Framework 1nc

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

unitary act of definitional power. However, a dialogical perspective allows us to see power flowing both ways. A large range of affirmative cases necessitates fewer negative strategies that are relevant to the range of such cases. If the affirmative can present any case it desires, the benefits of the research, preparation, and in-depth thinking that go into the creation of negative strategies are diminished, if not eviscerated entirely. The affirmative case is obliged to invite a negative response. In addition, even when the negative strategy is not entirely excluded, any strategy that diminishes argumentative depth and quality diminishes the quality of in-round dialogue. An affirmative speech act that flagrantly violates debate fairness norms and claims that the benefits of the affirmative act supersede the need for such guidelines has the potential of excluding a meaningful negative response, and undermines the pedagogical benefits of the in-round dialogue. The germ of a response (Bakhtin, 1990) is stunted. While affirmative teams often accuse the negative of using a juridical rule to exclude them, the affirmative also relies upon an unstated rule to exclude the negative response. This unstated but understood rule is that the negative speech act must serve to negate the affirmative act. Thus, affirmative teams often exclude an entire range of negative arguments, including arguments designed to challenge the hegemony, domination, and oppression inherent in topical approaches to the resolution. Becoming more than just a ritualistic tag-line of fairness, education, time skew, voting issue, fairness exists in the implicit right to be heard in a meaningful way. Ground is just thata ground to stand on, a ground to speak from, a ground by which to meaningfully contribute to an ongoing conversation. Conversely, in a dialogical exchange, debaters come to realize the positions other than their own have value, and that reasonable minds can disagree on controversial issues. This respect encourages debaters to modify and adapt their own positions on critical issues without the threat of being labeled a hypocrite. The conceptualization of debate as a dialogue allows challenges to take place from a wide variety of perspectives. By offering a stable referent the affirmative must uphold, the negative can choose to engage the affirmative on the widest possible array of counterwords, enhancing the pedagogical process produced by debate. Additionally, debate benefits activism by exposing the participants to a wide range of points of view on topics of public importance. A debater starting their career in the fall of 2005 would have debated about China, landmark Supreme Court decisions, Middle East policy, and agricultural policy. It is unsurprising that many debaters contend that debate is one of the most educationally valuable experiences of their lives. Thus, the unique distinctions between debate and public speaking allow debaters the opportunity to learn about a wide range of issues from multiple perspectives. This allows debaters to formulate their own opinions about controversial subjects through an in-depth process of research and testing of ideas. Putting the cart before the horse by assuming that one knows that the resolution is oppressive and cannot be meaningfully affirmed denies debaters the ability to craft a nuanced answer to the question posed by the resolution.

AT: Our political act outweighs

Debate is a pedagogical act, not a political act its insulated from the public and not analogous to public speaking which means the primary goal should not be social change Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) Richard Murphy lays out the case that students should not be forced to say something they do not believe, a concept quite similar to modern-day advocates of the notion that affirmatives should not have to defend the topic (1957; 1963). Murphy contends, The argument against debating both sides is very simple and consistent. Debateis a form of public speaking. A public statement is a public commitment (1957, p. 2). Murphy believed students should discuss and research an issue until they understood their position on the issue and then take the stand and defend only that side of the proposition. Murphys fear was that students risk becoming a weather vane, having character only when the wind is not blowing (1963, p. 246). In contrast, Nicholas Cripe distinguished between speaking and debating (1957, p. 210). Cripe contended that, unlike a public speaker, a debater is not trying to convince the judges, or his opponents of the argument but merely to illustrate that their team has done the superior debating (p. 211). Debating in this sense exists with an obligation to give each position its best defense, in much the way an attorney does for a client. Here, the process of defending a position for the purposes of debate is distinct from their advocacy for a cause in a larger sense. As such, they are like Socrates in the Phaedrus, speaking with their heads covered so as not to anger the gods (Murphy 1957, p. 3). Additionally, debate is unlike public speaking since it happens almost always in a private setting. There are several distinctions. First, very few people watch individual contest rounds. The vast majority of such rounds take place with five people in the roomthe four debaters, and the lone judge. Even elimination rounds with the largest audiences have no more than approximately one hundred observers, almost all of whom are debaters. Rarely do people outside the community watch debates. Also, debate has developed a set of norms and procedures quite unlike public speaking. While some indict these norms (Warner 2003), the rapid rate of speed and heavy reliance on evidence distinguishes debate from public speaking. Our activity is more like the closed debating society that Murphy admits can be judged by pedagogical, rather than ethical, standards (1957, p. 7). When debates do occur that target the general public (public debates on campus for example), moderators are careful to explain that debaters may be playing devils advocate. Such statements prevent confusion regarding whether or not a debater speaks in a role or from personal conviction. While speaking from conviction is a political act, speaking in accordance with a role is a pedagogical one (Klopf & McCroskey, 1964, p. 37). Fairness is a prerequisite to education refusing to defend the topic shields their arguments from educational scrutiny Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) A Sirens Call: Falsely Presuming Epistemic Benefits In addition to the basic equity norm, dismissing the idea that debaters defend the affirmative side of the topic encourages advocates to falsely value affirmative speech acts in the absence of a negative response. There may be several detrimental consequences that go unrealized in a debate where the affirmative case and plan are not topical. Without ground, debaters may fall prey to a sirens call, a belief that certain critical ideals and concepts are axiological, existing beyond doubt without scrutiny. Bakhtin contends that in dialogical exchanges the greater the number and weight of counter-words, the deeper and more substantial our understanding will be (Bakhtin, 1990). The matching of the word to the counter-word should be embraced by proponents of critical activism in the activity, because these dialogical exchanges allow for improvements and modifications in critical arguments. Muir argues that debate puts students into greater contact with the real world by forcing them to read a great deal of information (1993, p. 285). He continues, [t]he constant consumption of materialis significantly constitutive. The information grounds the issues under discussion, and the process shapes the relationship of the citizen to the public arena (p. 285). Through the process of comprehensive understanding, debate serves

both as a laboratory and a constitutive arena. Ideas find and lose adherents. Ideas that were once considered beneficial are modified, changed, researched again, and sometimes discarded altogether. A central argument for open deliberation is that it encourages a superior consensus to situations where one side is silenced. Christopher Peters contends, The theory holds that antithesis ultimately produces a better consensus, that the clash of differing, even opposing interests and ideas in the process of decision making creates decisions that are better for having been subjected to this trial by fire (1997, p. 336). The combination of a competitive format and the necessity to take points of view that one does not already agree with combines to create a unique educational experience for all participants. Those that eschew the value of such experience by an axiological position short-circuit the benefits of the educational exchange for themselves, their opponents, as well as the judges and observers of such debates. Their refusal to defend the topic leads to dogmatism makes them ineffective advocates outside of debate Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) The Devils Advocate: Advancing Activism by Learning Potential Weaknesses Willingness to argue against what one believes helps the advocate understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own position. It opens the potential for a new synthesis of material that is superior to the first (Dybvig & Iverson, 2000). Serving as a devils advocate encourages an appreciation for middle ground and nuance (Dell, 1958). Failure to see both sides can lead to high levels of ego involvement and dogmatism (Hicks & Greene, 2000). Survey data confirms these conclusions. Star Muir found that debaters become more tolerant after learning to debate both sides of an issue (Muir, 1993). Such tolerance is predictable since debate is firmly grounded in respect for the other through the creation of a fair dialogue. Ironically, opponents of a debate as dialogue risk falling prey to dogmatism and the requisite failure to respect potential middle grounds. Perceiving the world through the lens of contingency and probability can be beneficial to real-world activism when its goal is creating consensus out of competing interests. The anti-oppression messages of critical teams would benefit from a thorough investigation of such claims, and not merely an untested axiological assumption. Participation disad a. debating without a resolution substantially undermines the student experience this is empirically verifiable, an experimental tournament without a resolution produced strong negative reactions from 81% of participants Preston, 3 professor of communication at the University of Missouri - St. Louis (C. Thomas, No-Topic Debating in Parliamentary Debate: Student and Critic Reactions, http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf) The study involved forty-three students and nine critics who participated in a parliamentary debate tournament where no topic was assigned for the fourth round debates. True to the idea of openness, no rules regarding the topic were announced; no topic, or written instructions other than time limits and judging instruction, were provided. In this spirit, the participants first provided anecdotal reactions to the no-topic debate, so that the data from this study could emerge from
discussion. Second, respondents provided demographic data so that patterns could be compared along three dimensions. These dimensions, the independent variables for the student portion of the study, involved three items: 1) level of debate experience; 2) whether NPDA was the only format of parliamentary debate the students had experienced; and 3) whether students had participated in NDT or CEDA policy debate. Third, the questions were to determine how students rated the debates based on criteria for good debate-educational value, clash, and a fair division of ground. Students were also asked two general questions: whether they would try the no-topic debate again, and whether they liked the no-topic round. These questions constituted the dependent variables for the student study. Because the sample was small, descriptive statistical data were gathered from critics. Taking into account the experience of the critics, additional questions concerning items such as whether no-topic debating deepened discussion. Both students and critics were asked which side they thought the no-topic approach favored, and the students with NDT/ CEDA policy debating experience were asked if a no-topic debating season would be good for policy debate. For the objective items, critics and students were asked to circle a number between 1 and 7 to indicate the strength of reaction to each item (Appendix I and Appendix II). In scoring responses, the most favorable rating received the highest score of seven and the least favorable rating a score of one. In some instances, values that were circled on the sheet were reversed such that the most favorable reaction to that category received the higher score. Frequency distributions and statistics were then tabulated for each question, and the anecdotal remarks were tabulated. For the student empirical data, t-tests were conducted to determine whether overall debate experience, NPDA experience, or policy experience affected how the students reacted to an item. As a test for significance, p was set to less than or equal to .05.

