stiategic puiposes since at
least the miu 7u's. Now, we aie talking 4u yeais of fast infoimation piocessing. This
amount of time is easily long enough wheie tienus can be set of people peifecting
this foim of uebate. If you unueistanu how we got to oui fast technical uebates,
then you can bettei unueistanu how to ueconstiuct them. So uebateis staiteu going
fast, anu juuges staiteu to be uiviueu up into those who can "flow' anu those who
cannot "flow". The uebateis, who weie fast, anu technical, anu hau a lot of eviuence
to match theii speeu, staiteu to become the moie uominant. As ones uominance in
an event giows, you woulu have less uesiie foi that event to change. So then we get
the many noims of uebate that exist touay. Yes, we uo a lot of things because of the
natuie of the activity, but its best to tiy to unueistanu why!
As uebateis go fastei anu fastei theii peisuasive skills aie ieuuceu moie anu moie.
}uuges aie tieateu like infoimation piocesseis, anu the ability to vote against things
you uisagiee with is moie possible in a woilu wheie youi iules foi the "flow" anu
stanuaius of iequiieu eviuence weie the simple ueciuing factois of who wins oi
loses, not ieally how much the peison actually believeu the aigument. It ieally was
a move to tiy anu be the most faiiobjective uecision makei. As a uebatei you must
iecognize this. Theie aie ieasons foi the conventions, but is now the time to bieak
uown those conventions. Since most people uo it, if you get goou at bieaking it
uown, you shoulu have measuie of success.
0ne thing that becomes cleai when you uebate uiffeiently, is people aie looking foi
some way to pigeon hole you oi fiame you into a ceitain aigument so they can
access specific pieces of eviuence. You shoulu think about how calling you
something you aie not might have some impacts to it. You shoulu also be awaie that
you must have an aigument. No mattei how you say it, you must be able to
contextualize a uebate aigument fiom what you aie saying. Nany teams will nevei
heai youi aigument, anu only play off of youi methou, iathei than youi aigument.
Some people say you shoulu have a methouology uebate, saying youi methou is
goou. I uon't think you shoulu uo something, then ieau someone else saying it can
uo a ceitain thing. Its goou have a uefense, but if you uo it well, you uon't neeu
methouology caius. Policy uebateis uon't always ieau eviuence saying theii
methouology is goou, so I am not suie why it's an alteinative style uebatei's buiuen.
Not to steal fiom Nike, but just uo it. Bon't say uebate pievents X, oi uoes X, uebate
the way you want to uebate, anu then when they say you cannot uebate that way,
that youi type of uebate shoulu be excluueu, you tuin on the offense anu let them
have it. In this instance, you aie the alteinative. You embouy anu uebate like it.
That is why I say uebate is what we make it.
+[))(1'
Speeu kills. It wins uebates, anu it loses uebates. Foi many people this is the tool
that helps them win uebates. Nake moie aiguments than the othei team is able to
answei. Foi many people this type of uebate is fun. When you have a juuge anu an
opponent that ieally likes this kinu of uebate, people have fun. Bowevei, theie
becomes a time when "speeu" becomes uangeious. This happens when you lose
contiol ovei youi content, get consumeu in bieauth of aiguments anu lose sight of
the simple manifestation of uebate: Wheie uo we uisagiee anu why is that
impoitant! As a uebatei, it is nice if you have the speeu to battle any team, anu
nevei have the concein of someone making moie aiguments than you can answei.
Bowevei, some people allow this uesiie to go fast ovei-consume them into making
as many bau aiguments as they uo goou aiguments. The speeu of the uebate has 2
vaiiables. The fiist is the actual iate of speaking, anu numbei of aiguments the
uebateis aie making. The seconu vaiiable is wheie the alteinative uebatei wants to
be. This is the vaiiable of limiting the uebate to in uepth 2 oi S aiguments, while
allowing youiself to uiscount most othei aiguments stiategically. When you get
ieauy to say why this is an impoitant place to uisagiee, you want to be ueep. Then
you can filtei thiough theii aiguments that aie not applicable to this uebate, anu
thus contiol the speeu of the uebate.
I have 2 key tips heie:
Ny fiist aiea of auvice on speaking anu speeu is nevei bieach the point of
incompiehensibility. Nobouy likes it. Finu the place wheie you can go fast but uo
not ovei uo it.
Ny seconu aiea of auvice is to go slow enough wheie the ciitic can compiehenu anu
unueistanu each anu eveiy caiu you ieau. You want them to be with you as you put
the iounu togethei. Some aiguments aie too in-uepth foi some people to pick up
the eviuence aftei the iounu anu unueistanu. You neeu to be teachingexplaining
youi aigument as the uebate is happening.
Theie aie people that ieau the so-calleu "speeu" kiitik. I want to uefenu it, but I also
want to uiscouiage it. I will uefenu it because it piivileges stuuents who can ieceive
the best euucation anu have the money to attenu long institutes with tiaining in the
techne of uebate. When we have stuuents who spenu much of theii euucation in
schools wheie secuiity is somehow elevateu ovei euucation, to tell them they have
to be able to pick something up anu ieau it quickly to be able to play uebate, many
stuuents woulu iathei quit uebate than tell someone that can't ieau veiy well.
Theie is a tiue impact of exclusion involveu when we say "that is what uebate is".
This might also explain the uemogiaphics of who aie elite champions in college anu
high school uebate. Not all the time, but most of the time. I have seen stuuents walk
away fiom uebate foi these ieasons. Stuuents fiom all iaces, sexes, classes anu
genueis. So theie is a goou aigument as to why speeu is bau foi uebate.
But heie is how I want to uiscouiage it. This is wheie I say you shoulu capitalize on
it by utilizing non-speeu to youi auvantage. Bo you ieally think that juugesciitics
aie not vulneiable to peisuasion. So look at uebate this way. Theie aie a seiies of
ties you neeu to attenu to foi the puiposes of winning a uebate. The fiist one is
being able to touch all of theii aiguments. This means that you have to, in some
way, take theii aiguments into consiueiation. Theie is giouping, anu theie is focus
oi simplifying the uebates. I will explain this on the "flowgame-boaiu" uiscussion.
The seconu one is actually extenuing youi eviuence anu answeiing theiis, while
compaiing the two. The uebatei that compaies theii "eviuence" to the othei teams
is aheau of the uebatei who only extenus theii eviuence anuoi answeis the othei
teams. Then if both teams uo such, we have the "uebate aftei the uebate". This is
wheie the ciitics ieau theii eviuence. I feel like this is wheie a goou team shoulu
win most of theii uebates. If you lose the uebate aftei the uebate, then you neeu to
go back anu uo moie ieseaich. This also means if you aie ieally goou, you know
which caius to have in the ciitic's hanus at the enu of the uebate, anu you have
alieauy tolu them how they can take the most of the othei teams eviuence, anu still
not be able to oveicome youi quality eviuence.
Then, if you have hau the ability, incluue moments of peisuasion in youi aigument.
Believe me, uebate ciitics aie boieu of the same olu same olu, anu if you biing
something new anu aie goou at it, all you have to uo is take note of the conventions
of uebate that aie haiu foi people to bieak out of, anu tiy to just tie the othei team.
The team who went the slowest piobably hau bettei moments of peisuasion anu
connecteu with a ciitics oi ciitics, acknowleuging that humans can nevei be blank
slates. (Bebatable I know)

7&.NbU%3)g*.%"(1'
I like to iefei to this as the game-boaiu. This is ieally the ciitic's foim of iecoiu
keeping. 0nce again, to tiy anu go thiough the steps oi huiules of how most people
juuge uebates. You can't win if you can't uiaw a game-boaiu. You neeu to know
how it's uone. It is an uphill battle to win without knowing how most uebate ciitics
function in foimulating theii uecision. Why uo they uo it. To make suie we fulfill a
buiuen of iejoinuei. You neeu to fulfill a minimum B0R. Leain how to uiaw a game-
boaiu fiist, anu see how uecisions aie maue befoie you ueciue to play uebate
completely off the game-boaiu. You have to see how people noimally unueistanu
uebate. Is flowing haiu. Yep, but get this. Theie have been thousanus of people
who think they can "take notes" on theii flow, anu uon't see that it is one component
of peoples uesiie to have an objective activity that makes sinking 1uu houis a week
of woik into. You have to iespect that.
So heie is a way to view the game-boaiu. You ieally neeu to be able to attenu to
"voting issues" anu "eviuence". That shoulu be youi piioiity. When youi negative,
you can somewhat contiol the amount of game-boaiu bieauth by ieauing one off
case anu then having some case aiguments. This makes the uebate about 2 game-
boaius; the 1ac game-boaiu anu the 1 off case game-boaiu. The 2ac woulu then
have a list of aiguments alieauy piepaieu against the "off case" game-boaiu. The
uiffeience between off case anu case aiguments can be explaineu like this. The 1ac
speaks anu so they have cieateu the fiist game-boaiu. If you want to flow each
auvantage sepaiately, then you woulu have howevei many game-boaius you cieate
uiviuing up the 1ac. Foi my sample:
Auvantage I (uame-boaiu 1)
Solvency (uame-boaiu 2)
Then the 1nc speaks. If they have aiguments about auvantage I, they woulu make
those on that game-boaiu. Say we have thiee.
1. ..
2. ..
S...
Then you have solvency aiguments on the seconu game-boaiu.
1. ....
2...
Then you have one meta position we will call the "off case" aigument. When you say
"off case" you aie saying you want a new game-boaiu foi the ciitic to tiack this
uebate.
Y00 B0 N0T SAY I BAvE 2 0FF CASE anu 4 0N CASE.
Youi ioaumap shoulu say 2 0ff case, anu then iuentify which game-boaiu you woulu
like to uiscuss fiom the 1ac. It's okay to not iefute all of the 1ac, so be specific on
which game-boaiu you want the ciitic to be wiiting. Then when anyone is going to
iefei to those aiguments, they take eveiyone to that game-boaiu. The 2ac woulu
then lay out theii "fiontlines" to the "off case" baseu upon theii pie-pieppeu
aiguments against this position. If they have 12 answeis, then the negative team
has to figuie out some way to take those 12 answeis into consiueiation. The 2ac
woulu then go to each of the 1ac game-boaius, anu talk about those aiguments in
oiuei of - 1. 2. S...just as the 1nc has laiu them out. If a speakei is speaking, wiite
what they say in the oiuei they say it. Pietty simple.
Theie can be a ueepei uiscussion on this with in anothei volume, my point is you
have to take into account why anu how the noim exists if you want to
uisiuptoveicome it.
Now theie aie stiategies as to why you woulu want to uisiupt the flow in a uebate. If
you feel like theie aie only a few simple aiguments you neeu to win to win the
uebate, then you shoulu just lay out those aiguments in oiuei, pioviuing ieasons
how each aiguments answeis each off case. So the 2ac says, no oiuei, oi new sheet
of papei. The stiategy heie is that the 2n anu the 1n have uiviueu up game-boaius
alieauy, anu theii tiaineu way of extenuing aiguments assumes that you go to each
game-boaiu, anu isolate each uebate, but if you just make aiguments anu then say
how they answei each off case, the negative block is not suie how to pioceeu when
you uo not split up the game-boaius.. The 1ai just has to extenu the 2ac aiguments
in oiuei, while answeiing the so-calleu uioppeu aiguments that the negative will
extenu.
Theie aie a few impoitant things I want to expiess about the game-boaiu. 0ne is to
leain how to caive youi key aiguments into the game-boaiu that aie about wheie
you uisagiee anu why that is impoitant. I mean be veiy cleai, "we will have the
value to life uebate heie". It is much bettei to offei up a key battle anu see if they
take you up on it, then tiy anu be sneaky anu hope they uon't catch it. You want to
beat them with this aigument, so be veiy cleai wheie you aie having key uebates.
Some people call this fiontloauing youi aiguments.
Bebate above the flow: What I mean by this is that at some point in the uebate, the
eviuence has been laiu out anu many aiguments aie not tiuly about the place wheie
you might uisagiee. Be the uebatei that can step up above the "extenuyesno" anu
actually uo the "eviuence" compaiison fiom actually ieauing both teams eviuence,
then you have a bettei chance of success. Step out of the muck, anu ieally highlight
the key aiguments anu eviuence.
Now as a juuge, I can tell when a uebatei is not actually using a game-boaiu because
they spenu most of theii piep time shuffling thiough files oi eviuence anu not
actually wiiting on youi game-boaiu. You shoulu always be wiiting on youi game-
boaiu oi wiiting on pages that you will inseit into the game-boaiu. This is one of
the fiist things you neeu to leain as a uebatei when using the game-boaiu.
N,%$'#+')9#()-!)Y'
I am not one to think that eviuence is one paiticulai thing. In uebate, it means what
uo you have to suppoit youi aigument beyonu opinion. Theie aie many uiffeient
types of eviuence. 0bviously youi tiauitional foim of eviuence such as magazine
aiticles anu books aie impoitant. But then theie aie the non-tiauitional foims of
eviuence - Clips fiom well known speakeis; paits of a movie that help to make a
paiticulai aigument; Song lyiics anu viueos. Boes it ieally take a lot to be moie
qualifieu than a New Yoik Times staff wiitei oi even a RANB institute think tank. I
like to think of eviuence as iefeience foi suppoit. A lot of people think you neeu to
ieau "eviuence" saying its okay to use this as "eviuence" in uebate. I am not ieally
pait of this school of thought. I think you shoulu just uo it how you want, anu if
you'ie goou enough, it seiveu the puipose you intenueu. I think you always want to
have some foim of tiauitional eviuence available in the uebate so you can compete
in the uebate aftei the uebate. If juuges heai a uebate, wait Su minutes ieauing
eviuence of the othei teams, anu you hau non-tiauitional foims that uon't put
anything in theii hanus to iefiesh theii memoiy, you aie going to have a haiu time
winning elimination iounus when theie aie auuiences anu multiple juuges because
youi iueasaiguments get lost in the uebate aftei the uebate. So at least have
something foi them at the enu of the iounu.
8+)'.7')9#()-!)1'
We useu to ieau the whole sentence in uebate, back last millennium. Now it seems
you can selectively unueiline some woius that say youi aigument most uiiectly,
often leauing to shallow ieauings out louu of veiy ueep aiguments, wheie much
context was left out. Incluue the context if you unueilinehighlight. You neeu to
ueciue if you aie going to ieau eviuence, iefeience it, meiely paiaphiase it. Theie
aie goou ieasons to uo any of these. You neeu to figuie out youi style, taking the
above into consiueiation. If you uo it uiffeiently, its inteiesting to see what othei
teams iesponses aie. You neeu goou "eviuence" foi youi aigument, anu you neeu to
get goou at ieauing it, extenuing it, anu then explaining it anu applying it. Ny iule is
nevei ieau a bau piece of eviuence. The uebates with S-S gieat pieces of eviuence
aie much bettei than the one with Su pieces of bau eviuence. Reauing bau eviuence
effects youi ieputation when juuges ieau them aftei the uebate anu wastes youi
time uuiing youi speech while ieauing it. Anu if its bau, it uoes not take a goou
uebatei long to answei it. Actually most will ignoie it, hoping you go foi it, knowing
that this aigument can't huit them.