Results

Student responses to Specific Questions. The frequency of the student responses to questions, with descriptive statistics the results from each question, are indicated in the following five tables:

(Tables omitted)

With regard to the 22 students who indicated some experience with NDT/CEDA policy debate, the following frequency resulted in responses concerning the extent to which students felt that no-topic debating would be a good experiment for the year of NDT/CEDA debating:

(Tables omitted) Finally, of the 43 responses, 35, or 81.4 per cent, felt that the no-topic debate skewed the outcome of the debate toward one side or the other. Of those responses, 32 (91.4 per cent of those indicating a bias, or 74.4 per cent of all respondents) indicated that
the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Government. Three (8.6 per cent of those indicating a bias, or 7.0 per cent of all respondents) indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Opposition. For the overall student data, each the mean of each item was slightly below 4.0, but mostly, the kurtosis figures were negative, and the standard deviations high, indicating a bipolar response to each question. The frequency tables bear out strong negative reactions, but a number of positive reactions which tended to be less strong. On the one hand, a substantial number of students and critics felt very strongly that

the experience was negative, with the mode=1 for each item on the survey; however, on others, a substantial number of respondents rated
aspects of the experience at 4 and above. The educational value had the highest central tendencies (mean=3.65, median=4.0, and mode=1.0), whereas the question over whether the students liked the experience was the lowest (mean=3.19, median=3.0, mode=1.0). Although there was a weak positive pole to the responses, those who had NDT/CEDA experience strongly opposed the idea of a no-topic year of debating in those organizations (mean=2.77, median =1.00, mode=1.00). When the responses were compared based on degree of parliamentary debate experience, whether or not the student's background was solely in NPDA parliamentary debate, or whether or not the student has policy (NDT or CEDA) debate background, the data revealed three patterns: 1) For every question, the mean ratings by those with experience were lower than those without experience, but that difference was not significant at the p<=.05 level. 2) For every question, the mean ratings by those who had parliamentary debating experience only in NPDA were lower than those with NPDA experience only. In each case, these findings were significant a the p<=.05 level. NPDA-only debaters differed most from those with other experience most in responding to the question of whether they would try the experiment again. For this question, the mean response was 4.6 for those with other experience, and 2.22 for those only with NPDA experience, with t = -3.69 (p = .00034). NPDA-only debaters differed least from others on the question of whether the debate promoted more clash. Here, the mean response was 3.0 for those with NPDA experience only, and 4.35 for the other group, with t = -2.01, (p = .03). For each question, those with other experience rated the experience above the expected value of 4, and those with NPDA only experience rated the experience at 3.0 or lower as a mean. Finally, 3), whether or not a student had participated in NDT or CEDA debate in each case made no statistically significant difference in how favorably a student rated any of the items. All of the means were below 4.0 for each group for each question. Student Anecdotal Remarks. Reflecting their numerical responses to the specific survey items, students wrote 31 statements opposed to the non topic idea, 10 comments indicated the idea might work with an improvement in procedures, and 13 in favor of the experience. Fifteen of the 43 respondents declined to offer any anecdotal remarks. The most common types of remarks included:

(table omitted)

Students reacting negatively tended to write more comments per student than those who ratings were more positive, however. In any event, an examination of these type comments indicates a strong bipolar reaction to the no topic round, skewed slightly toward those opposing the idea. Some remarks strongly attacked the experiment: "perhaps the most ridiculous notion for debate ever," "two thumbs down," "who needs that nonsense?," "this was a stupid waist [sic] of time," and

"worst parli experiment ever," "this is the most ridiculous round I have ever participated in", "the single least educational or entertaining debate experiment in my life" were

among such reactions. Others took the opportunity to attack other debate organizations: "I feel that that this form of debate could be abused
even worse than CEDA ever thought about being!!!!!," "This must be some idea of a silly APDA geek. . .if I wanted to run pre-conceived cases (b/c this one was all policy, like most), I'd be wearing "Birks" and beads in CEDA," "Might as well be CEDA," "The bridge you attempt to build between APDA and NPDA is unbelievably silly. It will never work," and "policy should be kept in CEDA" exemplified such remarks. Some students reporting that they had debated many parliamentary rounds, all NPDA, wrote some of the strongest negative remarks and even suggested more restrictions on resolutions. The following exemplified this reaction: "For us old-timers, we are deeply offended and I am hopeful that this will not happen in the future. Maybe resorting to more specific resolutions rather than creating easy ways out of setting up good round would be a much better solution."

This risks substantially decreased overall participation Preston, 3 professor of communication at the University of Missouri - St. Louis (C. Thomas, No-Topic Debating in Parliamentary Debate: Student and Critic Reactions, http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf)
First, the idea proved more unpopular than popular among the student sample. For each of the questions, the mean of the overall sample was less than the expected score of 4.0, and the mode score (the value appearing most often) for the overall student response was 1.0 for every category. Although the standard deviation (from the mean), skewness (difference from a normal distribution) and kurtosis (height of the curve) statistics indicated a wide variety of different answers, a substantial proportion of the sample reacted vehemently against the

no topic idea.
Second, critics did not seem particularly fond of the idea. They, too, offered a mean score of less than four on all of the questions they were asked. Although the medians and mode answers mostly indicated a softer reaction to the experiment among the critics against the idea, there were some

who went so far to say that they would not attend another tournament with a no-topic round. Although the results from this study came from one event at a particular time, they indicate some possibility of a backlash should this experiment be tried again. The risk of alienation, however, appears to be much less in terms of hosting tournaments where the
bulk of the attendees would be APDA participants. Also, for tournament administrators who feel that they can afford to continue an educational dialog on the benefits of offering debate rounds with no proscribed topic, two other options exist based on this study. If a tournament director considers either of these options, the director should consult both the current bylaws of APDA and NPDA. As of this writing, the APDA bylaws regarding resolutions leave the decision of how to manage topics up to individual tournament directors. Perhaps explaining why the strongest negative reactions came from NPDA debaters, the NPDA may require permission to offer no-topic rounds before NPDA will sanction the tournament. At a minimum, the plans for any notopic round should be explained clearlyand prominentlyin the invitation under Options II and III below. To be safe, considering the current bylaws of NPDA, directors should notify NPDA of plans to conduct any no-topic rounds with the request for sanctioning.

And it turns any possible benefit from the affirmative Preston, 3 professor of communication at the University of Missouri - St. Louis (C. Thomas, No-Topic Debating in Parliamentary Debate: Student and Critic Reactions, http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf) Reduced to absurdity, the notion of no rules for a debate tournament would result in chaos, bringing up an infinite regress into whether or not chaos is a good thing! At least on the surface, the results of this particular study would seem to discourage repeating this experiment as conducted for the present study. A number of participants may not want to return to the tournament because of the confusion and perceived lack of educational value. However, an exact representation and t-tests between results could help not only assess the validity
and reliability of the instrument, but whether attitudes and perceptions have changed toward no-topic debating. Therefore, whereas Option III may seem to be out of the questions, benefits can still be gained from it in terms of studying the evolution of parliamentary debate format.

AT: Were germane / you have ground

The fact they give us some ground is inadequate it bypasses the core controversies of the resolution, acts to exclude the negative and it rigs the game for the aff Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) Some Ground is Not Resolutional Ground The central claim to this essay is that debate works best when it is dialogic and the topic is an invitation to participate. There are three pedagogical benefits to conceptualizing the resolution as an invitation. First, all teams have equal access to the resolution. Second, teams spend the entire year preparing approaches for and against the resolution. Finally, the resolution represents a community consensus of worthwhile and equitably debatable topics rooted in a collective history and experience of debate. First, teams have equal access to the resolution. The problem with relying upon prior disclosure, case lists, and word of mouth is that access is often tied to opportunity and resources. While it is true that there has been a phenomenal upsurge in the availability of case list access through technology, it is still the case that the resolution provides the most equal and fair access for all teams concerned. Each school in the community knows the wording of the resolution, even if they are not aware of the modifications made to any particular case. The notion that the negative team can rely upon the benevolence of the affirmative to provide strategic options radically tilts the argumentative table in favor of the affirmative. Providing the resolution as a baseline test operates as a demand for the negatives approach to the topic to be heard. Instead of leaving the affirmative in complete control of what approaches to the topic the negative is allowed to argue, debate as a dialogue uses the resolution as a centerpiece of a demand to be heard. Second, teams spend the entire year preparing approaches for and against the resolution. The best debates often come from in-depth clash over a core area of the topic. It is not uncommon for debaters to spend between forty and sixty hours a week on debate, carefully refining their approaches to the topic. A common rejoinder is that debaters should think on their feet, and be prepared to debate against unusual affirmative cases and plans. While thinking on ones feet is certainly valuable, allowing one side to think on their feet with the benefit of research, prior preparation, coaching, and thinking through arguments in advance, while depriving the other side of all such benefits hardly seems like a strategy that will result in a productive dialogue. Thinking on ones feet is always framed by ones past thoughts, arguments, and research base. Instead, debates are best when both sides have the opportunity to think ahead to the range of choices that the affirmative team can provide to the resolution. While there may always be some ground for the negative to respond to the affirmative team, that ground should stem from the resolution in order to maximize the benefits of the dialogical exchange which competitive debate allows. Finally, there has been a concerted community effort to ensure that the resolution provides subjects of controversy that are controversial, balanced, and anticipate a nuanced approach. Ross Smith notes, Affirmative teams try to find what they think might be a slam dunk case, but in crafting resolutions the idea is to find a controversial area with ground for both sides (2000). The resolution is the result of a painstaking process; it is thoroughly discussed, debated, and ultimately submitted to the debate community for a vote. It is framed, ultimately, as an issue about which reasonable minds could differ. Reliance upon alternative systems, such as germaneness, lists of ground provided by the other side in the debate, or the fact that a team has run a case in the past, betrays the central point of having a dialogue about the resolution and undermines the consensus upon which the whole enterprise depends.

AT: You exclude critical affs

Debate as a dialogue between two teams doesnt exclude critical approaches it just requires them to debate the resolution. There has to be a place for the negative in a debate otherwise the affirmative is an independent monologue that precludes dialogue. Fairness is the prerequisite for any investigation of argument. Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) Conceiving debate as a dialogue exposes a means of bridging the divide between the policy community and the kritik community. Here I will distinguish between formal argument and dialogue. While formal argument centers on the demands of informal and formal logic as a mechanism of mediation, dialogue tends to focus on the relational aspects of an interaction. As such, it emphasizes the give-and-take process of negotiation. Consequently, dialogue emphasizes outcomes related to agreement or consensus rather than propositional correctness (Mendelson & Lindeman, 2000). As dialogue, the affirmative case constitutes a discursive act that anticipates a discursive response. The consequent interplay does not seek to establish a propositional truth, but seeks to initiate an in-depth dialogue between the debate participants. Such an approach would have little use for rigid rules of logic or argument, such as stock issues or fallacy theory, except to the point where the participants agreed that these were functional approaches. Instead, a dialogic approach encourages evaluations of affirmative cases relative to their performative benefits, or whether or not the case is a valuable speech act. The move away from formal logic structure toward a dialogical conversation model allows for a broader perspective regarding the ontological status of debate. At the same time, a dialogical approach challenges the ways that many teams argue speech act and performance theory in debates. Because there are a range of ways that performative oriented teams argue their cases, there is little consensus regarding the status of topicality. While some take topicality as a central challenge to creating performance-based debates, many argue that topicality is wholly irrelevant to the debate, contending that the requirement that a critical affirmative be topical silences creativity and oppositional approaches. However, if we move beyond viewing debate as an ontologically independent monologuebut as an invitation to dialogue, our attention must move from the ontology of the affirmative case to a consideration of the case in light of exigent opposition (Farrell, 1985). Thus, the initial speech act of the affirmative team sets the stage for an emergent response. While most responses deal directly with the affirmative case, Farrell notes that they may also deal with metacommunication regarding the process of negotiation. In this way, we may conceptualize the affirmatives goal in creating a germ of a response (Bakhtin, 1990) whose completeness bears on the possibility of all subsequent utterances. Conceived as a dialogue, the affirmative speech act anticipates the negative response. A failure to adequately encourage, or anticipate a response deprives the negative speech act and the emergent dialogue of the capacity for a complete inquiry. Such violations short circuit the dialogue and undermine the potential for an emerging dialogue to gain significance (either within the debate community or as translated to forums outside of the activity). Here, the dialogical model performs as a fairness model, contending that the affirmative speech act, be it policy oriented, critical, or performative in nature, must adhere to normative restrictions to achieve its maximum competitive and ontological potential.

AT: Hicks and Greene / Conviction good

Conviction emerges from discussion, not prior to it debate exists to establish and refine positions so that ideas may be subsequently chosen Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) Those who worry that competitive academic debate will cause debaters to lose their convictions, as Greene and Hicks do in their 2005 article, confuse the cart with the horse. Conviction is not a priori to discussion, it flows from it. A. Craig Baird argued, Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under consideration (1955, p. 5). Debate encourages rigorous training and scrutiny of arguments before debaters declare themselves an advocate for a given cause. Debate creates an ethical obligation to interrogate ideas from a neutral position so that they may be freely chosen subsequently. The existence of many diverse strategies means that debaters dont have to choose positions wholly opposed to their belief structures Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) The sophistication of modern argument and the range of strategic choices available to modern debaters allow them to choose positions that are consistent with their belief structures. The rise of plan-inclusive counterplans, kritiks, and other strategies allow negative teams to largely align themselves with agreeable affirmative cases while distinguishing away narrow slivers of arguments that allow debaters to rarely argue completely against their convictions. While some contend that this undermines the value of switch-side debate (Ellis, 2008b; Shanahan, 2004), in fact, the notion that debaters employ nuanced answers to debate topics illustrates the complexity of modern debate resolutions.
However, this does not mean that debaters are victims.

AT: Resolution not our social location

Every resolution accesses a wide variety of positions and social values Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) And while there are obviously some valid complaints about individual topics, as a whole, resolutions allow for a wide range of approaches to issues of the day. It is striking on the 2008-2009 resolution that conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute as well as Oxfam and the Sierra Club oppose agricultural subsidies, if for very different reasons. Teams could easily find evidence that subsidies go down a rat-hole, are counter-productive to free market economics, as well as arguing that subsidies entrench racism both domestically and globally, and prevent an ethic of care toward the global environment. Those that argue that the topic does not access issues relevant to a wide variety of special interests and minority groups may simply be asking for too much. Establishing the resolution as the bright line standard for evaluation of equity at the argumentative table allows all sides to the controversy access to formulating their approach to both sides of the topic question. The fact that debaters may not like a particular topic isnt a reason to allow them to opt out all topics cover a wide variety of issues and even bad topics are evenly balanced Galloway, 7 professor of communication at Samford University (Ryan, DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007), ebsco) Topics are Carefully Worded and Vetted Several argue that contemporary topics focus on subject matter of limited interest to minority students. Ede Warner contends that topics which directly affect the lives of those interested in social justice struggles are more likely to find acceptance than topics of lesser direct relevance to their lives (2003, p. 71). The consequence of these topics, as Beth Skinner alleges, is to leave minority students likely to opt out of the topic altogether (Skinner, 2008). At the same time, allowing for an opt out clause any time anyone is unhappy with the topic undoes the benefits of learning about a wide variety of subject matter and the benefits of being a devils advocate. It also undermines the benefits of engaging in dialogue. Debaters obviously have individual preferences and variations in what they enjoy researching, and not every topic will be to their liking. They also have multiple years in the activity to learn about a wide variety of subjects. The topics one debates throughout their time in the activity serve as an academic curriculum, creating a broad base of knowledge by the time one graduates. Furthermore, students are actively encouraged to write topic papers and advocate for particular causes. Both the 20062007 resolution on Middle East policy and the 2007-2008 resolution on agricultural support policy were co-written by students. The choice of agricultural subsidies over topics like Russia and arms control may give hope to individuals who feel that topics are too uni-dimensional. Finally, study of records at national tournaments indicates that the topic committee has done a pretty good job balancing ground. According to Jon Bruschkes statistical compilations at debateresults, over the last several years, affirmative and negative win percentages have been very close to comparable. Whether this is because debate tends to reward the team that does the better debating, or because the topics are fairly evenly balanced, the notion that topics are so bad that affirmative teams have no choice but to flee from the discussion is not supported by the competitive data.

***Space Debate/Education Good***

Debating about space policies are necessary for effective decision making HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies;
Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space, Space Policy 26)

Space Debate Good Decision making

These prospects raise many issues. Accordingly, policies shaping current space activities are much debated in many arenas around the globe. The agenda of issues is wide-ranging, including improving space surveillance data and traffic management, preventing and mitigating space debris, concerns over space security and possible weapons deployment, the use of space travel for scientific advancement, the implications of space tourism, and the possibility of eventual space colonization for scientific, exploratory and commercial purposes. These debates benefit from considerable ongoing efforts to generate relevant information, both technical and political. The decision-making processes often reflect the input of the many constituencies with near-term stakes in their outcomes. But lacking from these debates is a comprehensive and informed set of visions for the overarching objectives of the advancing human presence in space. This absence is ironic, given that human interests in space are intrinsically visionary. Perhaps no other element of contemporary human life so inspires the imagination. Science fiction wonderment has motivated careers. In many nations, space-related achievements epitomize national purpose and pride. At this level, we are rife with visions. But dreams do not constitute a basis for serious public policy planning. Lacking are what might best be termed realistic visions e that is, a set of integrated ideas about possibilities cast against the background of varying constraints, tradeoffs, and uncertainties. Realistic visions would map out how interests and forces operating within the expanding human presence in space will interact to produce outcomes over longer-term time frames. Visions must also account for variance on ultimate aspirations. Hence, no single vision can suffice; such visions are not themselves policy-setting directions. Rather, creative visions of this nature contribute to contemporary policy debates by providing a foundation, beyond simple speculation, for tracing the potential longer-term consequences of immediate policy questions. Even in the absence of global value convergence, such visions can enable policy makers to anticipate and preemptively solve many of the challenges that the advancing human presence in space will pose. Without such reflection, policy making is driven by extant knowledge, current political forces and short-term objectives. As in many other areas of human life, the long-term consequences of a perpetually ad hoc and unintegrated decisionmaking process may please no-one. The incorporation of serious visions into policy-making processes will not insure the best outcomes impossible in the absence of global values consensus - but they can help avoid the worst outcomes, which are easier to identify. Specific scenario analysis helps policy makers make accurate decisions and successful avoidance planning HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space, Space Policy 26) Developing plausible scenarios helps us take the long view in a world of great uncertainty.27 Scenarios are narratives of the future defined around a set of unpredictable drivers, intended to expand insight by identifying unexpected but important possible directions and outcomes. Scenarios have a timeline over which meaningful change is possible. They are a useful tool for examining a number of different possible futures. They provide a means to stimulate new thinking, challenge assumptions, and provide an effective framework for dialogue among a diverse
group of stakeholders. They can inspire new ideas and innovations by helping identify common goals and interests that transcend current political divides. Scenarios thus help to develop the means to work towards preferred futures.28 Scenarios are stories about the way the world might turn out tomorrow; they do not need to be likely, but they ought to be plausible, internally consistent, and relevant. It

is precisely by considering possible, even if not necessarily likely, scenarios that we are best prepared for the unpredictability of the future. By encouraging creative thinking beyond the future we anticipate, scenarios help us become more resilient to unexpected events. With respect to their utility in guiding policy development, three features distinguish good scenarios from simple speculations, linear predictions or fanciful musings of the future: Scenarios are decision focused. Successful scenarios begin and end by clarifying the decisions and actions the participants must make if they are to deal
successfully with an uncertain future. One common misconception of scenarios is that they are prescient, path dependent predictions of the future. On the contrary, scenarios are used to order our thoughts amid uncertainty, build common ground among differing

perspectives, and think rationally about our options. The value of a set of scenarios accrues not from their accuracy or likelihood, but from their plausibility and the insights they generate. Scenarios are imaginative. In examining a decision within the context of a number of different futures, scenarios require us to look behind fixed assumptions. They encourage
participants to challenge conventional wisdom, create new contexts for existing decisions, and think creatively about options for surmounting obstacles. At their core, then, scenarios are about learning.29 Scenarios are logical. The scenario process is formal and disciplined in its use of information and analysis. The creativity and imagination inspired by scenarios can only be as effective as it

is based in realistic assessments. In

requiring participants to challenge each others thoughts, perceptions, and mind-sets, the process helps clarify that reality. Scenarios first emerged following World War II as a method of military planning. This approach was reflected in Herman Kahns assertion of the need to think the unthinkable concerning the possibilities and implications of war in the atomic age. In our times, Kahn wrote in 1966, thermonuclear war may seem unthinkable, immoral, insane, hideous, or highly unlikely, but it is not impossible. 30 Kahns motivation was, in part, recognition of the counter-intuitive notion that planning could be a necessary means of avoidance. Analyzing scenarios reached greater methodological sophistication with the work of Pierre Wack, a
planner at the London offices of Royal Dutch/Shell. Wack and his colleagues refined the application of scenario thinking to private enterprise. This work helped Shell anticipate the consequences of the emergence of a cartel among oil exporting countries, and to develop various plans to cushion the blow that would (and did) result from formation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960. Shell was also able to anticipate massive economic and political change in the then USSR in the late 1980s.31 Scenario analysis came to be used in the political arena when associates of Wack assisted stakeholders in South Africa in the peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy. Many doubted the countrys prospects; in 1987, the Guardian Weekly quoted Margaret Thatchers former spokesman Bernard Ingham as saying that anyone who believed the African National Congress (ANC) would one day rule South Africa was living in cloud cuckoo land.32 But with operations in South Africa and an interest in preventing anarchy following the downfall of apartheid, Shell sent some of Wacks proteges, including Adam Kahane, to convene meetings of top governmental, religious, civic and business leaders at a conference site there called Mont Fleur. From February 1990, when Nelson Mandela was released from prison, to April 1994, when the first all-race elections were held, participants identified relatively certain and uncertain but plausible factors, and then formed into teams to research various alternative futures. In the midst of deep conflict and uncertainty, Mont Fleur brought people together from across ideological and political divides to think creatively about the future of their country. The collaboratively drafted scenarios were not a panacea, but did contribute to establishing a common vocabulary and enough mutual understanding for participants to find common ground on complex decisions. In particular, the consensus on the undesirability of three particular scenarios contributed to developing the perception of shared interests that was an important element in the success of the governmental transition.33 Scenario-building and analysis has become a distinct tool of US government

policy making, and has been applied directly to future space security issues. For example, one major US Air Force scenariobased study evaluated 25 emerging technologies and 40 separate potential weapons systems through the lens of six alternative futures in an effort to guide future Air Force policy choices.34 This exercise (and others like it) exemplifies the potential for applying nonlinear

future planning methodologies to large-scale public policy topics, including the future of space. The principal
deficiency of such government-sponsored efforts is simply the narrowness of their focus e they are, by design, only concerned about a single governments decision points and are shaped by the goals, dilemmas and uncertainties most relevant to that single party. Lacking is a parallel process to achieve the same kind of expansive thinking while also incorporating a full range of stakeholders. Such exercises can hardly be generated by governments.