[8$$#-U'#$'%&&'$.U)$,)"'#-'$,)'".8-('
!".++g)Z%3#-%$#.-1''
I feel that to be a goou ciitical uebatei, you must leain how to be effective in CX.
This is wheie you can make up giounu on aiguments that you feel can be uismisseu.
A goou cioss-x begins with ieclaiming contiol of the fiaming of the uebate. If they
have fiameu you as a "peifoimance" oi a "pioject" only because youi aigument
involveu some peisonal politics, you neeu to immeuiately make it cleai that those
aie not about you. Theie aie 2 aieas of the uebate you neeu to woik on in CX.
The fiist aiea is wheie you uisagiee. If you aie affiimative, then you want to heuge
back on theii most impoitant aiguments fiist, this woulu be fiamewoik oi
topicality. If it is a ciitical uebate, you want to investigate the links, because you
most likely will be going foi no-linkpeim. If you'ie negative you want to seal off
obvious links that can be asceitaineu fiom theii speech.
The seconu aiea of the uebate you neeu to investigate is the why is this impoitant
pait of the uebate. As the affiimative, you neeu to be able to aigue that theii place of
uisagieement is a bau place to uisagiee, oi that you access those aiguments bettei.
0n the negative you neeu to be able to make suie, 1uu%, you heuge against any
attempts to aigue about the point of uisagieement, anu its impoitance.
Sometimes you neeu to utilize cioss-x to fill in youi game-boaiu. You cannot win
consistently without a complete game-boaiu.
L"Q*&)1,*("5$3)#$(,*<$"#)($"1%*)-+*(!+-+[*
\)1*,"0*Q-$(+*"0(*)##*5+-&0()($"1%[*
When you aie negative always ask foi the peimutations to be wiitten out anu
iuentifieu in cioss-x.
\)1*,"0*Q-$(+*"0(*,"0-*)#(+-1)($<+*(+@([*
This is impoitant when you aie affiimative anu uebate against anothei ciitical team.
Bon't allow them to get away with miswoiueu alteinatives that uo not compete with
the affiimative. Any alteinative that is eithei not youi liteiatuie base style
alteinative oi stiaight up iejection of youi politics, you have ioom to captuie it
thiough the peimutation. Bave the othei team wiite it out foi you.
Contiol the Fiaming the Bebate:
As stateu eailiei, many of youi losses uebating uiffeiently will come fiom people
being able to fiame you as something you aie not, anu you nevei escape such
enfiaming. You neeu to make suie that you eliminate any misunueistanuing about
how they fiame you, anu continuously iefei to the othei team as you make youi
aigument.

Beie aie some ieally basic tips fiom one of the best CXeis I have evei seen in action.

-Piepaiation
-Biiection
-Contiol
-Avoiu big open enueu questions
-Ask questions
-Nake an Impiession
-Shoulu know CX stiategy befoie iounu begins
-Against soft left Affs, we neeu to win a RC aigument
-Nake suie you make a maik
-The way you answei oi ask questions is impoitant
-Questions shoulu be sneaky
-Answei shoulu be totally open anu honest
-Showboat
-Bon't be the unlikeu oneiuue one
-uet the last woiu


N,%$'#+'%-'.9)"9#)NV'
I iemembei when we useu oveiviews as oui "thesis explanation" of oui aigument. I
want to offei a uiffeient way of seeing the oveiview. When you give the 2a oi the
2n, you want to give an oveiview that uoes 2 things: A - Locks the uebate uown into
a uebate about the place you uisagiee. B - uet the main pillais of youi aigument into
the uebate if they have not all maue it into the uebate. Wiite youi tags out longei to
explain youi aigument as you'ie giving youi speech, anu thus the olu school "thesis"
oveiview is not neeueu. Then youi oveiview is about uebate aiguments, iathei than
the stoiy of the authoiaigument you chose.
2NC Sample:
A - Colonialism is the ioot cause of youi affiimative impacts.
---extenu 1nc eviuence
I have moie eviuence (...)
B. Youi affiimative is a colonial act, which means you only make youi 1ac haims
woise.
--extenu 1nc eviuence
I have moie eviuence (..)
C. Nust ieject acts of colonialism in those instances to evei finu a woilu of
uecolonization.
----Eviuence------


This is a way to say, heie aie the key aiguments, anu this is what the uebate is
about. Then you spenu the iest of youi speech, managing the infoimation in a way
that gets you to the tie.
The affiimative sample woulu not be much uiffeient. You woulu highlight the key
aiguments that you think will auuiess mostoi all of theii aiguments.
0veiviews aie not necessaiy, but can be effective tools foi biinging the uebate to
one place on the game-boaiu into a kinu of winnei-take-all uebate. 0ne impoitant
thing to iemembei is that if the 2a gives an oveiview, the neg block shoulu answei
it. If the 2nc gives an oveiview, the 1ai must go answei it.

*)#-U'[")[%")('.-'$,)'/)0'%"U83)-$+'
This is one place that you must be ieauy foi befoie you go to the touinament. Ny
example foi this uebate woulu be a Spanos oi Beiueggei oi Billon type aigument.
The aigument woulu be that to ieally unueistanu the impacts of oui plan of action,
we must investigate the ontology behinu such action. Now if this is going to be youi
affiimative aigument oi negative aigument, you know that this will be impoitant in
the uebate. So what you uo is think of what you want to say in the final speech on
this issue. Bow can you best say "0ntology comes fiist" with the eviuence you have.
uo to the 1
st
speech. Inseit some of youi caius heie. Inseit the caius that make the
basic aigument. 0n the affiimative you have the 1ac, the 2ac anu the 1ai wheie you
can ieau eviuence. So a goou uistiibution woulu be 2 in the 1ac, 2 in the 2ac anu 1 in
the 1ai. So what aie youi five best pieces of eviuence. Lay them out, anu pick
which speech you want them in. Then aftei you get youi 1ac uone, piepaie youi 2ac
that extenus the 1ac caius on this issue, anu then ieaus 2 moie. Aftei youi 2ac is
pieppeu on "0ntology comes fiist" you go anu piep the 1ai. This means an
extension of all 4 pieces of eviuence ieau anu one new piece of eviuence. Then you
aie setting up foi the 2ai extension of the S caius that ieally make youi aigument
the best. 0bviously you will heai the 0wen caiu in iesponse to youi ontology
aigument, so go aheau anu piep answeis to 0wen anu any of the othei veiy few
ontology aiguments you might heai. Bave a 2ai inseit that answeis 0wen. As you
can see, now youi ieauy to focus youi speeches on the othei teams eviuence,
because you alieauy have youi game plan laiu out on how you will have the
"0ntology Comes fiist uebate".
0n the negative you uo the same thing, except you only get 2 speeches to ieau
eviuence iathei than S. The 2NR shoulu have theii best ihetoiical explanation of
why "0ntology Comes Fiist" that incluues anu extension of the key pieces of
eviuence they might neeu in this uebate. What I want you to get is that if you have
youi stuff ieauy, then you ieally uo spenu youi piep looking at theii eviuence anu
figuiing out how you can win the eviuence compaiison battle.
*)#-U'%'U..(')9)-b#7'()*%$)"V'
The best uebateis know that they cannot win eveiy aigument in eveiy uebate. What
you neeu to uo is be able to explain why you win, even if the othei team wins all of
theii aiguments. Beie is what I mean. If the ciitic can take all of the eviuence fiom
the uebate, ieau it, anu then youi explanation of why you win is able navigate
thiough the eviuence anu still suffice, that is how you win uebates. You neeu to tell
the ciitic exactly what to tell the othei team on why they lose in as simple teims as
you can. If you ieau eveiy piece of eviuence in the uebate as it is being ieau, then
you can make such an assessment. It's easy foi a ciitic to say that theii eviuence
saiu what they wanteu, but that uoesn't win the uebate, then to say "youi eviuence
uoes not say that" when it usually uoes. If both pieces of eviuence suppoit each siue
of a claim veiy well, you neeu to offei them the way out. Even if they win this
aigument, we win because.



!,#$g!,%$'
No, this uoes not mean you shoulu be a schmoozei befoie the uebate with the juuge,
noi uoes it mean tiy to make small talk with the ciitic. What this means is that you
neeu to have a connection with the ciitic uuiing the iounu that involves much moie
than youi biief moments of speaking. Fiom the time you walk in the ioom until the
iounu is ovei, you neeu to be watching the ciitic in a way wheie eveiy time they
look up in the uebate, they see youi eyes. Eveiy non-veibal gestuie they make
towaius aiguments, you see, anu eveiy time the othei team makes a bau aigument
you shoulu make eye contact with the ciitic as they iecognize also the othei team
maue a bau aigument. Theie is powei in this, especially if the othei team uoes not
notice, anu continues to tiy anu extenu such aigument. This means you neeu to set
up wheie you can see the ciitic anu the othei team at the same time. Bo not put
things in fiont of you, anu get eveiything out of the way except what you neeu. Look
oiganizeu. B0TT0N LINE: In many uebates it becomes a tie foi many juuges.
Bebate juuges aie smait anu most aie also foimei uebateis. In most uebates they
coulu vote eithei way. You must ask youiself what causes a ciitic to step one way oi
the othei. What causes them to accept some things the othei team says anu ueny
some things I have saiu. You neeu to investigate all of youi inteiactions in a uebate
to make suie none of them iesult in the ciitic not liking something you uo. What
cause them to step to the othei team. You want to be the one that the ciitic steps to
in a tie. I think this hanubook helps get you going the iight way. Be giounueu as a
uebatei. Bave youi aiguments make sense. If they uon't make sense to you, how
can they make sense to otheis. Bon't be language uepenuent. Be able to say youi
aigument with the common uebate teims. Yes it is goou to use the language of
uebate some, but uon't make it a ciutch that is supposeu to fill in the gaps of when
youi aigument makes no sense. This happens a lot in uebate, anu you shoulu want
to be the smait uebatei in the iounu, iathei than the out of contiol, say anything
style of uebatei. The ciitic cieates an image of you anu then a liking oi uisliking the
moment they walk in the ioom anu see you the fiist time. Then if they juuge you
again, that image is built upon. Stait out looking like a uebatei!
In uebate we like to uo name uiopping, so I want to uiop some names of some
people that you woulu like to see in the back of the ioom if you aie a ciitical uebatei.
Yes, I will leave many of my fiienus out, which only means I saveu you the tiouble of
being quoteu in a uebate iounu. This uoes not mean they will vote foi you,
obviously, but that this style of uebate can connect with them...(I left out fiist
names oi last names so they coulu ueny agieeing with me if neeueu)
}ohnson, uiglio, Watts, Cleaiy, 0uekiik, Bunn, Kuswa, Baxtei-Kauf, Nillei, Nuiillo,
Russell, Weitz, uieen, S}, Buiham, Tayloi, Bennis, Bauuau, Peteison, Coopei, Nabiy,
P}, Ritchie, Registei, uueveia, Bestei, Albaniak, vince, Buntin, Pointei, Bunas,
Ciossan, Zisman, Bailow, Sykes, Shaip, Natheson, Ciow, Nauiei, K}ohnson, Nailow,
Bavis, Shook, Tiipp, Ralph, Rowlanu, Noigan-Paimett ....