Its key to real world policy change were the next generation HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space, Space Policy 26) Technological innovation, while important, does not necessarily lead to an advantage for the country of origin. Rapid dissemination of technologies among a certain community can affect the security of the countries of origin. For this reason, if weaponization of space is inevitable, countries should operate as much as possible in a collaborative, transparent fashion. This suggests the utility of a global regime controlling the technology. Cooperative leadership among youth could be developed to help ensure future cooperation. This group underlines the importance of reaching young people today in order to stimulate awareness in the next generation of leaders of the negative spirals that could develop. All parties must be made aware that it is in no ones interest to attack each others satellites; both sides need the information and need freedom to access space. A non-interference pact could be developed, which might name the kinds of weapons not to be used. Discussion related to space is necessary to stimulate informed citizenry to solve social problems Snider, 84 Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont Space Utilization as a subject of Academic debate http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/debate.html Today, on college and university campuses and in high schools all across America, thousands upon thousands of students engage in an organized forum for discussing important issues in our society and educating participants about decisionmaking processes. This forum is interscholastic and intercollegiate academic debate. Large numbers of students compete as representatives of a broad spectrum of high schools, colleges, and universities. Moreover, debate can be used very successfully as a tool in classroom discussions of important concepts and issues; basic guidelines for using debate as an in-class educational tool are detailed in Appendix Three. Competitive and in-class debates serve several important objectives. First, debates usually focus on policy issues with important societal implications. Debates thus offer instructors a unique opportunity to relate often abstract classroom theories to "real world" issues in an area interesting to most students. For example, policy debates centering on space-related topics can be employed in economics, foreign affairs, political science, history, and almost any other social science discipline (although in some fields debates on value topics rather than policy topics are more appropriate). Second, debates provide a significant educational experience. Obviously, students learn about the processes of "debate" and "decisionmaking" during the activity, but, additionally, debaters consistently utilize skills such as: public speaking, logic, persuasion, organization,

research, composition, and other subtle tools relevant to such a complex act. Third, debate encompasses an element of play and competition that attracts and stimulates students, promoting the educational process. Debates that focus on space policy issues frequently appeal to students because of factors such as: student interest and stakes in the future, both as individuals and members of a society with long-term concerns; student fascination with new adventures and challenges; student concern over potential limits to growth and the need for new frontiers and additional resources; and student involvement with technology (e.g., electronic video games, computers, videotape decks), which often leads students to consider both the potential and the disadvantages of high-technology solutions to social problems, which often constitute the partial or virtually total product of technological progress. The idea and advocacy of space progress has a great influence on policymakers. Dark 06 (Taylor E. Dark III, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at California State University, Los Angeles. From 1996 to
2004 he was Associate Professor and Associate Dean in the Graduate School of American Studies at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan, September 1921, 2006, Reclaiming the Future: Space Advocacy and the Idea of Progress, Prepared for the Societal Impact of Space Flight Conference NASA History Division and National Air and Space Museum Division of Space History Hirshhorn Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., http://taylordark.com/T.%20Dark%20--%20NASA%20conference%20paper.pdf) The rise of a post-Apollo space advocacy literature, and its integral relationship to the idea of progress that has been at the core of Western civilization, surely counts as one of the more provocative societal consequences of the success of space travel. While its concerns are currently on the margins of public debate, the potency of the modern space advocacy synthesis suggests that it will continue to draw adherents and

influence the thinking of policymakers. In comparison to earlier doctrines of progress, pro-space ideology is more grandiose, with its vision of planetary engineering and cosmic expansion, yet also more fearful, with its suggestion that the end times may be near if the space frontier is not soon conquered. This peculiar confluence of ambition and anxiety is likely to continue to infuse both the pro-space movement and the larger debate about the American future in space. Given the deep commitment of Americans to ideas about progress, such ideological concerns are as likely to affect policy as any rational assessment of scientific or economic need. As the development of the American space program itself attests, the capacity of the idea of progress to drive politics and history in unexpected directions should not be underestimated.

Discussion about space policy can provide for the future of human generations HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies;
Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space, Space Policy 26)

Space Debate Good Survival

The rate and uncertainty of change in both the technological and political dimensions of expanding human space activities complicates this task. Herein lies the value of realistic visions. Rigorous articulations of the interplay of the wide variety of constraints, tradeoffs, uncertainties, and values entailed in human expansion into space can facilitate evaluation of the applicability of alternative governance concepts to human space activities in the context of dynamic change. Among other things, such visions can explore how alternative futures in space are intimately linked to terrestrial conditions. As the human presence in space develops into an integral aspect of global life, it will increasingly reflect the prevailing conditions of global life. Anticipation of space weaponization premises continued earthly insecurity and conflict, while ambitions for growing commercial and exploratory development of space presume increasing international integration and collaboration. A future in which space becomes a domain of conflict and arms race competition may be irreconcilable with visions for increasing peaceful human presence embodied in todays growing commercial and exploratory activities. Choices among alternative futures for the human presence in space may depend upon choices among alternative futures for life on Earth as well. The following section reviews the potential for scenariobuilding techniques to inform these choices by providing rigorous detailed visions of future worlds that account for a wide range of current realities and span the spectra of the most important uncertainties. The resulting plausible, integrated visions can yield feasible policy-relevant insights that demonstrably enable current policy making to be more farsighted. Beyond the fruits of the exercises themselves, the longer timeframes entailed in scenario building also facilitate dialogue among diverse parties divided on nearer-term questions. The collaboration enabled can inspire innovation and integrated analysis among diverse experts, leading to the development of a productive epistemic community25 addressing the full scope of future human space activities. Vision development is only one aspect of long-term planning. Comprehensive knowledge generation and strategies for policy making are also required. But vision development is currently the least well advanced. All global policy debate, including US national security policy making, can benefit from having a fuller range of rigorous and credible assessments of long-term prospects from which to draw. Scenario building promotes peaceful development of future human space presence HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space, Space Policy 26) Different types of scenarios are appropriate for different needs. Technocratic scenarios are oriented towards states and planning. Anticipatory scenarios aim to help organizations survive in an uncertain world. Generative scenarios identify policy opportunities that may realize values and transform the future, often by embracing uncertainty as a basis of strategy. It is this last type of scenario-building and analysis that is most appropriate for initiating and continuing dialogue around the future use of space. Generative scenarios are particularly well suited to addressing three core challenges: anticipating the technological changes relevant to the full range of the growing human utilization of space that will inevitably unfold over the coming decades; guiding and planning integration across the full range of human space activities in conjunction with evolving terrestrial political conditions; identifying and responding to the critical uncertainties over the directions and implications of long-term developments in both the previous dimensions. Scenario building can address these challenges by providing rigorous, detailed visions of future worlds accounting for a wide range of variables, inevitable change and uncertainty. The collaboration entailed in scenario building can also inspire the creativity and imagination of an expert community representing diverse viewpoints on immediate issues. The resulting plausible, integrated visions, responsive to current realities and robust against future uncertainties, can yield feasible policy-relevant ideas for promoting peaceful development of the future human presence in space despite the wide range of possible future developments both in space and on Earth. As noted earlier, vision development is only one aspect of long-term planning. A comprehensive knowledge base and strategies for policy-making are also required. By integrating expertise in these other areas into vision development, scenario-building exercises can contribute valuable long-term insights to policy debates. The following section reports the results of one such exercise. Scenario analysis results in a deeper understanding and basis of engagement between people necessary to deal with future crisis

HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space, Space Policy 26) Workshop participants did note that most were from North America, and that different sets of assumptions and conclusions may have emerged if the process was held with Chinese, Indian or European participants. This observation reinforced the conveners pre-existing judgment: because successful scenario building depends upon the friction of diverse knowledge and outlooks, international participation would be vital to the success of more extensive exercises. Moreover, scenario analysis can also be an ideal vehicle for broaching sensitive topics in an international dialogue. Because the process is designed to identify shared critical uncertainties and focus on longer-term challenges, it is ideally suited to provide a forum wherein participants divided by contentious near-term issues can find a common basis for engagement. Thus, scenario-building exercises can yield community-building benefits independent of their substantive results. In this vein, the process can also help generate buy-in among divided parties with very different interests to the minimal objective of identifying a shared set of long-term future concerns (as the Mont Fleur experience shows). It is not necessary for participants to possess, at the outset, common core values. It is sufficient that there be agreement on common process values within the exercise, the most important being commitment to the goals of the exercise and a willingness to think about matters imaginatively. Participants do not need to leave their opinions at the door e indeed, the friction of that diverse input is vital to the success of the process. They need only be ready and able also to view things from others points of view. Achieving that atmosphere also depends in part on the design and facilitation of the exercises. Particularly when incorporating international participation, it is essential to account for asymmetry of power among the participants. The success of the Mont Fleur process resulted, in part, because no authority had the power to enforce solutions.42 That is not the case in the space domain insofar as the USA and other key actors do have disproportionate power, at least in the short run. Another challenge in garnering greater international participation is the scope of the exercises themselves. Typically, scenario building and analysis involves a group of 20-30 people, a limit allowing for full participation. A single scenario-building exercise including representatives of all stakeholders both internationally and with respect to issue areas (security, commerce, etc.) would be ungainly in size. Useful results will require a design involving an iterated set of differentiated exercises. Scenario analysis is a promising approach for developing visions of the future of space that can help build global consensus around values and contribute to more far-sighted government policy making. As noted earlier, the use of scenario analysis as a tool in international public policy making on issues of war and peace is nascent. But its utility with respect to the many issues enveloping the expanding human presence in space is particularly appropriate, both because of the high levels of uncertainty in two discrete dimensions (technological and sociological/political) and because the human emergence into space expresses the most visionary side of the human experience. Many space enthusiasts today were weaned on the science fiction of the Star Trek television and movie franchise. Those familiar with the Star Trek universe know that behind its entertainment devices lies a vision of the future, several centuries hence, in which Earth is prosperous and peaceful, and humanity has joined a federation with other extraterrestrial sentient beings dedicated to benevolent interstellar exploration. Of course, galactic conflict still exists (the original series selfconsciously overlaid Cold War political dynamics in its representations). Nevertheless, humanity was deemed to have progressed beyond potential collective selfdestruction. A closer examination of this vision, however, reveals a telling turn in the storyline: all this progress, both technological and social, originated with extraterrestrial contact.43 That contact had both benevolent and malicious long-term implications; but above all the discovery of an interstellar them provided the foundation for the unifying conceptualization of a worldwide us to become the driving force of human governance. This storyline is not so original, for human history is rife with examples of communities coalescing into larger entities precisely to fruitfully engage e or find protection from e other newly encountered communities. Here is where the Star Trek vision fails us. We cannot depend upon the equivalent of a propitious Vulcan visitation to inspire us to discover the commonalities requisite to peaceful expansion of the human presence in space. Our destiny lies not in our stars, but in ourselves. Policy education about exploring and developing space is key for species survival and human evolution. Sadeh 02 (Eligar Sadeh, professor of space studies at University of North Dakota, 2002, Space Politics and Policy: an Evolutionary Perspective,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. xiii-xiv) In his recent book, Pale Blue Dot, the late professor