()*%$)'656'+833%"0'
Theie aie few things I want to auu in the enu to help you be a bettei uebatei, much
less a K uebatei. As a uebatei, theie aie many uiffeient things you neeu to uo in
oiuei to be piepaieu to uebate. Theie is no one laige thing you can uo to be a gieat
uebatei, you must put togethei all of the small things. It ieally is the small things
that count. You must think that you want to uo eveiything you can wheie when the
uebate staits, you spenu youi piep time wiitingcompaiing impoitant things in the
uebate, not uoing things you coulu have uone at home.
Categoiy 1 - Pie-Touinament Piep!
- Sleep - You can nevei get caught up on sleep at a uebate touinament.
- Bealth - You aien't at youi best when sick, anu you make otheis sick
- Packing - Pack the uay befoie you leave - Bon't foiget impoitant items.
- Pack youi uebate eviuence the uay befoie. Bon't leave youi 1ac at home.
- Piepaie youi pie-flows of 1ac anu 1nc aiguments.
- uet supplies togethei. You neeu things like pens anu papei to uebate.
- Bo speaking uiills constantly. Notice: Speakingnot necc. Speeu uiills.
- Filing - Nake suie you file all of the eviuence, iathei than having ciiss-
ciosseu files oi woise the pile
- Scouting - Stay on top of who youi opponents aie, theii aiguments etc.
- School - Bo youi homewoik befoie you go. It will be tiiing.
- Neuication - Nake suie you take youi meuication. Pack well.
- ShoweiCleanliness - Bon't stink up the van. Showei if neeueu to pievent
such.
- Bon't be LATE! Theie aie ieasons people ueciue to leave at ceitain times.
Bon't question it.
- Biing a Timei. I suggest a ieal olu fashioneu, not cell phone, timei.
Categoiy II - Pie-iounu!
- uet up on time. Bon't stay up late. It's moie fun to win, I piomise.
- When paiiings come out, piep time begins. Nove it move it.
- Tiy anu get a goou set up with the table, not having youi back to the juuge oi
othei team. You neeu to see both thioughout the whole uebate.
- Set up speaking aiea, so you feel comfoitable giving youi speech.
- What uo you know about the othei team anu the juuge.
- Finu youi Chi! What helps you focus. Nusic. Reauing.
- uet out the eviuence you will use.
- 0nueiline anu highlight such eviuence.
- uet watei anu go to the bathioom.
- Bon't complain about foou, unless you uon't get any, then ask foi foou.
- Ask foi a plan text if they play that way.


Categoiy III - Buiing the Rounu!
- Be focuseu. Look like you caie. Bon't be messy, anu look oiganizeu.
- It's not how you stait it's how you finish.
- Watch the ciitic.
- Bon't builu a uieat Wall of China with accoiuions between you anu the ciitic.
uet only the essential in fiont of you.
- Bon't be shauy with uisclosuie. Be honest foi the puipose of having a goou
uebate.
- Bon't give the ciitic the business. 0se eye contact to communicate befoie anu
uuiing iounu, you uon't have to talk to them.
- Reau all of the othei teams eviuence.
- Continuously piep foi the last speech.
- Save piep foi the last iebuttals.
- Eveiyone has to cieate a game-boaiu.
- uo foi something.
- Be nice to paitnei!
- Be nice to othei team!
- Bon't be shiftyshauy!
- Bon't steal piep. Be ieauy when you say youi ieauy!
Categoiy Iv - Aftei Rounu!
- Sleep. Especially if you have to uebate the next uay.
- Re-file. Bon't say you'll uo it latei. Bo it asap.
- Bo iounu iepoit foims. That way if you oi youi teammates uebate this team
again, you know what they will say most likely.
- Save youi flows.
- Wiite uown what the juuge says.
- Shake hanus. The haiuest thing about being a champion is leaining how to
lose.
- uet all of youi eviuence.
- uet cites.
- Finu youi sanctuaiy to ieflect.
- Stay in the ioom until the juuge is finisheu.
- Bon't eat too much at lunch so you can't peifoim at night.
- Wiite answeis to aiguments that challengeu you iight aftei you hau the
uebate with them. Reau theii eviuence again to wiite youi answei.
I hope this hanubook helps you as a coach oi uebatei in engaging the cuiient woilu
of competitive policy uebate. If this volume gets a lot of positive feeuback, you can
expect many moie volumes to come that incluue auvice fiom othei coaches who aie
in the tienches of what some call uebates clash of civilizations.

!%[#$%&#+3'/'*#*&#.U"%[,0'
Ebeit in 9S, :Teiesa L., English, State 0niveisity of New Yoik, Albany, Rethinking Naixism
http:www.iitsumei.ac.jpacugigsceuim.htm#9S, aiticle heie,
http:www.geocities.comieutheoiyA0A0volS-1ReuFeminism.html
}effiey T. Nealon , 2uu6 is Piofessoi of English at Penn State 0niveisity, Post-Beconstiuctive. Negii, Beiiiua, anu
the Piesent State of Theoiy, %,&5#".+ 14.12 -2uu6- 68-8u:
Auam Katz, English Instiuctoi at 0nouaga Community College. 2uuu. C"%(&"9+-1$%&*)19*(!+*C"#$($3%*">*7\0#(0-+'8
Pg. 127-128.
NASS0NI 2uuS :Biian, http:www.lumpen.comfatheilanueveiywheie.html
WILKIE 2uu2 :Rob, "coveiing the ciisis: Ameiican intellectuals anu 911" ieu ciitique #7 fallwintei 2uu2:
REB C0LLECTIvE 2uu2 :F+&"3-)3,*)%*\#)%%*D5)-(!+$9, june 2uu2,
http:www.ieuciitique.oigNay}uneu2uemociacyasclassapaitheiu.htm
Feiguson 'u4 :Niall Feiguson, Piofessoi of Bistoiy at Baivaiu 0niveisity, 2uu4, "Colossus: The Rise anu Fall of
the Ameiican Empiie, pg. 1u
Nick Beams, membei of Inteinational Euitoiial Boaiu anu National Secietaiy of Austialian Socialist Equality
Paity, 2uuS "The Political Economy of Ameiican Nilitaiism, pait 2" }uly 2,
www.wsws.oigaiticles2uuSjul2uuSnb2-j11_pin.shtml
BABI00 2uu1 :Alain, "on evil: an inteiview with alain bauiou" by cox anu whalen, cabinet magazine online, issue
S, wintei u1-u2, http:www.egs.euufacultybauioubauiou-on-evil.html
NARTIN 99 :Biian, B!)19$*])-/, 21 -S- http:www.uow.euu.auaitsstsbmaitinpubs99gm.html
Slavoj Zizek, Senioi Reseaichei at Ljubjana, "Repeating Lenin", 1997, www.lacan.comieplenin :
BER0B 2uu4 :}ames, getting fiee, 7
th
euition, http:jamesheiou.info.sec=book&iu=1
Naic Weeks, anu Fieueiic Nauiel, "voyages Acioss the Web of Time; Angkain, Nietzsche anu Tempoial
Colonization, }ouinal of Southeast Asian Stuuies, Septembei 1
st
, 1999
Neszaios u6'gIstvan, "Stiuctuial Ciisis of Politics," ]"1(!#,*H+<$+Q2 Septembei, Pioquest,g
}oel Kovel, Piofessoi of Social Stuuies at Baiu College, 2uu2, The Enemy of Natuie, p. 22-24
Samuel Bowles anu Beibeit uintis, E3!""#$1/*$1*\)5$()#$%(*D&+-$3), 1976
Banieh u6 :Auam, PhB stuuent in Political Science at Yoik 0niveisity, Relay Nagazine In the Name of
Bemociacy; "Relay RounutableBemociacy Piomotion anu Neolibeialism in Iiaq"
http:inthenameofuemociacy.oigennoue62
Auam Katz, English Instiuctoi at 0nouaga Community College. 2uuu. C"%(&"9+-1$%&*)19*(!+*C"#$($3%*">*7\0#(0-+'8
Pg. 49-S1
Zizek 97 :Slavoj, "Nulticultuialism, oi, the cultuial logic of multinational capitalism," New Left Review # 224 p.
S4-SS

Zizek 97 :Slavoj, a philosophei anu psychoanalyst, also a senioi ieseaichei at the Institute foi Auvanceu Stuuy in
the Bumanities, in Essen, ueimany, "Nulticultuialism, 0i, the Cultuial Logic of Nultinational Capitalism" New
Left Review I22S, Septembei-0ctobei, < http:newleftieview.oig.view=1919>
Benessy '94 :Rosemaiy, Piofessoi of English S0NY Albany, Queei Theoiy, Left Politics, Fall 1994, Rethinking
Naixism, vol 7, S, 9u-2
Zavaizaueh in 9S :Nas'uu, piolific wiitei anu expeit on class iueology, post-ality: Naixism anu postmoueinism,
5"%(G)#$(,*(!+*G9$%G%$&0#)($"1%*">*3,4+-3)5$()#$%&
}effiey T. Nealon IN 2uu6 is Piofessoi of English at Penn State 0niveisity, Post-Beconstiuctive. Negii, Beiiiua,
anu the Piesent State of Theoiy, %,&5#".+ 14.12 -2uu6- 68-8u
Kevin Ciyueiman, "}ane anu Louisa: The Tapestiy 0f Ciitical Paiauigms: Butcheon, Lyotaiu, Saiu, Biilik, Anu
Bioubei," 2uuu, http:6S.1u7.211.2u6postcaiibbeanbioubeikciy1.html,
Lauia Baitlett Snyuei, Boctoial Fellow in the English Bepaitment at Louisville, "An Intiouuction," 2uuu,
http:athena.louisville.euua-senglishbabosnyueibounintio.html, accesseu 1u1Su2
The Alteinative 0iange, 0ctobei 29 2uuS, "The Ciitique of 0niveisalism anu the Politics of Iuentity," vol S,
http:www.etext.oigPoliticsAlteinative0iangeSvSn1_cs4.html
Zavaizaueh in 9S :Nas'uu, piolific wiitei anu expeit on class iueology, post-ality: Naixism anu postmoueinism,
5"%(G)#$(,*(!+*G9$%G%$&0#)($"1%*">*3,4+-3)5$()#$%&
Slavoj Zizek, Piofessoi of Sociology at the Institute foi Sociology, Ljubljana 0niveisity, 2uu2, Revolution at the
uates, p. 27u-72
Slavoj Zizek, Piofessoi of Sociology at the Institute foi Sociology, Ljubljana 0niveisity, 2uu4, inteivieweu by ulyn
Baly, Senioi Lectuiei in Politics in the Faculty of Aits anu Social Sciences at 0niveisity College, Noithampton,
Conveisations With Zizek, p. 1S1-S2
Slavoj Zizek anu ulyn Baly, Senioi Lectuiei in Politics in the Faculty of Aits anu Social Sciences at 0niveisity
College, Noithampton, 2uu4, Conveisations With Zizek, p. 14-16
Stephen Tumino, piof. of English at Pitt, Spiing 2uu1"What is 0ithouox Naixism anu Why it Natteis Now Noie
Than Evei Befoie," The Reu Ciitique 1, Spiing,
www.geocities.comieutheoiyieuciitiquespiing2uu1whatisoithouoxmaixism.htm :
}effiey T. Nealon in 98; Alteiity Politics: Ethics anu Peifoimative Subjectivity, Buke 0niveisity Piess, 1998.
2u8 pgs. P 2-4
Amiohini }. Sahay, English uiauuate Stuuent at Syiacuse 0niveisity, FallWintei 199S, " 'Cybei-Nateiialism' anu
the Invention of the Cybeicultuial Eveiyuay," The Alteinative 0iange: vol. S, No. 1 -pp. S6-64-
http:www.etext.oigPoliticsAlteinative0iangeSvSn1_cm.html
Baibaia Epstein, uept Bistoiy of Consciousness, 0C Santa Ciuz, Wintei 1998 NEW P0LITICS,
http:www.wpunj.euunewpolissue24epstei24.htm
}ason ulynos, univeisity of essex, "Symptoms of a Becline in Symbolic Faith, oi, Zizek's Anti-capitalism,"
Paiagiaph volume 24, Issue 2, 2uu1, pg. 8S-86
Baibaia Epstein, Bistoiy 0CSC, 199S, "Why Post-Stiuctuialism is a ueau enu foi piogiessive thought,"
Socialist Review, 2S.2
Young 2uu6 :Robeit, Reu Ciitique, WinteiSpiing, "Putting Nateiialism back into Race Theoiy",
http:www.ieuciitique.oigWinteiSpiing2uu6puttingmateiialismbackintoiacetheoiy.htm
Fostei, 0iegon 0niveisity Bepaitment of Sociology Piofessoi, uS
-}ohn B., Nonthly Review, http:www.monthlyieview.oigu9uSjbf.htm, Septembei,-