and astronomer Carl Sagan makes the case that political forces will largely dictate the future of the space program. Nevertheless, space policy as a subject matter for research and teaching has not received the attention of the academic community in a significant way. More generally, space studies

Yet, space may become one of the most important public policy issues in the twenty-first century. With the recent discovery of possible microbial life forms on Mars and the intriguing possibility of life elsewhere, such as on Europa and Titan, the prospect of ecological collapse in many parts of the world due to global change processes, the enormous natural resource wealth that space offers, and even the probability of Earth being hit by an asteroid, serious attention to space exploration and development of space is justified. Indeed, according to Carl Sagan, it is an imperative for species survival and human evolution. A space studies education is an important component of our knowledge base that provides the means for better choices about how to utilize the space environment for human benefit. Given that exploring and developing space must make real political sense, understanding and explaining the crucial political variables, such as historical conditions, political processes and policy outcomes, organizational and administrative factors, economic and legal aspects, and scientific and technological forces, which determine space policy now and in the future, is important for students and decision-makers of space policy. Political scientists, historians, economists, lawyers, sociologists, philosophers and others have much to offer in terms of increasing our understanding of space policy. Moreover, space, as an issue for national and foreign policy, will only become more salient as the twenty-first
education has not been accepted by national educational systems to any great extent despite the enormous wealth of new knowledge it offers. century progresses.

Space education is key to define the future direction of civilization in space. Becker 91 (Thomas W. Becker, international space education consultant, Bachelor's Degree in Psychology and Education, University of Missouri,
Columbia, Faculty Member, British National Space Center, Brunel University (1989-1994); Faculty Member, Missouri Scholars Academy (1985. 1986, 1998), February 1991, Space education policy a global imperative, Space Policy, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 60-71)

Space technology education is the teaching of the fund of knowledge that will enable us to live and work safely in the space environment no matter how far from homeland Earth we may be. In the long term public education will have to respond to and absorb the present human reach into space if we are to continue to explore beyond present confines. To be fully useful, however, space education must explain the mechanics of vehicles and instruments allowing us to travel long distances safely and quickly without injury to our bodies or mental capabilities. By taking new risks and seeking new ideas and landscapes, our minds are forcibly stretched to their limits and we begin to have new ideas about ourselves and the universe. But we must take risks intelligently based on the fund of knowledge that we already possess and are continually expanding. The major objectives of space education are: to prepare young people for the worldwide job market; to teach space technology in terms of technological application to human life for human benefit; and ultimately to learn how to be permanent residents in space instead of ,just visitors; to prepare young people for living in the next civilization in space. Space education is a new emphasis in subject matter, a different perspective, an emerging new academic discipline that cuts across all subject areas. It promises new and experimental occupations, all of which define the future direction of our species. It is no wonder,
then, that space education is such a critical challenge to the public education of our time, and to human creative capabilities and attitudes as well.

Debates about space policy could be used to critique political rhetoric. Cowing 04 (Keith Cowing, writer for Space Ref, 10/14/04, Debating Space: A Tale of Two Policies - One Real, One TBD, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=987) A day after the last of the Presidential campaign debates, a hundred or so space professionals gathered this morning in Washington, DC to hear a debate between representatives of the Bush and Kerry campaigns on space policy. One campaign talked about what it was doing in space - the other talked about what it might do. Representing the Kerry campaign was Lori Garver from DFI International. Garver said that she had been volunteering her time to the campaign for eight months. Garver is a former NASA Associate Administrator and the former Executive Director of the National Space Society. In recent weeks Garver has made it very clear to a number of people in the aerospace community that she is deeply interested in - and, indeed, is pushing for - the nod to be the next Administrator of NASA - should John Kerry win, of course. As such, Garver had been very anxious to debate Sean
O'Keefe so as to enhance her stature as a possible successor. Alas, the Bush campaign decided to use another representative instead. Also in the audience (but not speaking) was John Logsdon from George Washington University who has also been formally advising the Kerry campaign this year. Representing the Bush campaign was Frank Sietzen. Sietzen is a veteran space journalist and active member of the Republican party in Virginia. In his opening statement, Sietzen

Space Debate Good Challenge Policies

sought to allay any concerns about possible conflicts by announcing that he was no longer going to be reporting about space as a journalist and, instead, would be speaking out in support of the President's space policy. It is also important to note in terms of any bias on my part, that Frank is my co-author in writing our recently
released book "New Moon Rising" which describes the genesis of President Bush's space policy. Unlike previous debates featuring Garver, this one was a bit more lively. In summary, Garver expressed doubts about the cost of the overall plan, the Administration's support for it, and the sacrifices she claims will be made to other NASA programs in order to focus this agency on one specific task i.e. human and robotic exploration. Moreover, Garver felt

that NASA had become too politicized, that the Bush Administration had developed its space plan behind closed doors and that the Bush Administration has been silent about the policy since its announcement. And of
course, a Kerry Administration would not make any of the mistakes she felt the Bush Administration had made. Sietzen countered that other programs at NASA were not being sacrificed, that the agency was being transformed so as to better address the task set before it by the White House, that Congress has been increasingly supportive of the President's budget request, and that the idea of the agency being overly politicized was a bit of a red herring since Sean O'Keefe's predecessor (and Garver's boss) Dan Goldin was equally political. Garver claimed that the Bush space policy made human and robotic exploration "the sole purpose of NASA" and that "the

plan is based on political rhetoric rather than technical and fiscal reality. It was developed in secret without involving the U.S. scientific and engineering community or potential international partners." This is somewhat in keeping with an earlier characterization she made in July 2004 on a Yahoo Group "KerrySpace"
where she said "the Bush initiative is simply hot-air and has made it impossible in an election year for Kerry to say much on space.

Space debates that dont incorporate politics are nave and doomed to fail. Johnson-Freese and Handberg 97 (Joan Johnson-Freese, Professor of International Security Studies at Air War College, and Roger
Handberg, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Space Policy and Law at the University of Central Florida, 1997, Space, The Dormant Frontier: Changing the Paradigm for the 21st Century, Praeger Publishing, p. 230-231) Visionaries, almost by definition, desire to work in a perfect world where participants motivations are pure and all mean what they say. This usually gets translated into a world devoid of that ugly human characteristicpolitics. This desire for an apolitical world is why being visionary

Space Debate Good Cede Political

too often correlates with either being nave or a hypocrite. In the former situation, the condition of being apolitical translates into no conflict. That is, everyone everywhere accepts the espoused goal uncritically and without hesitation. Such a simplistic world neglects to consider human nature in that individuals normally perceive the world differently (thereby creating conflicts, intentionally or not) and often engage in competition for personal and/or organization status and scarce resources even while pursuing the same goal. The politics need not be partisan or ideological in nature. They may merely reflect diverse institutional perspectives and personality clashes. Those conflicts in the broadest human sense are political, for they reflect self-interested motivations that divert attention from the primary objective. From a more realistic perspective, this type of politics cannot be abolished unless human nature is removed. Some visionaries propose such "perfect" worlds or utopias, but their desires are usually defeated. For brief and
shining moments, such dissension may be suppressed in pursuit of some overriding goal, for example, during times of war and national emergency. Given time, cracks in the facade of unanimity appear (the dissension having been only muted, not banished), which often

widen into major schisms because the idea of dissension (e.g. politics in a primitive sense) is so abhorrent to major participants. Space policy has its visionaries who perceive the future in a particular way and are not tolerant of alternative future scenarios. Indeed, there are those who view the past in a particular way, to the determinant of the future. Those who profess President Kennedy as a
space visionary with no political motivation simplify their lives by then needing only to wish for another visionary president who could magically "fix things."" While that view ignores reality, it makes life more manageable. Dissent from their views, either in a historical or future sense, is viewed as equivalent to treason to the cause or ignorance at best. Perhaps a more useful approach is that the learning process is often painful but necessary, and critics are not always the devil; they may be misguided, but they are not the devil. Some critics are even prophets of the future, just out often with the imperfect present.

Space Debate Good Good Policy

Debate over space is key to discard obsolete assumptions and improve policy Byerly 92 (Radford Byerly, Jr., member on NASA Space Science Advisory Committee, NRC Board of Assessment of NIST Programs among other committees, Space Policy Alternatives, Westview Press 1992)
However, given

the multitude of interests and the absence of philosopher kings such discussion seems necessary to achieve good policy. Thus there is a need for more than mere tolerance of debate; it must be encouraged. For example there is a need to exhume and examine the old, unconscious assumptions and to discard the obsolete ones. Informed debate can improve the content of policy - if NASA would create and share information on options - and the process can
legitimize the outcome.