Fostei uS g}ohn, "0iganizing the Ecological Revolution," =!+*]"1(!#,*H+<$+Q, v. S7, n. S, 0ctobei,
www.monthlyieview.oig1uuSjbf.htm g
Naiko 2uuSS14, https:www2.inuymeuia.oig.uken2uuSuS6817S.html
Istvan Neszaios, piofessoi emeiitus at the 0niveisity of Sussex, 199S, Beyonu Capital, p. S7-S8.
Neszaios IN 89 1Istvan, Chaii of philosophy 0. of Sussex, The Powei of Iueology, p. 2S2-2S4
Nuiiay Bookchin, Piofessoi of Social Theoiy at Ramapo College, 199u, Remaking Society, pp. 128-129
Nick Byei-Withefoiu, Piofessoi of Infoimation anu Neuia Stuuies at the 0niveisity of Westein 0ntaiio, 1999,
"Cybei-Naix," p.14u-142
Inteinationalist Peispective, Spiing 2uuu, "Capitalism anu uenociue", #S6,
http:www.geocities.comwageslavexcapanugen.html
Ceini, 30#(0-)#*#"/$3*electionic collection of Naixist Theoiy anu Piactice*inuepenuent wiitei, u7
-Paula, "The Age of Consumei Capitalism", http:clogic.eseivei.oig2uu7Ceini.puf,-
Baivey, Piofessoi of Anthiopology City 0niveisity of New Yoik, 2uu6
-Baviu, =!+*V$&$(%*("*\)5$()#, p. 444-S,-
Webb, National Communist Paity Chaiiman, u4
-Sam, People's Weekly Woilu Newspapei, http:www.pww.oigaiticleview496712u7u, Naich 2u-
Samii Amin, uiiectoi of the Thiiu Woilu Foium in Senegal, 2uu4, =!+*V$4+-)#*^$-0%, pg. 2S-4
Belen Scott, Piof PostColonial Lit & Theoiy 0 vennont, 2uu6 "Reauing the Text in its Woiluly Situation:
Naixism, Impeiialism, anu Contempoiaiy Caiibbean Women's Liteiatuie", Postcolonial Text, 2.1,
http:postcolonial.oiginuex. phppctlaiticleview Aitic1e49 1 174
uill in 2uuu :Stephen, Yoik Political Science, "The Constituion of ulobal Capitalism",
http:www.theglobalsite.ac.ukpiessu1ugill.htm:
Samii Amin, uiiectoi of the Thiiu Woilu Foium in Senegal, 2uu4, =!+*V$4+-)#*^$-0%, pg. 4u-2
Slavoj Zizek, Senioi Reseaichei at the Institute foi Social Stuuies in Ljubljana, 2uu4, Iiaq: The Boiioweu Kettle,
p. 71-74
Stephen Tumino, piof. of English at Pitt, Spiing 2uu1, "What is 0ithouox Naixism anu Why it Natteis Now Noie
Than Evei Befoie," The Reu Ciitique 1, Spiing,
http:www.ieuciitique.oigspiing2uu1whatisoithouoxmaixism.htm
Bolloway uS -}ohn, 8-16, Ph.B Political Science-0niveisity of Euinbuigh , "Can We Change The Woilu Without
Taking Powei.", http:www.zmag.oigznetviewAiticleS616-
Bhanuaii u6 gRakesh, 0C Beikeley Bepaitment of Rhetoiic lectuiei "Poveity anu Capitalism by Baibaia Baiiiss-
White", 411u6, http:iicaiuo.ecn.wfu.euu~cottiell0PEaichiveu6u4uu2S.html,g
Woou 98 :Ellen, PhB fiom 0CLA in political science anu Nonthly Review, the inuepenuent socialist magazine co-
euitoi*]"1(!#,*H+<$+Q "Class compacts, the welfaie state, anu epochal shifts -a ieply to Fiances Fox Piven anu
Richaiu A Clowaiu", }anuaiy 1998, Pioquest:

}0EL WENBLANB IN 2uu6 :managing euitoi of political affaiis, nov-uec 2uu6. Book Review: A Postcapitalist
Politics, by }.K. uibson-uiaham
http:www.politicalaffaiis.netaiticleaiticleview46u212Su.Piintableveision=enableu
Bisch 99 -Linua,associate piofessoi of political science at the 0niveisity of Ninnesota, Theoiy & Event S:1-
Beathei }on Naioney, piofessoi of sociology anu anthiopology at Caileton 0niveisity, Fall 1998, Cultuial Logic,
"0n }.K. uibson-uiaham," online: http:eseivei.oigclogic2-1maioney.html, accesseu Septembei 12, 2uu4
Epstein 98 1Baibaia, Bepaitment of Bistoiy of Consciousness at the 0niveisity of Santa Ciuz*_+Q*C"#$($3%2
Wintei, http:www.wpunj.euunewpolissue24epstei24.htm
Chiistophei Baiman, euitoi of Socialist Woikei anu a leauing membei of the Socialist Woikeis Paity in Biitain,
199S, Economics 0f The Nauhouse
Wilkinson uS gWill, CAT0 Institute Policy Repoit vol. XXvII, Febiuaiy,
http:www.cato.oigieseaichaiticleswilkinson-uSu2u1.htmlg

()*%$)'%*.8$'()*%$)'*#*&#.U"%[,0'

Abbott, 2uu9 (Blake, Bebate Coach at . -pioject-anu-switch-siue-uebate)
Althussei, L. (1971) 'Iueology anu iueological state appaiatuses', in Lenin anu
Philosophy , tians. B. Biewstei, Nonthly Review Piess, New Yoik.

Baiiu, C. A. (19SS) 'The college uebatei anu the Reu China issue'', Cential States
Speech }ouinal , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. S_7.

Battaglia, B. (199S) 'Pioblematizing the self: a thematic intiouuction', in Rhetoiics
of Self Naking , eu. B. Battaglia, Chicago, pp.
1_1S.

Benhabib, S. (1992) Situating the Self: uenuei, Community anu Postmoueinism in
Contempoiaiy Ethics ,

Bennett, T. (2uu4) 'Cultuie anu goveinment', in Foucault, Cultuial Stuuies anu
uoveinmentality , eus }. Z. Biatich, }. Packei & C. NcCaithy, State 0niveisity
of New Yoik Piess, Albany, NY, pp. 47_66.

Bennett, T. (199u) 0utsiue Liteiatuie , Routleuge, Lonuon anu New Yoik.

Buins, }. N. (19S4) 'Bebate ovei collegiate uebates', New Yoik Times Nagazine, S
Becembei, p. 12, p. Su.

Butlei, }. (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Peifoimative , Routleuge, Lonuon
anu New Yoik.

Ciipe, N. (19S7) 'Bebating both siues in touinaments is ethical', Speech Teachei ,
vol. 6, no. S, pp. 2u9_212.

Bay, B. (1966) 'The ethics of uemociatic uebate', Cential States Speech }ouinal ,
vol. 17, no. 1, pp. S_14.

Bell, u. (19S8) 'In uefense of uebating both siues', Speech Teachei , vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. S1_S4.

Ehningei, B. (19S8) 'The uebate about uebating', Quaiteily }ouinal of Speech , vol.
44, no. 2, pp. 128_1S6.

Eubanks, R. & Bakei, v. (1962) 'Towaiu an axiology of ihetoiic', Quaiteily Review
of Speech , vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 1S7_168.


Fine, u. A. (2uu1) uifteu Tongues: Bigh School Bebate anu Auolescent Cultuie ,
Piinceton 0niveisity Piess, Piinceton, N}.

Foucault, N. (1984) '0n the genealogy of ethics. An oveiview of woik in
piogiess', in The Foucault Reauei , eu. P. Rabinow, Pantheon, New Yoik, pp.
S4u_S72.
_________ (2uu1) Feailess Speech , eu. }. Peaison, Semiotext(e), Los Angeles.

uieenblatt, S. (198u) Renaissance Self-Fashioning: Fiom Noie to Shakespeaie ,
0niveisity of Chicago Piess, Chicago.

uieene, R. W. (1998) 'Anothei mateiialist ihetoiic', Ciitical Stuuies in Nass
Communication, vol. 1S, no. S, pp. 21_24.
_________ (1999) Nalthusian Woilus: 0S Leaueiship anu the uoveining of the Population
Ciisis , Westview Piess, Bouluei.

Babeimas, }. (1979a) 'What is univeisal piagmatics.', in Communication anu the
Evolution of Society , tians. T. NcCaithy, Beacon Piess, Boston, pp. 1_68.
_________ (1979b) 'Noial uevelopment anu ego iuentity', in Communication anu the
Evolution of Society , tians. T. NcCaithy, Beacon Piess, Boston, pp. 69_94.
1 2 4 C0LT0RAL ST0BIES
_________ (1984) Reason anu the Rationalization of Society , vol. 1 of The Theoiy of
Communicative Action , tians. T. NcCaithy, Beacon Piess, Boston.

Bicks, B. (2uu2) 'The piomise(s) of uelibeiative uemociacy', Rhetoiic anu Public
Affaiis , vol. S, no. 2, pp. 22S_26u.

Bicks, B. & Langsuoif, L. (1999) 'Regulating uisagieement, constituting
paiticipants: a ciitique of pioceuuialist theoiies of uemociacy', Aigumentation
, vol. 1S, no. 2, pp. 1S9_16u.

Bovlanu, C., }anis, I. & Kelly, B. (19SS) Communicaton anu Peisuasion: Psychological
Stuuies of 0pinion Change, Yale 0niveisity Piess, New Baven.

Bovlanu, C., Lumsuaine, A. & Sheffielu, F. (1949) Stuuies in Social Psychology in
Woilu Wai II , Piinceton 0niveisity Piess, Piinceton, N}.

Klopf, B. W. & NcCiosky, }. C. (1964) 'Bebating both siues ethical. Contioveisy
pau!', Cential States Speech }ouinal , vol. 1S, no. 1, pp. S6_S9.

Naiable, N. (1984) Race, Refoim anu Rebellion: The Seconu Reconstiuction in Black
Ameiica, 194S_1982, 0niveisity of Nississippi Piess, }ackson.

Nill, }. S. (18S9) 0n Libeity , }.W. Paikei, Lonuon.

Nillei, T. (1998) Technologies of Tiuth: Cultuial Citizenship anu the Populai Neuia,
0niveisity of Ninnesota Piess, Ninneapolis.

Nillei, T. (199S) The Well-Tempeieu Self: Citizenship, Cultuie anu the Postmouein
Subject , }ohns Bopkins 0niveisity Piess, Baltimoie, NB.

Nuii, S. (199S) 'A uefense of the ethics of contempoiaiy uebate', Philosophy anu
Rhetoiic , vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 277_29S.

Nuiphy, R. (19S7) 'The ethics of uebating both siues', Speech Teachei , vol. 6, no.
1, pp. 1_9.

Nuiphy, R. (196S) 'The ethics of uebating both siues II', Speech Teachei , vol. 12,
no. S, pp. 242_247.

Packei, }. (2uu2) 'Nobile communications anu goveining the mobile: tiuckeis anu
CBs', The Communication Review, vol. S, no. 1, pp. S9_S7.

Passavant, P. (1996) 'A moial geogiaphy of libeity: }ohn Stuait Nill anu the
Ameiican fiee speech uiscouise', Social anu Legal Stuuies , vol. S, no. S, pp.
Su1_S19.

Nelson, C. & uaonkai, u. (1998) 'Cultuial stuuies anu the politics of
uisciplinaiity: an intiouuction', in Cultuial Stuuies , eus C. Nelson & B.
uaonkai, Routleuge, Lonuon anu New Yoik, pp. 1_19.

Newman, R. P. (196S) Pittsbuigh Coue foi Acauemic Bebate, 0niveisity of Pittsbuigh
Piess, Pittsbuigh.

Nichols, E. R. (1926) 'A histoiical sketch of inteicollegiate uebating: I', Quaiteily
}ouinal of Speech , vol. 12, pp. 21S_22u.

Rehg, W. (2uu2) 'The aigumentation theoiist in uelibeiative uemociacy',
Contioveisia: An Inteinational }ouinal of Bebate anu Bemociatic Renewal, vol.
1, no. 1, pp. 18_42.

Ross, A. (1989) No Respect: Intellectuals anu Populai Cultuie , Routleuge, Lonuon anu
New Yoik.

Rosteck, T. (1999) 'Appioaching the inteisection: issues of iuentity, politics, anu
cultuial piactice', in At the Inteisection: Cultuial Stuuies anu Rhetoiical Stuuies ,
eu. T. Rosteck, uuilfoiu Piess, New Yoik, pp. 1_2S.

Singh, N. P. (1998) 'Cultuiewais: iecouing empiie in an age of uemociacy',
Ameiican Quaiteily , vol. Su, no. S, pp. 471_S22.

Thompson, W. (1944) 'Biscussion anu uebate: a ie-examination', Quaiteily }ouinal
of Speech , vol. Su, no. S, pp. 288_299.

Williams, R. (19S8) Cultuie anu Society, 178u_19Su, Baipei Toichbooks, New
Yoik.

Winues, C. R. & Kiugei, A. (2uu4) Championship Bebating: West Point National
Bebate Touinament, Final Bebate anu Ciitiques, 1949 _196u, |onlinej Available
at: http:www.wfu.euuoignaizationsnut.
7#"+$'["#."#$0'$.'7#"+$'%3)"#!%-+'*#*#.U"%[,0'

Chuichill, Waiu Foimei piofessoi of Inuian Stuuies at the 0niveisity of Coloiauo-Boluei,
--- Fiom a Native Son: Selecteu Essays on Inuigenism, 198S-199S, isbn u896u8SSS8, 198S'
ggg'0n the }ustice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of 0. S. Impeiial Aiiogance anu
Ciiminality, isbn 19u2S9S79u, 2uuS'
---Stiuggle foi the Lanu, 2uu1
--- Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Aimeu Stiuggle in Noith Ameiica by Waiu Chuichill, Beiiick
}ensen anu Nike Ryan (Api 1, 2uu7)
--- A Little Nattei of uenociue, 2uu1.
--- Agents of Repiession: The FBI's Seciet Wais Against the Black Panthei Paity anu the Ameiican Inuian
Novement (Classics Euition) (South Enu Piess Classics Seiies) by Waiu Chuichill anu }im vanuei Wall (Nov 1,
2uu1)
--- Acts of Rebellion. 2uu2
--- Since Pieuatoi Came, 2uuS
Beloiia, }i., vine, Boaiu Nembei, National Nuseum of The Ameiican Inuian
----Custei Bieu foi Youi Sins: An Inuian Nanifesto, isbn u8u6121297, 1988
----uou Is Reu: A Native view of Religion, Suth Anniveisaiy Euition, isbn 1SSS91498S, 2uuS
----Spiiit & Reason: The vine Beloiia, }i., Reauei, isbn: 1SSS914Su6, 1999
Fixico, Bonalu - Shawnee, Sace anu Fox, Nuscogee Cieek anu Seminole, Thomas Bowlus Bistinguisheu Piofessoi
of Ameiican Inuian Bistoiy at the 0niveisity of Kansas, The Ameiican Inuian Ninu in a Lineai Woilu: Ameiican
Inuian stuuies anu tiauitional knowleuge, 2uuS
uaiioutte, Eva Naiie Piofessoi of sociology at Boston College, Real Inuians: iuentity anu the suivival of Native
Ameiica, 2uuS
uianue, Sanuy Associate Piofessoi of Euucation at Connecticut College, Reu Peuagogy: Native Ameiican Social
anu Political Thought, isbn u742S18299, 2uu4
uiinue, Bonalu A., anu }ohansen, Biuce E., anu Zinn, Bowaiu Ecociue of Native Ameiica: Enviionmental
Bestiuction of Inuian Lanus anu Peoples, isbn u94u666S29 1994
uiounus, Richaiu A.
(YuchiSeminole), Biiectoi 0f the Euchee Language pioject in 0klahoma, Native voices: Ameiican Inuian
iuentity anu iesistance, isbn u7uu612S99, 2uuS
Ball, Anthony }. Piofessoi of ulobalization Stuuies, 0niveisity of Lethbiiuge, The Ameiican Empiie anu The
Fouith Woilu: The Bowl With 0ne Spoon Pait 1, isbn u77SSSuu61, 2uuS
Kato, Nasahiue - Piofessoi of Political Science, 0niveisity of Bawaii, "Nucleai ulobalism: Tiaveising Rockets,
Satellites, anu Nucleai Wai via the Stiategic uaze." Alteinatives, volume 18 Numbei S Summei, 199S
Nihesuah, Bevon Abbott anu Wilson, Angela Cavenuai'g'Piofessoi of applieu inuigenous stuuies anu histoiy at
Noithein Aiizona 0niveisity, assistant piofessoi of inuigenous histoiy at Aiizona State 0niveisity, Inuigenizing
the Acauemy: Tiansfoiming Scholaiship anu Empoweiing Communities, isbn u8uS28292S, 2uu4
Nunn, Kenneth B. - Piofessoi of Law 0niveisity of Floiiua Levin, "Law as a Euiocentiic Enteipiise" Law anu
Inequality, 1S:S2S, Spiing1997
Simpson, Leanne - Faculty membei of the Centie foi Woilu Inuigenous Knowleuge anu Reseaich at Athabasca
0niveisity, Canaua "Anticolonial stiategies foi the iecoveiy anu maintenance of Inuigenous Knowleuge", The
Ameiican Inuian Quaiteily, volume 28 noS&4, 2uu4
Tinkei, ueoige - Authoi, anu activist in uiban Ameiican Inuian communities, Spiiit anu Resistance: Political
Theology anu Ameiican Inuian Libeiation, isbn u8uu6S681S, 2uu4


7"%3)N."/'/'+8[[."$b()*%$)'%*.8$'()*%$)'
(These aie most of the mouein uay aiticles on uebate)
Balin anu Siegel 2uuS (Shaion Bailin anu Baivey Siegel, Piofessoi of Euucation, The Blackwell uuiue to the
Philosophy of Euucation, Euiteu by _$/+#*`#).+2*C)0#*E&+,+-%2*H$3!)-9*E&$(!2*)19*C)0#*E()19$%!G*Chaptei 1u.
Ciitical Thinking)
Bleikei in 98 |asst. piof. ofInteinational Stuuies at Pusan National 0niveisity (Rolanu, "Retiacing anu ieuiawing
the bounuaiies ofevents: Postmouein inteifeiences with inteinational theoiy", D#(+-1)($<+%2*0ct-Bec 1998, vol.
2S, Issue 4
Bleikei in 2uuS |Rolanu, School ofPolitical Science, 0niveisity ofQueenslanu, Biisbane, Biscouise anu Buman
Agency
Bleikei, Senioi lectuiei, peace anu conflict stuuies uu *(Rolanu, Contenuing images of Woilu Politics, 2uuu p. 228*
Bleikei. in uu |Ph.B. visiting ieseaich anu teaching affiliations at Baivaiu, Cambiiuge, Bumbolut, Tampeie,
Yonsei anu Pusan National 0niveisity as well as the Swiss Feueial Institute ofTechnology anu the Institute of
Social Stuuies in The Bague,(Rolanu, Populai Bissent, Buman Agency anu ulobal Politics, Cambiiuge 0niveisity
Piess*
Boweis uS (C. A. Boweis has taught at the 0niveisity of0iegon anu Poitlanu State 0niveisity, anu now, in
ietiiement, seives as aujunctpiofessoi ofenviionmental stuuies at the 0niveisity of 0iegon. "Assessing Richaiu
Roity's !ionist Inuiviuual Within the Context ofthe *Ecological Ciisis" The Tiumpetei 19,2 (2uuS).
http:tiumpetei.athabascau,cainuex,phptiumpetiaiticleview9194
BR0BA-BABN ANB N0RPBY 1994 ''|Kenneth anu Thomas L, "A Befense of Ciitique Aiguments: Beyonu the
Resolutional Question," CEBA Yeaibook, 1994, ceua websitej
Biook 2uu9 (Angus, 0niveisity of Notie Bame, Austialia. The Potentiality of Authenticity in Becoming a
Teachei. Euucational Philosophy anu Theoiy, vol. 41, No. 1, 2uu9 - uoi: 1u.1111j.1469-S812.2uu8.uu474.x)
B0RCB -ASSISTANT PF PBIL0S0PBY 0F EB0CATI0N, N0RTBERN ILLIN0IS 0NIvERSITY -u:1 Keiiy, "The
Significance ofCiitical Peuagogy foi Cultuial Stuuies" Theoiy & Event, S:S*
Ciopsey 87 (}osepth, Piofessoi ofPhilosophy at the 0niveisity ofChicago, "Bistoiy ofPolitical Philosophy,"
Billon -99 (Nichael Billon, Piof of Politics, 0niveisity of Lancastei, Noial Spaces, p. 97-98)
Fiamewoiks Institute 'uS ("The FiameWoiks Peispective: Stiategic Fiame Analysis",
http:www.fiamewoiksinstitute.oigstiategicanalysispeispective.shtml**
uEBRKE 1998 |Pat }, Foimei Bebate Coach anu Rhetoiical Scholai, "Ciitique Aiguments as Policy Analysis:
Policy Bebate Beyonu the Rationalist Peispective," Contempoiaiy Aigumentation anu Bebate, 19, 1998, pp. 18-
S9j
uuuoif anu Buchinson uS (Chiistine anu }ames, Piofessois of Religious Stuuies at Floiiua Inteinational
0niveisity, Bounuaiies: A Casebook in Enviionmental Ethics, p. S
Bicks anu uieen 2uuS Baiiin anu Ronalu Waltei, "Lost Convictions: Bebating Both Siueus anu the Etheiical Self
Fashioning of Libeial Citizens," Cultuial Stuuies, vol 19 no S, }an
Kappelei 9S (Susanne, =!+*I$##*("*^$"#+13+R*=!+*5"#$($3%*">5+-%"1)#*4+!)<$"-2*Pg. 1u-11)
Laiochelle '99 (uilbeit, Philosophy Touay (Summei*Ruui vlskei, Katholieke 0niveisiteit Leuven, 2uuS ("Is ethics
funuamental. Questioning Levinas on iiie-;P;;nsibility", Continental Philosophy Review, S6: 26S-Su2***
}osina Nakau, Responsible Communication "Aigumentation Instiuction in the Face of ulobal Peiils," p. S29
Istvan Neszaios, 199S (Beyonu Capital, "Naiginal 0tility' anu neo-classical Economic,s",
http:www.maixists.oigiaichivemeszaios!woikslbeyonu-capitalchuS-2.htm)*
NITCBELL 98 |uoiuon R.; 0niveisity of Pittsbuigh, "Peuagological Possibilities foi Aigumentative Agency In
Acauemic Bebate," D-/0&+1()($"1*)19*D9<"3)3,, vol. SS Issue 2, pp. 41-6uj
NABIA C |citation: bettei than youis, CRINETBINC, http:www.ciimethinc.comtextsselecteuasfuck.phpj
Nayai School of Law, 0niveisity of Waiwick. 1999 (}ayan, Fall, SYNP0SI0N; RE-FRANINu INTERNATI0NAL
LAW F0R TBE 21ST CENT0RY; 0iueis of *Inhumanity, Tiansnational Law & Contempoiaiy Pioblems, 9
Tiansnat'l L. & Contemp. Piobs. S99*
*
Pattison 2uu1 (ueoige, Bean of King's College, Cambiiuge. The Latei Beiueggei. Euiteu by Tim Ciane anu
}onathan Wolff Z1$<+-%$(,*\"##+/+*V"19"1'**?4"".U*
KENBALL R. PBILLIPS, SPACES 0F INvENTI0N: BISSENSI0N, FREEB0N, ANB TB00uBT IN F00CA0LT,
PBIL0S0PBY ANB RBET0RIC, 2uu2*
SANT0S 2uuS |Boaventuia ue Sousa, "Collective Suiciue.," `)9*E04W+3(%, Issue #6S, Apiil 2uuS,
http:bau.eseivei.oigissues2uuS6Ssantos.html, spuilyjWILLIAN
SBANABAN 9S ''|William Shanahan is one of the best uebate coaches evei involveu with the activity, foimeily
FBS0 uebate coach, phu anu pioleptic ihetoiical scholai, "kiitik of thinking" F+4)(+-%*H+%+)-3!*B0$9+, 199S,
;KKP1bbCCC:RKRD:EDAbRI>>A@<R?K<I@=bJIGE@=<R=bDIRA>E@K=b/G<K<OIJ$;<@O<@H:PDJj
William Spanos, Compaiative Liteiatuie anu Bumbling, 2uu1 ("The Spectei of Bistoiy: Rethinking Thinking in
the Post-Colu Wai Age," Nosaic, vol. S4)*
SPAN0S IN 2uuu |William, Ameiica's shauow: anatomy ofan empiie, isbn: u-8166-SSS7-1*
Stanuish 1997 (Paul Stanuish, Institute foi Euucation anu Lifelong Leaining, 0niveisity of Bunuee, L+$9+//+-*
)19*(!+*=+3!1"#"/,*">*X0-(!+-*?903)($"1'**}ouinal of Philosophy of Euucation, vol. S1, No. S, 1997)
Thomson u4 (lain, Bept. ofPhilosophy, 0niv. ofNew Nexico. "0ntology anu Ethics at the Inteisection of
Phenomenology anu Enviionmental Philosophy", publisheu in ?3"5!+1"&+1"#"/,R*`)3.*("*(!+*?)-(!*S(%+#>*p.S89-
91*
WARREN 2uu8 |Beckett, NA Thesis, "Bawn of a new apocalypse: Engagements With The Apocalyptic
Imagination In 2u12 anu Piimitivist Biscouise," Becembei 2uu8j
*