Space Debate Good - Skills

Debate over space teaches skills of advocacy and persuasion unique because space is a new field Sadeh 02 (Eligar Sadeh, Assistant Professor, Department of Space Studies, University of North Dakota, Space Politics and Policy: An Evolutionary Perspective, Kluwer Academic Publishers, c2002)
FRAMING THE ANALYSIS In considering rationales, one must begin with the clear understanding that the entire US civil space enterprise originated in the public sector. Whenever one desires to expend public funds for a public purpose, the reasons advanced must be

persuasive across a broad spectrum of political factions and advocacy coalitions, including both potential supporters and
opponents. The simple fact is that space expenditures are minimal compared to defense or social expenditures. This difference can be seen annually in the arguments advanced in Congress concerning NASA expenditures. A believer in space's enormous scientific and economic

potential may feel that space by its very existence justifies such tremendous expenditures. Concomitantly, public officials operate in a larger political context within which other equally worthy causes and their group representatives, such as advocacy coalitions, stridently demand their full attention. This political competition is
exacerbated by the fact that governmental resources for a particular public policy are usually limited and must be spread across multiple actors and policies. The existence of such competition means that the public rationales advanced must clearly be persuasive

at several levels of argument. Rationales must meet the perceived needs of relatively large and diverse economic and political constituencies. Advocates have to create needs or meet expectations about the future. This is especially critical for a new field as space exploration initially was. Immediate policy successes do occur but long-term financial commitments ultimately determine the
degree of success achieved. Consequently, no single rationale or justification can meet the political needs; rather, different facets are emphasized at various points in time.

Space Debate Good Activity

Debating space inspires debaters to join the activity its more easily accessible NFHS 11 (2011, National Federation of State High School Associations, Space Exploration Topic Paper) Space exploration fires the imagination of people like little else. The 1969 moon landings rank as one of the highest achievements of modern civilization. There is something uncanny about the human need to explore their world, and little captures peoples minds like looking up at the stars and wondering. As a debate topic, space exploration would do the same thing. Like it or not, cross-examination debate participation numbers are declining. A topic like this could fire the imagination of potential debaters, and the easy accessibility of this topic would make the learning curve on the subject less steep than other topics which often require a more detailed background.

Space Debate Good Issue Awareness

Debate over space is key to education over major global problems Byerly 92 (Radford Byerly, Jr., member on NASA Space Science Advisory Committee, NRC Board of Assessment of NIST Programs among other committees, Space Policy Alternatives, Westview Press 1992) Seeking to elevate debate in such a manner also makes clear that part of the burden rests with heretofore quiet players, including the public and the space science community. While one percent of the typical household's tax bill may render space presently unimportant enough to worry about, the space station, Earth Observing System, and human exploration initiatives would dig much deeper into pockets. Moreover, a public that appears increasingly to care about environmental amenities, global sustainability, and math and science skills may indeed value space research for knowledge's sake. Then again, it may not. Finding out is important.25 Similarly, the science community could play a large role in raising the quality of the debate insofar as it can enunciate the scientific benefit of knowledge gained from space. Reports that tend to be circulated only within the community suggest that these benefits are indeed large (having radically changed our understanding of the planet and the universe).2 If so, such benefits should expressly be included in debate. The responsibility, expertise, and as budgets tighten, the incentives to do so rest with the community.

Space discussion in a political context is key to gain a new perspective of international relations. Sheehan 07 (Michael Sheehan, Professor of International Relations at University of Swansea, 2007, The International Politics of Space,
http://bib.tiera.ru/dvd64/Sheehan%20M.%20-%20The%20International%20Politics%20of%20Space%282007%29%28248%29.pdf) The vast majority of the books that have been published dealing with space policy are examinations of the military uses of space, and particularly the question of whether weapons should, or should not, be deployed there. These are important issues, but the overwhelming focus on them is a barrier to an understanding of the broader political dimensions of the use of space. Politics has always been at the heart of mankinds

Space Debate Good IR

exploration and utilisation of space, and the space programmes themselves have never been able to transcend terrestrial international politics; they have only reected it. As Walter McDougall put it, despite the ights of fancy of some space law theorists, there was no escape velocity that took one beyond the political rivalries of this world.1 A study of the international politics of space therefore provides both a corrective to the idea that space programmes are science-driven bureaucracies somehow aloof from the harsher realities of politics, and reveals case-studies of themes that are familiar in other dimensions of international relations. In space, as on Earth, we see the political power of ideology and
nationalism, the use of propaganda and foreign aid, the centrality of questions of national security and the pursuit of that security through the acquisition of military capabilities, tensions between the richer, more industrially advanced states, and the poorer countries of the South, efforts to use the integration of national policies to further the unity of Europe, the evolution of understandings of security to embrace social, environmental and economic dimensions and so on. There are few, if any, features of contemporary global politics that do not have their echoes in the utilisation of space. Nor should the military signi cance of the exploitation of space be underestimated. Clausewitz famously declared that war is a continuation of politics with an admixture of other means. So too is the exploration and utilisation of outer space. There have been times in the past 50 years when public perceptions of space have seemed to contrast a pristine idealism of space exploration represented by agencies like NASA and ESA, with the sordid programmes of the armed forces, determined to sully the celestial realm with their efforts at the militarisation of space. This is a misleading perspective. Space has always been militarised. Military considerations were at the heart of the original efforts to enter space and have remained so to the present day. Efforts to turn space into an entirely non-militarised sanctuary may be commendable, but if they were achieved, they would not be a successful defence of space from the looming threat posed by militarisation. Rather they would represent a dramatic reversal of policy, the recreation of the human realm of outer space in a form that has never in fact existed since the dawn of the space age. Space and politics are, and always

have been, inseparably interlinked. The central driving force for all space programmes has been political objectives. Space programmes have reected and implemented the prevailing national and international ideologies of the time, whether they be power politics, communist internationalism, /European integration, national self- determination or anything else. Space policy cannot be divorced from politics and never has been. In 1972, as the United States prepared to send
Apollo 17, the last manned mission to the Moon, the Black September group, who were responsible for the Munich Olympics massacre in the same year, threatened to sabotage the launch.2 But while space programmes have been shaped by the politics of the past half-

century, in turn the utilisation of space has helped to shape the politics of the post-modern world, providing iconic
images of planet Earth to energise the environmental and peace movements, stabilising the Cold War through deterrence and arms control, and thereby helping to avoid a nuclear Armageddon that threatened humanity for nearly half a century, producing satellite communications systems that gave some tangible meaning to the fuzzy concept of globalisation, while doing so in a way that continued to distinguish sharply between the reality enjoyed, or even imagined, by humanitys haves and have-nots. This is the Space Age. Politicians have struggled unsuccessfully to nd a term that might capture the meaning of the post-Cold War world as anything more than a post-script to the era that preceded it. But in the longue duree of historical perspective, it is likely that both the Cold War and the War on Terror will come to be seen as no more than dramatic historical episodes. It is the fact that it was in the second half of the twentieth century that humanity rst moved into, and began to exploit, the potential of space that is most likely to dene our age in the decades and centuries to come, as the voyages of Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama have come to dene the early modern period, for whatever political requirements originally motivated it, future generations will surely consider the exploration of the Solar System to be one of the most outstanding achievements of humankind.3 The advent of spaceight produced a fundamental historical disjuncture, only dimly perceived at rst, between industrial modernity, and the post-modernity of the information age. The information age, in all its manifestations, has in

turn brought into being, for the rst time in human history, a truly planetary international political system. The space age is the age of global politics. With the space age humanity has achieved unprecedented power, but has also come to
experience, and to be fully aware of, unprecedented vulnerability. The ability to be simultaneously aware of both is the result of the unprecedented wealth of information and alternative ways of interpreting it, that space exploration and exploitation brought about through satellite technology and the computing revolution. The half-century of spaceight has brought with it a certain degree of complacency about what has been achieved, as what once seemed fantastic very quickly came to seem banal. Space, as the military are fond of pointing out, is the new high ground, and the high ground has always been sought in war for the military advantages it brings with it. But by analogy, we speak also of seizing the moral high ground, and there is an important sense in which outer space still has the potential to be either. The space programmes allow us to stand on the shoulders

of giants, and gain a perspective on global politics that is difcult to achieve from ground level, or ground zero.

Policy analysis is key to have a complete perspective of space. Handberg 02 (Roger Handberg, Professor of Political Science at University of Central Florida, 2002, from Space Politics and Policy: an
Evolutionary Perspective, edited by Eligar Sadeh, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 39-40) The research literature that examines the rationales underpinning the US space program is fairly sparse and highly selective. This state of the literature is a function of the space policy fields development. Many of the writers engaged in space policy analysis have been policy

Space Debate Good

participants and advocates, meaning their analyses are focused upon explicating and justifying their viewpoints regarding the issues of the day. The most prominent writers have been direct participants in the space program
including Wernher von Braun and Carl Sagan. Advocacy literature is typical because the policy choices are controversial. For instance, the current debate over the feasibility of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) generates controversy between economics and technical feasibility. This occurs in advance of any demonstration of the RLV concept in actual flight, resulting in literature that focuses upon technological specifics rather than the broader political contours embodied in rationales. Academic observers, who write in the area of space policy, put forward analyses that

are either technical-analytic focused or policy-studies oriented. In the former case, the focus is on effectively accomplishing the
specific mission or overcoming a particular technical problem where political issues are external to the frame of reference. There is a disjunction between practitioners and policy-makers due to this myopia. Public policies by definition involve politics, and analyses that fail to

incorporate such insights remain incomplete. In the latter case, researchers tend to concentrate on how a particular program meets its
programmatic goals. These program goals flow from the broader rationales discussed herein yet the very rationales underlying the goals are either unexamined or are assumed to be fixed and agreed-upon. Such a disconnection is typical of academic disciplines where certain fundamentals are assumed to be true; therefore, the research focuses on the factual issues generated by hose rationales.