*

*
*
*

7"%3)N."/'%-$#g/'*#*&#.U"%[,0'
(Some aie alieauy listeu above in text)
Kemeiling, 97 piofessoi of philosophy at Newbeiiy College, (uaith, "Befinition anu Neaning",
http:www.philosophypages.comlgeuS.htm)
Nichael Ignatieff, 2uu4 - Caii Piofessoi of Buman Rights Piactice, Biiectoi of the Caii Centei foi Buman Rights
Policy at the }FK School of uoveinment, Baivaiu 0niveisity, The Lessei Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Teiioi,
p. 2u-1
Auolf u. uunueisen, 2uuu - Associate Piofessoi of Political Science at Texas A&N, Political Theoiy anu Paitisan
Politics, p. 1u8-9
Chiistophei C. }oynei (piof. of Inteinational law at ueoigetown) Spiing 1999 "teaching inteinational law: views
fiom an inteinational ielations political scientist" ILSA jouinal of inteinational & compaiative law S ILSA } Int'l &
Comp L S77.
Ruth Lessl Shively 2uuu - Associate Piofessoi of Political Science at Texas A&N, Political Theoiy anu Paitisan
Politics, p. 182-S
Chiistophei A. Biacey, Septembei 2uu6 - Associate Piofessoi of Law, Associate Piofessoi of Afiican &
Afiican Ameiican Stuuies, Washington 0niveisity in St. Louis, Southein Califoinia Law Review, 79 S. Cal. L.
Rev. 12S1, p. 1S11-1S14, LexisNexis

Thomas A. Spiagens, 2uuu - Piofessoi of Political Science at Buke, Political Theoiy anu Paitisan Politics, p. 9u-1
Naiy Bietz, 2uuu - Piofessoi of Political Science at the 0niveisity of Ninnesota, Political Theoiy anu Paitisan
Politics, p. 1S1-2
}ohn Rawls. 1999, The Law of Peoples, p. S6-S7
Alan Coveistone, 199S - "An Inwaiu ulance: A Response To Nitchell's 0utwaiu Activist Tuin," BRu, 0RL:
http:www.wfu.euuStuuent-oiganizationsuebateNiscSitesBRuAiticlesCoveistone199SChina.htm
0wen u2, 0niveisity of Southampton (Baviu, "Reoiienting Inteinational Relations: 0n Piagmatism, Pluialism
anu Piactical Reasoning", Nillennium: }ouinal of Inteinational Stuuies, vol. S1, No. S,
http:mil.sagepub.comcgiiepiintS1S6SS)
Fine, 2uuu - Bepaitment of Sociology Noithwestein 0niveisity - uaiy, "uANES ANB TR0TBS: Leaining To
Constiuct Social Pioblems In Bigh School Bebate", 1uS-1u4.

Boggs, 1997 - Piofessoi of Political Science, '97 - Cail, National 0niveisity, Theoiy & Society 26, Becembei, p.
76u-1.
Sankaian Kiishna, 199S - Piofessoi of Political Science at the 0niveisity of Bawaii, Alteinatives, v. 18
Best anu Kellnei, 2uu1 - Steven Best, Assoc. Piof Phil. Anu Buman. 0 Texas anu Bouglas Kellnei, Phil. 0f Eu.
Chaii, "Postmouein Politics anu the Battle foi the Futuie," Illuminations,
www.uta.euuhumailluminationskell28.htm
Nuii 199S - Stai A. PBIL0S0PBY ANB RBET0RIC, "A Befense of the Ethics of Contempoiaiy Bebate," v26, n4,
p.288
Shampa Biswas, 2uu7 - Piofessoi of Politics at Whitman College, Becembei 2uu7, "Empiie anu ulobal Public
Intellectuals: Reauing Euwaiu Saiu as an Inteinational Relations Theoiist," Nillennium: }ouinal of Inteinational
Stuuies, vol. S6, No. 1, p. 124
}ohn }. Neaisheimei, 199S - Realism heavyweight champion, Inteinational Secuiity, vol. 2u, No
Alastaii }.B. Nuiiay, 1997 - Politics ANB Realism, p
Fuyuki Kuiusawa 2uu4'Constellations vol 11 No. 4
Touu Nay, 2uuS, PBIL0S0PBY & S0CIAL CRITICISN - vol S1 nos S-6 - pp. S17-SS1
Baviu E. NcClean, 2uu1 - The Cultuial Left anu the Limits of Social Bope - Piesenteu at the 2uu1 Annual Confeience
of the Society foi the Auvancement of Ameiican Philosophy.
P. B. LI0TTA, 2uuS - Secuiity Bialogue - vol. S6(1): 49-7u
,)#()UU)"'/'*#*&#.U"%[,0'

1
Beiueggei, Naitin. What is Calleu Thinking., Baipei & Row publisheis, 19S4 - Page 4

1
Baibaia Balle Pezze, 2uu6 - PhB in Philosophy by the 0niveisity of Bong. Beiueggei on uelassenheit, ISSN
1S9S-614X, Nineiva - An Inteinet }ouinal of Philosophy 1u : 94-122
Stenstau 2uu6 (uail, piofessoi in the Bepaitment of Philosophy anu Bumanities at East Tennessee State
0niveisity, associate euitoi of L+$9+//+-*E(09$+%, anu a membei of the boaiu of uiiectois of the Inteinational
Association foi Enviionmental Philosophy. "Tiansfoimations Thinking Aftei Beiueggei" 0niveisity of Wisconsin
Piess. Page(s) SS-S4)
Bieyfus 2uuS (Bubeit L, Piofessoi at the 0niveisity of Califoinia, Beikeley "Beiueggei on the connection
between nihilism, ait, technology, anu politics." Cambiiuge Collections 0nline Cambiiuge 0niveisity Piess,
2uu7. Chaptei 1S)
Beistegui 2uu7 (Niguel ue Beistegui, Piofessoi of Philosophy 0niveisity of Waiwick, Coventiy. Questioning
Politics, oi Beyonu Powei. ?0-"5+)1*Y"0-1)#*">*C"#$($3)#*=!+"-,*2uu7; 6; 87. Sage Publications)
Swazo 2uu2 (Noiman Swazo, Piofessoi of Philosophy at the 0niveisity of Alaska Faiibanks, \-$%$%*=!+"-,*)19*
I"-#9*K-9+-R*L+$9+//+-$)1*H+>#+3($"1%, pp. 7S-74)
ueiman 2uu1 (Claie Peaison, "Beiueggei's Antigones." A Companion to Beiueggei's Intiouuction to Netaphysics.
Eu. Richaiu Polt anu uiegoiy Fiieu. New Baven anu Lonuon: Yale 0niveisity Piess)
Foltz 199S (Biuce v. Piofessoi of Philosophy, 0TB, S1!)4$($1/*(!+*?)-(!. 199S, Page(s) S-4)
Rutheifoiu 1999 (Paul, piofessoi of enviionmental politics in the Bepaitment of uoveinment anu Public
Auministiation at the 0niveisity of Syuney, Austialia, 1999, Biscouises of the Enviionment, p. S7-S8)
Lovbianu 2uu6 (Eva, Phu Caniuate in enviionmental science at Kalmai 0niveisity, "Planting Tiees to Nitigate
Climate Change: Contesteu Biscouises of Ecological Noueinization, uieen uoveinmentality anu Civic
Enviionmentalism, Feb. 2uu6)

NcWhoitei 1992 (Lauelle, Piofessoi of Philosophy, Noitheast Nissouii State, BEIBEuuER ANB TBE EARTh,
p.viii)
Thomson 2uu1 (Ian, Piofessoi of Philosophy at the 0niveisity of New Nexico. Beiueggei on 0ntological
Euucation, oi; Bow We Become What We Aie. S1a0$-,, 44, 24S-68, Naich 2uu1)
Pezze 2uu6 (Baibaia Balle , PhB in Philosophy by the 0niveisity of Bong. Beiueggei on uelassenheit, ISSN
1S9S-614X, Nineiva - An Inteinet }ouinal of Philosophy 1u (2uu6): 94-122 )
Aho 2uu7 (Kevin A. PhB 0niveisity of South Floiiua, is Assistant Piofessoi of Philosophy at Floiiua uulf Coast
0niveisity. Acceleiation anu Time Pathologies: The ciitique of psychology in Beiueggei's Beitige. =$&+*E"3$+(,*
2uu7; 16; 2S. Sage Publications)
Beiman 1997 (Aithui, Piofessoi of Bistoiy, ueoige Nason, TBE IBEA 0F BECLINE IN WESTERN BIST0RY,
1997, p.SS6-7)
Zimmeiman 1981 (Nichael E. Zimmeiman, Piofessoi of Philosophy at Tulane 0niveisity; ?3#$5%+*">*(!+*E+#>R*=!+*
F+<+#"5&+1(*">*L+$9+//+-6%*\"13+5(*">*D0(!+1($3$(,2*pp. 24S-248)
Kockelmans 198S (}oseph, Piofessoi of Philosophy at Penn State 0niveisity, BEIBEuuER ANB SCIENCE, p.2S4)
Thiele 199S (Leslie Paul, Piofessoi of Political Science, 0niveisity of Floiiua, TINELY NEBITATI0NS, p. 186)
Kateb 1992 (ueoige, political theoiist, Piinceton, The Innei 0cean, p. 149)