Asteroids Debate Good

The very act of debate over asteroids is key to discover the best solutions to the 1AC impacts. Hartwell 07 (William, fellow at Desert Research Institute, Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Ch. 3: The Sky on
the Ground: Celestial Objects and Events in Archaeology and Popular Culture, in Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society: An Interdisciplinary Approach, SpringLink)
Although cinematic film can be an excellent tool in raising public awareness, the

task of public education on the true scientific nature of the NEO issue remains an extremely important one, albeit one that perhaps should be undertaken as a part of policy implementation rather than as a prerequisite. There are several obstacles that will need to be overcome with regards to educating the
public about the near-Earth object issue. The first has to do with the general state of the publics science education, which is necessarily tied to its perception of science and scientists. The general level of science education of members of the public is quite low (speaking from a U.S.-centric position). Even students who take basic core science classes at the university level often complete those classes without a

complete understanding of how the process of scientific inquiry works (Mole 2004). Instead, Mole explains, they are often introduced to classes concerning the interaction of science and society that concentrate on real and imagined deficiencies of science, while neglecting important topics such as the history of science, the role of the peer review process, and discussions on why individual scientists may have widely divergent views on a particular subject. This last point is especially germane when dealing with members of the public who have no science background whatsoever.
When addressing an issue such as near- Earth objects, the public can become easily confused by lack of consensus among scientists. The diverse range of views regarding the likelihood of catastrophic impact over a given time period and its resultant effects (e.g. Bryant 2001; Chapman 2004; Chapman and Morrison 2003; Keller 1997; Marsden 2004; Masse, Chap. 2 of this volume; Svetsov 2003; Yabushita 1997) particularly when filtered through various popular science media (e.g. Anonymous 1998; Applegate 1998; Dalton 2003; Hecht 2002; Ravilious 2002) can end with the layperson throwing up his or her hands in exasperation and walking away from the issue altogether. Peer-review, disagreement, and discourse are, after all, part

of the process of conducting science, but many in the general public are unaware of this. Finally, cinematic film may do
wonders to increase public awareness of important scientific issues, but public perception of science and scientists is, at least in part, shaped by their portrayals in popular cinematic film, and video and TV programs. Such portrayals are often less than flattering, with the mad (e.g. Frankenstein) or bumbling scientist stereotype perpetuated and the idea that science itself is responsible for the worlds ills (Haste 1997; Steinmuller 2003). 3.5 Conclusions In industrial societies, the celestial constants and some phenomena have been relegated to the realm of scientific curiosity. However, unusual transient events can trigger significant, albeit often brief, resurgences in public interest. It is clear that public understanding of and interest in the near-Earth object issue has undergone a transformation over the last decade that was initiated by the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter. This real-world event and the resultant popular cultural cinematic productions helped focus the public on the actual threat that near-Earth objects present, and also greatly increased public awareness and potential support for development and implementation of public policy on the issue. When

targets-of-opportunity arise, such as feature films addressing topics of serious scientific concern, scientists should take a proactive role in initiating and participating in frank discussions that engage the public on relevant issues depicted in mass popular culture, offering correction and explanation when appropriate, and availing themselves of the opportunity to educate about the process of science at the same time. Science fiction film can also present excellent opportunities to teach students about real science and the process of critical thinking (Dubeck et al. 1988). As an additional measure, promoting good general science education at all educational levels will ensures that the future public is better equipped to independently evaluate where their support should be focused on such issues. Debating the merits of the aff is key to an informed public and effective response to an impact NRC 10 [National Research Council, February 2010, "Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard

Mitigation Strategies", Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies Space Studies Board Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12842.html]
Although popular movies raise general public awareness of the threat from NEOs, they do little to educate the public of the true risk to humanity and may result in significant misconceptions due to the highly distorted science presented. With most impacts occurring in remote locations or over oceans, they often go undetected or unreported, so that few people are aware of the true hazard associated with NEOs. Although the likelihood of a devastating impact in this century is very small, smaller objects may still do significant damage, and may only be detected near impact. Thus, mitigation efforts may be limited to civil defense warning and evacuation of threatened areas. As has been clearly demonstrated during recent hurricane and forest-fire evacuations, civil-defense authorities must have clear, well-designed plans for response. Also, the public needs to understand the threat and respond appropriately should evacuations be required. The necessary education of authorities and the general population is challenging as impacts can happen anywhere and hazardous events happen so rarely that people may not take the threat seriously. In order to increase awareness of NEOs and their potential hazard,

material needs to be introduced into the curricula for middle and high school students, using Earth examples of impacts and their effects, as well as the record of impacts that can readily be seen on the Moon. Education and outreach activities about NEOs need to be coordinated to enhance community awareness through public events, displays, and activities at schools,

planetariums, museums, libraries, and observatories. In addition, a publicly accessible up-to-date web site featuring latest observations, historical events, and a nationwide activity calendar would do much to reach into the broader community. Such activities could be coordinated nationally through a center chosen in a competitive manner. Film makers could also be encouraged to produce engaging, but scientifically accurate films on these general subjects; truth is usually stranger than fiction and can serve as a reliable anchor.

***MUST HAVE PLAN***

PLAN GOOD 1NC

The failure to have a concrete option we can debate against guarantees that oppression continues and efforts for change backfire STEVE 2007 (Anonymous member of Black Block and Active Transformation who lives in East Lansing, MI, Date Last Mod. Feb 8,
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/global/a16dcdiscussion.htm) What follows is not an attempt to discredit our efforts. It was a powerful and inspiring couple of days. I feel it is important to always analyze our actions and be self-critical, and try to move forward, advancing our movement. The State has used Seattle as an excuse to beef up police

forces all over the country. In many ways Seattle caught us off-guard, and we will pay the price for it if we don't become better organized. The main weakness of the Black Block in DC was that clear goals were not elaborated in a strategic way and tactical leadership was not developed to coordinate our actions. By leadership I don't mean any sort of authority, but some coordination beside the call of the mob. We were being led around DC by any and everybody. All someone would do is make a call
loud enough, and the Black Block would be in motion. We were often lead around by Direct Action Network (DAN - organizers of the civil disobedience) tactical people, for lack of our own. We were therefore used to assist in their strategy, which was doomed from the get go,

because we had none of our own.

The DAN strategy was the same as it was in Seattle, which the DC police learned how to police. Our only chance at disrupting the IMF/WB meetings was with drawing the police out of their security perimeter, therefore weakening it and allowing civil disobedience people to break through the barriers. This needs to be kept in mind as we approach the party conventions this summer. Philadelphia is especially ripe for this new strategy, since the convention is not happening in the business center. Demonstrations should be planned all over the city to draw police all over the place. On Monday the event culminated in the ultimate anti-climax, an arranged civil disobedience. The civil disobedience folks arranged with police to allow a few people to protest for a couple minutes closer to where the meetings were happening, where they would then be arrested. The CD strategy needed arrests. Our movement should try to avoid this kind of stuff as often as possible. While this is pretty critical of the DAN/CD strategy, it is so in hindsight. This is the same strategy that succeeded in shutting down the WTO ministerial in Seattle. And, while we didn't shut down the IMF/WB meetings, we did shut down 90 blocks of the American government on tax day - so we should be empowered by their fear of us! The root of the lack of strategy problem is a general problem within the North American anarchist movement. We get caught up

in tactical thinking without establishing clear goals. We need to elaborate how our actions today fit into a plan that leads to the destruction of the state and capitalism, white supremacy and patriarchy. Moving away from strictly tactical thinking toward political goals and long term strategy needs to be a priority for the anarchist movement. No longer can we justify a moralistic approach to the latest outrage - running around like chickens with their heads cut off. We need to prioritize developing the political unity of our affinity groups and collectives, as well as developing regional
federations and starting the process of developing the political principles that they will be based around (which will be easier if we have made some headway in our local groups). The NorthEastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC) is a good example of doing this. They have prioritized developing the political principles they are federated around. The strategies that we develop in our collectives and networks will never be blueprints set in stone. They will

be documents in motion, constantly being challenged and adapted. But without a specific elaboration of what we are working toward and how we plan to get there, we will always end up making bad decisions. If we just assume everyone is on the same page, we will find out otherwise really quick when shit gets critical. Developing regional anarchist federations and networks is a great step for our movement. We should start getting these things going all
over the continent. We should also prioritize developing these across national borders, which NEFAC has also done with northeastern Canada. Some of the errors of Love and Rage were that it tried to cover too much space too soon, and that it was based too much on individual membership, instead of collective membership. We need to keep these in mind as we start to develop these projects. One of the benefits of Love and Rage was that it provided a

forum among a lot of people to have a lot of political discussion and try to develop strategy in a collective way. This, along with mutual aid and security, could be the priorities of the regional anarchist federations. These regional federations could also form the
basis for tactical leadership at demonstrations. Let me first give one example why we need tactical teams at large demos. In DC the Black Block amorphously made the decision to try to drive a dumpster through one of the police lines. The people in front with the dumpster ended up getting abandoned by the other half of the Black Block who were persuaded by the voice of the moment to move elsewhere. The people up front were in a critical confrontation with police when they were abandoned. This could be avoided if the Black Block had a decision making system that slowed down decision making long enough for the block to stay together. With this in mind we must remember that the chaotic, decentralized nature of our organization is what makes us hard to police. We must maximize the benefits of decentralized leadership, without establishing permanent leaders and targets. Here is a proposal to consider for developing tactical teams for demos. Delegates from each collective in the regional federation where the action is happening would form the tactical team. Delegates from other regional federations could also be a part of the tactical team. Communications between the tactical team and collectives, affinity groups, runners, etc. could be established via radio. The delegates would be recallable by their collectives if problems arose, and as long as clear goals are elaborated ahead of time with broader participation, the tactical team should be able to make informed decisions. An effort should be made to rotate delegates so that everyone develops the ability. People with less experience should be given the chance to represent their collectives in less critical situations, where they can become more comfortable with it. The reality is that liberal politics will not lead to an end to economic exploitation, racism, and sexism. Anarchism offers a truly radical alternative. Only a radical critique that links the oppressive nature of global capitalism to the police state at home has a chance of diversifying the movement against global capitalism. In order for the most oppressed

people here to get involved the movement must offer the possibility of changing their lives for the better. A vision of what "winning" would look like must be elaborated if people are going to take the risk with tremendous social upheaval, which is what we are calling for. We cannot afford to give the old anarchist excuse that "the people will decide after the revolution" how this or that will work. We must have plans and ideas for things as diverse as transportation, schooling, crime prevention, and criminal justice. People don't want to hear simple solutions to complex questions, that only enforces people's opinions of us as naive. We need practical examples of what we are fighting for. People can respond to examples better than unusual theory. While we understand that we will not determine the shape of things to come, when the system critically fails someone needs to be there with anti-authoritarian suggestions for how to run all sorts of things. If we are not prepared for that we can assume others will be prepared to build up the state or a new state.

Vote Negative: First, the Aff should loselack of a concrete plan makes any positive change impossible either in debate or the world at large and only empowers reactionary forcesthey undermine the purpose of debate which is to teach us good decision-making skills that we can use in any context Second, this is not a framework argumentwhether debate is about policy, activism, or identity, plans are necessary for practical reasonsthis is a solvency turn, not a normative rule or a theory argument Third, it undermines clashits impossible to engage their ideas if we dont know what they are that clash is critical to develop strategies and test ideas which eventually result in social change BRANHAM 1995 (Robert, Professor of Rhetoric at Bates College, Argumentation and Advocacy, Winter) In the years following his release from prison, Malcolm X honed his speaking skills through sidewalk preaching and his
ministry in New York Temple No. 7 and other mosques. He gained national attention in the late 1950s through a series of public confrontations with Black clergy, civil rights leaders and the press. After complaining about the lack of coverage of the NOI in the Amsterdam News, he was given his own column in which he blasted Christian ministers as "chicken-eaters" who served "the slaveowners' church." When a delegation of prominent New York ministers protested, editor James Hicks offered them equal space in a column that would run beside Malcolm X's - a debate in print. "By the third week," Hicks recalls, "it was apparent that, by having a target, Malcolm was even more devastating. Malcolm murdered the man" (Goldman, 1973, p. 61). Hicks' rhetorical assessment was an astute one. Malcolm

X was at his best when able to use the ideas of another as a foil for his own, which shone most brightly in the light generated by confrontation.