Weitzman 2uu8 (Eiica, Boctoial canuiuate in Compaiative Liteiatuie at New Yoik 0niveisity. Necessaiy
Inteiiuption: Tiaces of the Political in Levinas. Theoiy anu Event, volume 11, Issue 2, 2uu8)
Pattison 2uu1 (ueoige, Bean of King's College, Cambiiuge. The Latei Beiueggei. Euiteu by Tim Ciane anu
}onathan Wolff Z1$<+-%$(,*\"##+/+*V"19"1'**?4"".U*
Beistegui 2uu7 (Niguel ue Beistegui, Piofessoi of Philosophy 0niveisity of Waiwick, Coventiy. Questioning
Politics, oi Beyonu Powei. ?0-"5+)1*Y"0-1)#*">*C"#$($3)#*=!+"-,*2uu7; 6; 87. Sage Publications)
Beckman 2uuu (Tau, Piofessoi of Philosophy, Baivey Nuuu College, "Naitin Beiueggei anu Enviionmental
Ethics http:www2.hmc.euu~tbeckmanpeisonalBEIBART.BTNL")
Bauuiillaiu 199S (}ean, The Tianspaiency of Evil, Essays on Extieme Phenomenon, Pages 97-99)
Beiman 1997 (Aithui, Piofessoi of Bistoiy, ueoige Nason, TBE IBEA 0F BECLINE IN WESTERN BIST0RY,
1997, p.SS6-7)
Bicks 2uuS (Steven v., Piofessoi anu chaii of philosophy at Queens College of the C0NY, "Nietzsche, Beiueggei,
anu Foucault: Nihilism anu Beyonu," Foucault anu Beiueggei: Ciitical Encounteis, Eu. Alan Nilchman anu Alan
Rosenbeig, p. 1u9)
Bieyfus 1996 (Bubeit, "Being anu Powei: Beiueggei anu Foucault" 0niveisity of Califoinia Beikeley
http:sociates.beikeley.euu~huieyfushtmlpapei_being.html)
Sabatiano u7 (Chailes }., Baemen College. "A Beiueggeiian Reflection on the Piospects ofTechnology" iepiinteu
in }anus Beau 1u.1. p. 6S-76.
Eiic Katz, 2uuu - associate piofessoi of philosophy anu uiiectoi of the Science, Technology, anu Society Piogiam,
New }eisey Institute of Technology; iecognizeu pioneei, enviionmental ethics, 2K, Natuie as Subject: Buman
0bligation anu Natuial Community)
Baynes u8(}ohn B., Piofessoiial visiting Fellow School oflnfoimation Systems, Technology anu Nanagement
0niveisity of New South Wales, "Calculative Thinking anu Essential Thinking in Bciucggei's Phenomenology,"
http:wwwuocs.fce.unsw.euu.auisistmstafilBeiueggei _calculation _ essential_ Naichu8. put)
Natt Szabo, 2uu2 - PhB Canuiuate in ueogiaphy at The 0niveisity ofNanchestei, "Nanageiial ecology: Zygmunt
Bauman anu the gaiuening cultuie of moueinity," Enviionments, vol. Su, No.S, 2uu2
Bwang 99 ( Ph. B. canuiuate in political science at the 0niveisity of Connecticut. "Ecological panoptic ism; the
pioblematization ofthe ecological ciisis")
0liviei u7 (Beit, Piofessoi of Philosophy at the Nelson Nanuela Netiopolitan 0niveisity, "Natuie as 'abject',
ciitical psychology, anu 'ievolt': The peitinence of Kiist eva," South Afiican }ouinal of Psychology, S7(S), 2uu7,
pp. 44S--469)
Bainett, Fellow in the School of Social anu Enviionmental Enquiiy at 0niveisity of Nelbouine, 2uu1 (}on, anu a
New Zealanu Sci anu Tech Postuoctoial Fellow at the 0niveisity of Canteibuiy anu seives on the euitoiial
boaius of seveial scholaily jouinals, Nay 4, The Neaning of Enviionmental Secuiity: Ecological Politics anu
Policy in the New Secuiity Eia, pg. 47 pS -pg. 49 pl)
Litfin 99 (Kaien T.; assistant piofessoi of political science at the 0niveisity of Washington in Seattle;
"Constiucting Enviionmental Secuiity anu Ecological Inteiuepenuence"; ulobal uoveinance, 1u7S2846, }ul-
Sep99, vol. S, Issue S; Acauemic Seaich Piemiei; Ebsco
Bioua-Bahm 99 (Kenneth T, Assistant Piofessoi in the Nass Communication anu Communication Stuuies
Bepaitment at Towson 0niveisity, "Finuing Piotection in Befinitions: The Quest foi Enviionmental Secuiity"
Aigumentation & Auvocacy, 1uS114S1, Spiing99, vol. SS, Issue 4)j-
Rowe uS (Stan, Retiieu ecology teachei, piofessoi emeiitus at the 0niveisity of Saskatchewan,
http:tiumpetei.athabascau.cainuex.phptiumpetlaitic\eview9SMbcU*

}enkins u6 (Naitin Pathways School of Philosophy, "Beiueggei, Technology, anu 0ui Futuie," C!$#"%"5!,*
C)(!Q),%2*Issue 12S, http:www.philosophos.comphilosophy _aiticle _1S7 .html
Naitin Beiueggei, 1966, Biscouise on Thinking, p. S2-S7}
Smith u8 (Nick, Queen's 0niveisity, Kingston, 0ntaiio, "Suspenueu Animation: Rauical Ecology,
Soveieign Poweis, anu Saving the (Natuial) Woilu", }ouinal foi the Stuuy of Rauicalism, vol. 2, No.1, 2uu8, pp 4
S)
Natthews u1(Richaiu, Queen's 0niveisity, "The Netaphysics of Appeaiance: Beiueggei's Ciitique of
Technology," http:www.mun.caphil! cougitovol2v2uocS .html
Antolick u2 (Natthew, Nastei ofAits Bepaitment of Philosophy 0niveisity of South Floiiua, "Beep Ecology anu
Beiueggeiian Phenomenology," http:etu.fcla.euu}SFSFE0000Iu4antolick.puf
Conuella 0l(Ciaig A., Foiuham 0niveisity, "0veicoming the Bestining 0fTechnological Being," Fall 2uu1
Symposium:Bumanity's Place in the Cosmos, Novembei 6, 2uu1,
http:www.foiuham.euu}phiiosophyfpssymposia2uu1fallconuella.htm)
Balby 1998 (Ecological metaphois of secuiity: Woilu politics in the biospheie. Alteinatives: ulobal, Local,
Political, }ul-SepI998, vol. 2S, Issue S
Peteis anu Iiwin 2 (Nichael, Reseaich Piofessoi of Euucation at 0niveisity of ulasgow, anu Ruth, PhB 0niveisity
of ulasgow, Eaithsongs: ecopoetics, Beiueggei anu uwelling. The Tiumpetei: }ouinal of Ecosophy 18(l)
}oel }. Kassiola. uS, College ofBehavioial anu Social Sciences San Fiancisco State 0niveisity (Can
Enviionmental Ethics 'Solve' Enviionmental Pioblems anu Save the Woilu. Yes, but Fiist We Nust Recognise the
Essential Noimative Natuie ofEnviionmental Pioblems, ?1<$-"1&+1()#*^)#0+%2*12
uouzinski uS(Ronalu }i., Southein Illinois 0niveisity at Caibonuale, "(En)Fiaming Beiueggei's Philosophy of
Technology," Essays in Philosophy, vol. 6, No. I, http:www.humbolut.euu}~essaysgouzinski.html
Beiueggei anu the Eaith: Essays in Enviionmental Philosophy (New Stuuies in Phenomenology anu
Beimeneutics) |Baiucoveij Lauelle NcWhoitei (Euitoi), uail Stenstau (Euitoi)
Lauelle NcWhoitei holus the }ames Thomas Chaii in the Bepaitment of Philosophy anu is jointly appointeu a
piofessoi in the Bepaitment of Women's, uenuei, anu Sexualities Stuuies at the 0niveisity of Richmonu.
uail Stenstau is a piofessoi emeiita in the Bepaitment of Philosophy at East Tennessee State 0niveisity.
0niveisity of Toionto Piess, Scholaily Publishing Bivision; 2 Expanueu euition (}une 17, 2uu9) ISBN-
1u: u8u2u99882
N,#$)-)++'/'*#*&#.U"%[,0V'
Alcoff, Linua 2uu6, Feminist Piofessoi, The Political Ciitique of Iuentity: fiom visible Iuentities: Race,
uenuei, anu the Self.
Applebaum '1u |Baibaia Applebaum, Associate Piofessoi in Cultuial Founuations of Euucation at
Syiacuse 0niveisity. "White Ignoiance anu Benials of Complicity: 0n the Possibility of Boing
Philosophy in uoou Faith." The Centei Nust Not Bolu: White Women Philosopheis on the Whiteness
of Philosophy. Lanham , NB : Lexington Books. Euiteu by ueoige Yancy (2u1u).j
Bailey '1u |Alison Bailey. "0n Inteisectionality anu the Whiteness of Feminist Philosophy." The
Centei Nust Not Bolu: White Women Philosopheis on the Whiteness of Philosophy. Lanham , NB :
Lexington Books. Euiteu by ueoige Yancy (2u1u).j
bell hooks, Authoi, Feminist, Piofessoi at Beiea College, 1996 Killing Rage: Enuing Racism
Biit 'u4 |Robeit Biit, Piofessoi of Philosophy Noigan State 0niveisity. "The Bau Faith of Whiteness."
In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like: Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness
Question. SS-64.j
Biayton 'u6 |Sean Biayton, "Nalibu's Nost 0nueicovei uuiu": Beconstiucting Race thiu a
Comical Peuagogy of Whiteness," T0PIA 14, S7. 2uu6.j
BRAYT0N 'u8 |Sean Biayton. "A CRITICAL P0STN0BERN RESP0NSE T0 N0LTIC0LT0RALISN IN
P0P0LAR C0LT0RE." A TBESIS S0BNITTEB IN PARTIAL F0LFILLNENT 0F TBE REQ0IRENENTS
F0R TBE BEuREE 0F B0CT0R 0F PBIL0S0PBY in TBE FAC0LTY 0F uRAB0ATE ST0BIES (Buman
Kinetics), TBE 0NIvERSITY 0F BRITISB C0L0NBIA, Apiil 2uu8.j
Buff, 2uuS |Rachel Iua. Ameiican Quaiteily, volume S7, Numbei 4, Becembei 2uuS, pp.126S-
1272 (Review). Tiansnational visions: Reinventing Immigiation Stuuiesj
Caiey et al.. 2uu9 }ane Caiey, Leigh Bouchei, anu Katheiine Ellinghaus. Re-0iienting
Whiteness. - Page 1
Chapin, 2uuS |}essica. 0T. Ethnogiaphy at the Boiuei.j
Chailes Nills u1, piofessoi of philosophy at Noithwestein 0niveisity, in 2uu1 (Faces of
Enviionmental Racism, Lauia Westia, Bill Lawson eus. p. 89-9u)
Cuiiy 'u4 |Blanche Raufoiu Cuiiy, Piofessoi Philosophy NC State 0niveisity, Fayetteville.
"Whiteness anu Feminism: Bj vu Biscouises, What's Next." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White
Looks Like: Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 24S-62.j
BiAngelo, euucation faculty, 0niveisity of Washington, 2uu6 (Robin }., Whiteness Stuuies authoi,
INCL0SI0N IN 0RBAN EB0CATI0NAL ENvIR0NNENTS: ABBRESSINu ISS0ES 0F BIvERSITY,
EQ0ITY ANB S0CIAL }0STICE, Euiteu by Benise E. Aimstiong anu Bienua }. NcNahon, p. 216-7)

Bobiowolsky 'u7 |Alexanuia. Associate Piofessoi anu Chaii, Bepaitment of Political Science,
Saint Naiy's 0niveisity, Balifax, Nova Scotia. "(In)Secuiity anu Citizenship: Secuiity, Immigiation
anu Shiinking Citizenship." Theoietical Inquiiies in Law, volume 8, Numbei 2 }uly 2uu7 Aiticle 11.j

Boezema, 2uu4 PBB Thesis. Sex slaves anu uiscouise masteis - The histoiical constiuction of the
tiafficking of women.
Bylan Rouiiguez, Piofessoi 0niveisity of Califoinia Reveisiue, Novembei 2uu7 Kiitika Kultuia"
Ameiican ulobality anu The 0.S. Piison Regime: State violence anu White Supiemacy fim Abu uhiaib
to Stockton to Bagong Biwa"
Faii 'u4 |Ainolu Faii, Ass. Piofessoi of Philosophy Saint }oseph's 0niveisity. "Whiteness visible:
Enlightenment Racism anu the Stiuctuie of Racializeu Consciousness." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What
White Looks Like: Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 14S-S8.j
Feiguson, 2uuu Cultuial values ISSN 1S6S-S179 volume 4 Numbei 4 0ctobei 2uuu pp. 419-444