And, their strategy allows vague shifting which conceals weaknesses and results in manipulation that turns their impact GALLES 2009 (Gary, Professor of Economics at Pepperdine, Vagueness as a Political Strategy, March 2,
http://blog.mises.org/archives/author/gary_galles/) The problem with such vagueness is that any informed

PLAN GOOD 2NC

public policy decision has to be based on specific proposals. Absent concrete details, which is where the devil lurks, no one--including those proposing a "reform"--can judge how it would fare or falter in the real world. So when the President wants approval for a proposal which offers too few details for evaluation, we must ask
why. Like private sector salesmen, politicians strive to present their wares as attractively as possible. Unlike them, however, a politician's product line consists of claimed consequences of proposals not yet enacted. Further, politicians are unconstrained by truth in advertising laws, which would require that claims be more than misleading half-truths; they have fewer competitors keeping them honest; and they face "customers"--voters-- far more ignorant about the merchandise involved than those spending their own money. These differences from the private sector explain why politicians' "sales pitches" for their proposals are so vague. However, if vague proposals are the best politicians can offer, they are inadequate. If rhetoric

is unmatched by specifics, there is no reason to believe a policy change will be an improvement, because no reliable way exists to determine whether it will actually accomplish what is promised. Only the details will determine the actual incentives facing the decision-makers involved, which is the only way to forecast the results, including the myriad of unintended consequences from unnoticed aspects. We must remember that, however laudable, goals and promises and claims of cost-effectiveness that are inconsistent with the incentives created will go unmet.
It may be that President Obama knows too little of his "solution" to provide specific plans. If so, he knows too little to deliver on his promises. Achieving intended goals then necessarily depends on blind faith that Obama and a panoply of bureaucrats,

legislators, overseers and commissions will somehow adequately grasp the entire situation, know precisely what to do about it, and do it right (and that the result will not be too painful, however serious the problem)--a prospect that, due to the
painful lessons of history, attracts few real believers. Alternatively, President Obama may know the details of what he intends, but is not providing them to the public. But if it is necessary to conceal a plan's details to put the best possible public face on it, those details

must be adverse. If they made a more persuasive sales pitch, a politician would not hide actual details. They would be trumpeted at every
opportunity, proving to a skeptical public he really had the answers, since concealing rather than revealing pays only when better informed citizens would be more inclined to reject a plan. Claiming adherence to elevated principles, but keeping detailed proposals from

sight, also has a strategic advantage. It defuses critics. Absent details, any criticism can be parried by saying "that was not in our proposal" or "we have no plans to do that" or other rhetorical devices. It also allows a candidate to incorporate alternatives proposed as part of his evolving reform, as if it was his idea all along. The new administration has already put vague proposals on prominent display. However, adequate analysis cannot rest upon such flimsy foundations. That requires the nuts and bolts so glaringly absent. In the private sector, people don't spend
their own money on such vague promises of unseen products. It is foolhardy to act any differently when political salesmen withhold specifics, because

political incentives guarantee that people would object to what is kept hidden. So while vagueness may be good political strategy, it virtually ensures bad policy, if Americans' welfare is the criterion.

A2: TEXT BAD (DECONSTRUCTION)

Even if there is no absolute truth, we can create provisional consensus and common understanding FERGUSON AND MANSBACH 2002 (Yale, Prof of IR at Rutgers, Richard, Prof of IR at Iowa State, International Relations and the
Third Debate, ed. Jarvis)

Although there may be no such thing as absolute truth (Hollis, 1994:240-247; Fernandez-Armesto, 1997:chap.6), there is often a sufficient amount of intersubjective consensus to make for a useful conversation. That conversation may not lead to proofs that satisfy the philosophical nit-pickers, but it can be educational and illuminating. We gain a degree of apparently useful understanding about the things we need (or prefer) to know. Their argument creates an intellectual climate for Holocaust denialthe effect of their critique is to blur the lines of history and mask atrocity HEXHAM 1999 (Irving, in Mission and the State, ed. Ulrich van der Hayden, 2000, http://www.ucalgary.ca/~hexham/courses/Courses2006/Rels-339/IRVING/Ulrich-revised.htm) Deborah Lipstadt warns historians about the dangers of adopting fashionable theories like deconstruction without solidly grounding their work in an accurate representation of source materials [1994]. She makes a passionate plea for historical accuracy while demonstrating the real dangers that occur when people distort the facts. The techniques used by Holocaust deniers, who use history to propagate

their views, are not isolated to rogue historians. The basic arguments used by the deniers are not as absurd as most decent people, who instinctively reject such claims, think. In fact, they are increasingly common in popular scholarship. As Lipstadt points out "It is important to understand that the deniers do not work in a vacuum." [Lipstadt 1984:17]. Rather, holocaust "denial can be traced to an intellectual climate that has made its mark in the scholarly world during the past two decades. The deniers are plying their trade
at a time when history seems to be up for grabs and attacks on the Western rationalist tradition have become commonplace." [Lipstadt 1994:17]. She continues: "This tendency can be traced, at least in part, to intellectual currents that began in the late 1960's. Various scholars

began to assert that texts had no fixed meaning. The reader's interpretation, not the author's intention, determined meaning." [Lipstadt 1984:18] The danger here is not that established scholars are likely to become converts to holocaust denial, although in places like France this is a clear possibility, rather it is the effect such techniques have on students. As Lipstadt observes: "The scholars who supported this deconstructionist approach were neither deniers themselves nor sympathetic to the deniers' attitudes; most had no trouble identifying Holocaust denial as disingenuous." But, "when students had to confront the issue. Far too many of them found it impossible to recognize Holocaust denial as a movement with no scholarly, intellectual, or rational validity" [Lipstadt 1984:18]. At the end of her
work she warns again that some "historians are not crypto-deniers, but the results of their work are the same: the blurring of boundaries between fact and fiction and between persecuted and persecutor [Lipstadt 1994:215]. Further Lipstadt correctly observes that "If Holocaust denial has demonstrated anything, it is the fragility of memory, truth, reason, and history." She is right. As scholars it is our duty to defend history based upon the accurate and the objectivity of scholarship. No doubt some people will bristle at the suggestion that we ought to strive for objectivity. Such critics regard the discovery of bias as something totally new without realizing that the hermeneutics of suspicion existed long before Foucault or Deridda [Spencer 1874] History and the deconstruction of Afrikaner Ideology With Lipstad's warning in mind let us turn to the study of South Africa history. During the 1980's various writers used history to deconstruct the claims of Afrikaner Nationalism [Hexham 1981; du Toit and Giliomee 1983; du Toit 1983; Elphick and Giliomee 1988]. These works made an impact among Afrikaners because they exposed the inconsistencies of the historical claims used to legitimate the ideology of apartheid. This delegitimation was possible because these studies were based on the same historical sources as those used by Afrikaner Nationalists used to justify apartheid. By demonstrating that the sources themselves did not support Nationalist claims these authors struck a body blow at the intellectual edifice that maintained the self-confidence of Afrikaner Nationalist intellectuals. At the same time other authors, such as Charles Villa-Vicencio and James Cochran, joined the fray. But, these latter writers were not trained historians. Rather they were theologians who used history as a tool in the "as a basis for ecclesial renewal" and to "understand the character of the church in South Africa and identify its social function" [Villa-Vicenciio 1988:1]. Worthy as these goals were these theologians appropriated historical evidence rather like fundamentalist Christians use proof texts from the Bible to support their arguments. Thus the historical record was forced into preconceived neo-Marxist ideological frameworks for the purpose of undermining support for apartheid. The problem with this approach was that it often distorted and misrepresented the source documents [Cf. Hexham 1989; 1993]. At this point, it is necessary to add that whenever one talks about the "distortion" or misrepresentation of sources it is important to recognize that everyone makes the occasional mistake. It is also true that in many cases legitimate questions of interpretation may arise when various scholars see the significance of the same piece of evidence differently. Therefore, what I am objecting to is not the occasional mistake, questionable usage, or issues of genuine interpretation. Rather, it is the systematic use or misuse of source texts to support a grand theory without regard to the context and clear intent of the original sources. Such practices ignore historical methods for the purpose of promoting an ideology [Himmelfarb 1987; Elton 1967 and 1991] The problem, of course, is that once these techniques are generally accepted the choice of

ideology can change. Today they are used to promote democracy and tolerance. Tomorrow they may be used to promote totalitarianism and racism.

***NO PERFORMANCE***

MUST BE WORDS 1NC

Our interpretation is that arguments must be verbal, capable of refutation, and with both a claim and a warrantpictures, images, and physical performances do not meet this FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer) Others, however, have resisted the idea of non-linguistic argumentation. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969), for example, maintain that the theory of argument should concern itself only with "the discursive means of obtaining the adherence of minds" (emphasis in original, p. 8). An action "designed to obtain adherence falls outside [italics added] the range of argumentation," they write, "to the degree that the use of language is lacking in its support or interpretation" (p. 8). Van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Kruiger (1984) also consider argumentation to be necessarily verbal: Argumentation requires the use of language. A person engaged in argumentation makes an assertion or statement, assumes or doubts something, denies something, and so on. For the performance of all these activities he [or she] must utter words and sentences (whether spoken or written). Besides these verbal means he can, of course-just as in any other verbal activity-employ nonverbal means (e.g., facial expression and gestures). To the extent that these fulfill an argumentative function, they can always be explicitized verbally.

However, non-verbal means of communication can never completely replace verbal ones: argumentation without the use of language is impossible. This means that a person engaged in argumentation has deliberately opted for the use of verbal means. He clearly prefers to use words rather than non-verbal means of communication; he [or she] speaks, rather than resorting to blows or other forms of violence. Here we have another excellent reason for calling argumentation a pre-eminently verbal activity. The arguer uses words to lend force to his [or her] words. (p. 3) For Kneupper (1978), non-verbal signs may be used in argument, but they don't function as arguments unless linguistically translated. And Balthrop (1980,p. 185) claims that argument is "inherently discursive and linguistic." The notion that nondiscursive or artistic forms can be arguments, he writes, "would preclude argument from fulfilling" its reasongiving or justificatory function (p. 188). Finally, Toulmin, Rieke and Janik (1979,p. 137) write that "reasoning could not exist in the absence of language. Both claims and all the considerations used to support them must be expressed by some kind of a linguistic symbol
system."[2] Let's try out a fairly conventional definition and see how pictures stack up. An argument is an intentional human act in which support is offered on behalf of a debatable belief. It is characterized first and foremost by reasonableness. Now, to say that an act or object is

"reasonable" is, first, to assert that