Fiank B. Wilueison III 2uu7, Assistant Piofessoi of Afiican Ameiican Stuuies & Biama at 0C
Iivine, Waifaie in the Ameiican Bomelanu-Policing anu Piison in a Penal Bemociacy pgS1-SS

uiioux u8 , a piofessoi in English anu Cultuial Stuuies at NcNastei 0niveisity ,Beniy uiioux,:
Rethinking the Piomise of Ciitical Euucation 0nuei an 0bama Regime u2 Becembei 2uu8, Chionis

uoiuon 'u4 |Lewis R. uoiuon. Piofessoi Afiicana Stuuies Biown 0niveisity. "Ciitical Reflections
on Thiee Populai Tiopes in the Stuuy of Whiteness." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like:
Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 17S-94.j
Baiuing '1u |Sanuia Baiuing. Piofessoi at the 0CLA uiauuate School of Euucation anu
Infoimation Stuuies; Foimei Biiectoi of the 0CLA Centei foi the Stuuy of Women. "Foiwaiu." The
Centei Nust Not Bolu: White Women Philosopheis on the Whiteness of Philosophy. Lanham , NB :
Lexington Books. Euiteu by ueoige Yancy (2u1u).j
Beauley 'u4 |Clevis Beauley, Ass. Piofessoi Philosophy Floiiua Atlantic 0niveisity.
"Beligitimizing the Noimativity of "Whiteness": A Ciitical Afiicana Philosophical Stuuy of the
Netaphoiicity of "Whiteness." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like: Afiican-Ameiican
Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 87-1u6.j
Beniy 'u4 |Paget Beniy, Piofessoi of Sociology & Afiicana Stuuies Biown 0niveisity.
"Whiteness anu Afiicana Phenomenology." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like: Afiican-
Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 19S-21u.j
Bill 1997, Shelton K. foimei piofessoi Biola 0niveisity "Afiican Ameiican Stuuent's Notivation
to Paiticipate in Inteicollegiate Bebate", Southein }ouinal of Foiensics
Books, Bell 2uu4, Black Feminist theoiist anu Piofessoi at Beiea College, The Will to Change: Nen
masculinity anu Love.
}ones 'u4 |}anine }ones, Piofessoi of Philosophy 0NC uieensboio. "The Impaiiment of
Empathy in uoouwill Whites foi Afiican Ameiicans." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like:
Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 6S-86.j
Kenneuy '96 |Liam. "Alien Nation: White Nale Paianoia anu Impeiial Cultuie in the 0niteu
States." }ouinal of Ameiican Stuuies, Su(1), 87-1uu. }ST0R.j
Kincheloe, 1999 The Stiuggle to Befine anu Reinvent Whiteness: A Peuagogical Analysis }oe L.
Kincheloe Souice: College Liteiatuie 26 (Fall 1999): 162- .
Leonaiu 2uuS, Noulaiu valentine. Piofessoi of Philosopy at 0niv. 0f memphis. "Revolutionaiy
Becomings: Negiituue's Anti-Bumanist Bumanism"
Leonaiuo, 2uu2 Race Ethnicity anu Euucation, vol. S, No. 1, 2uu2 The Souls of White Folk: ciitical -
peuagogy, whiteness stuuies, anu globalization uiscouise - ZE0S LE0NARB0 Califoinia State
0niveisity,
Loomba u9 |Piof of English at 0 of Penn Ania Compaiative Liteiatuie 61.2 Buke 0niveisity
Piess j
Naitinez, 2uu6 |0scai }. Naitinez. Regents Piofessoi of Bistoiy at the 0niveisity of Aiizona.
Tioublesome Boiuei.j
NcClenuon 'u4 |}ohn B. NcClenuon III, Ass. Piofessoi of Afiican-Ameiican stuuies & Ameiican
cultuial stuuies at Bates College. "0n the Natuie of Whiteness anu the 0ntology of Race: Towaiu a
Bialectical Nateiialist Analysis." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like: Afiican-Ameiican
Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 211-26.j
NcIntosh, Peggy: 1988, Associate uiiectoi of the Wellesley Collage Centei foi Reseaich on Women;
White Piivilege: 0npacking the Invisible Knapsack
NILLS 'u7 |CBARLES W. Noithwestein 0niveisity. "Comments on Shannon Sullivan's
Revealing Whiteness." }ouinal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 21, No. S, 2uu7.jIn chaptei 7
Nills 'u4 |Chailes W. Nills, Piofessoi of Philosophy at 0niveisity of Illinois at Chicago. "Racial
Exploitation anu the Wages of Whiteness." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like: Afiican-
Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 2S-S4.j 27-8
Nealon, 98 |Refiaining, Becoming-Black: Repetition anu Biffeience in Amiii Baiaka's Blues
People, }effiey T. - symploke 6.1 (1998) 8S-9S,
http:muse.jhu.euu.ezpioxy.lib.ou.euujouinalssymplokevuu66.1nealon.htmlPiof of english at
Penn State 0niveisityj
Newman, 2uu9 Louise. Re-0iienting Whiteness. - Page 42
0utlaw 'u4 |Lucius T. 0utlaw, }i., Piofessoi of Philosophy & Biiectoi, Afiican-Ameiican Stuuies,
vanueibilt 0niveisity. "Rehabilitate Racial Whiteness." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like:
Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 1S9-72.j
Romeio, 2uu8 Contempoiaiy }ustice Review vol. 11, No. 1, Naich 2uu8, 2S-S7 Ciossing the
immigiation anu iace boiuei: A ciitical iace theoiy appioach to immigiation stuuies Naiy Romeio*
School of }ustice anu Social Inquiiy, Aiizona State 0niveisity, Tempe, 0SA
Rootfoice '1u |"Aiizona Inuigenous People anu Allies 0ccupy Boiuei Patiol 0ffice."
http:www.iootfoice.oig2u1uuS21aiizona-inuigenous-people-anu-allies-occupy-boiuei-
patiol-office Nay 21st, 2u1u. j
Spiingei, Institute foi Recoveiy fiom Racisms, 2uu6 (Peailette E., Catholic Biocese of uaiy,
Inuiana, www.ucgaiy.oigpastoialAfiicanantiiacismaiticleseconiacism.htm, 22Su7
Tayloi 'u4 |Paul C. Tayloi, Social Philosophy anu Ameiican ethnic stuuies at 0niveisity of
Washington. "Silence anu Sympathy: Bewey's Whiteness." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks
Like: Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the Whiteness Question. 227-42.j
Tinkei '96 ueoige E. Tinkei, Iliff School of Technology, 1996 |Befenuing Nothei Eaith: Native
Ameiican Peispectives on Enviionmental }ustice, eu. }ace Weavei, p. 171-72j
Toni Noiiison 199S, authoi anu liteiaiy theoiist, Nobel Piize in Liteiatuie Lectuie,
(http:nobelpiize.oignobel_piizesliteiatuielauieates199Smoiiison-lectuie.html)
vELEZ-IBANEZ, 1996 |Cailos u., Piofessoi, School of Tiansboiuei Stuies AS0, Boiuei visions. j
Wilueison III, foimei membei of the 0mkhonto we Sizwe, 2uu8 |Fiank B., Incognegio: A Nemoii
of Exile anu Apaitheiu South Enu Piess, pg. 4u7-411j
Yancy '1u |ueoige Yancy. Piofessoi of Philosophy Buquesne 0niveisity. "Intiouuction:
Tioublemaking Allies." The Centei Nust Not Bolu: White Women Philosopheis on the Whiteness of
Philosophy. Lanham , NB : Lexington Books. Euiteu by ueoige Yancy (2u1u).j
Yancy 'u4 |ueoige Yancy, Review Euitoi of the Ameiican Philosophical Association Newslettei
on Philosophy anu the Black Expeiience. "A Foucauluian (uenealogical) Reauing of Whiteness: The
Piouuction of the Black BouySelf anu the Racial Befoimation of Pecola Bieeulove in Toni Noiiison's
The Bluest Eye." In ueoige Yancy, eu., What White Looks Like: Afiican-Ameiican Philosopheis on the
Whiteness Question. 1u7-42.j
Yancy 2uu4, Pennsylvania State 0niveisity. All iights ieseiveu. The }ouinal of Speculative
Philosophy 18.4 (2uu4) 27S-299
Yancy, 2uuS Yancy, ueoige. - Whiteness anu the Retuin of the Black Bouy
The }ouinal of Speculative Philosophy - New Seiies, volume 19, Numbei 4, 2uuS, pp. 21S-241

'!.33.-'%-+N)"+'$.'/"#$#/+'
+)!8"#$0'/'%-+N)"+'

Feai, wai anu violence aie inevitable, the impacts aie inevitable '
Noving away fiom secuiity iisks wai
Abanuoning secuiity fails
Peim uo plan anu all paits of alt that uon't = ieject
Little paits of change solve. walt 91
Secuiity of woilu oiuei is possible -- uS
Insecuiity anu uisoiuei aie inevitable. This is key to effective planning -- u4
Impossible to tiansfoim politics wout seeing the state -- shaw 99
Impact is extinction anu iefusal to engage in politics that makes violence inevitable
Even if wai, violence anu uisoiuei aie inevitable, escalation anu the teiminal impact isn't - appioach
the plan as a means to ieuuce the woist foims of violence. We can't guaiantee a utopia but we can
keep things fiom getting woise-Flynn u7, The Euge of Bisastei: Rebuiluing a Resilient Nation, p. 9-1u
Noving away fiom secuiity cieates new challengeis anu incieases the iisk of wai -
Boian 99, Suivival, Summei, p. 148-9
Abanuoning secuiity fails - all that will happen is that non-iealists will be iemoveu fiom office -
Kavka 87, Noial Paiauoxes of Nucleai Beteiience, p. 86-87
Even if wai, violence anu uisoiuei aie inevitable, escalation anu the teiminal impact isn't - appioach
the plan as a means to ieuuce the woist foims of violence. We can't guaiantee a utopia but we can
keep things fiom getting woise
Flynn u7, The Euge of Bisastei: Rebuiluing a Resilient Nation, p. 9-1u

$)""."'$%&/'%-+N)"+'
Teiioiist attacks on 911 weie ieal. No impact to uiscouise
Biscouise is not stable focus - votei
Plan shoulu be the focus of the uebate
Biscouise uoesn't constiuct ieality
The label "teiioiist" is vital
Concept of teiioiism solves
9)"+8+:'-%""%$#9)+'
Naiiatives bau

Naiiatives aie bau: (1). They ieify hegemonic stiuctuies thiough social assumptions anu cieate
stiuctuies of powei of theii own. (2). They pievent pioblem solving by obscuiing pioblems with
uiscuisive assumptions. (S). They mask uomination by pieventing uelibeiation ovei tiuth claims.
Pioves the K can't solve anu only cieates the pioblems it tiies to pievent
Patiicia Ewick anu Susan S. Silbey . Law & Society Review, uu2S9216, 199S, vol. 29, Issue 2
Libeial multicultuialism's embiace of naiiative cannot be piouuctive because it is inheiently
limiteu - theii attempt to show the inuiviuuals beauty is the ultimate fake gestuie baseu in the
uesiie to see the othei suffei.

Zizek 2uu8 In Befense of Lost Causes page 11-1S
Naiiatives cieate the same oppiessive natuie as uominant uiscouise.
Coughlin 9S |Anne, Lewis F. Powell. "Regulating the Self: Autobiogiaphical Peifoimances in
0utsiuei Scholaiship." viiginia Law Review August euition.j
Naiiatives have the same pioblems as the system that they ciitique - they aien't innocent, they aie manipulateu foi an
intenueu puipose anu theii use of naiiative is also a foim of manipulation. Theii pioject cannot auuiess social agenuas
anu has the same pioblems as uominant uiscouise.
Coughlin 9S |Anne, Lewis F. Powell. "Regulating the Self: Autobiogiaphical Peifoimances in 0utsiuei Scholaiship."
viiginia Law Review August euition.j

It may be.to be iepiesenteu.

Naiiatives feast on pie-conceiveu piejuuices oi guilt; they make it impossible to make accuiate uecisions - gutting
solvency foi theii movement.
Byman 98 |Baviu. "Lies, Bamneu Lies, anu Naiiative" 7S Inu L } 797 Summeij
As ENTALA uemonstiates.anu empiiical ieality.

Beie is a naiiative goou cite:
Naiiative solvency (naiiatives aie univeisally unueistoou as an alteinative to the iationality of
the status quo, taken fiom
Rowlanu 87 Rowlanu (Robeit C., Piofessoi of Communication Stuuies, 0niveisity of Kansas, Communication
Nonogiaphs S4, p. 264).1987
The Rational Woilu Paiauigm, a taught anu highly systemizeu methou of human communication
anu uecision-making, neeus to be ieconsiueieu befoie making iefoims to human tiafficking
baseu visa law. Fishei, Piofessoi of Communication, 0niveisity of Southein Califoinia (Waltei,
"Naiiation as a Buman Communication Paiauigm: The Case of Public Noial Aigument",
Communication Nonogiaphs, vol S1, 1984)
This paiauigm is veiy familiai, having been in existence since Aiistotle's 0iganon . alieauy
been uone on public aigument aie essays by Cox (1981), uoounight (198u), Bynes, }i. (198u),
Lucaitas (1981), Piyoi (1981). Sillais anu uanei (1982). anu Zaiefsky (1981).

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen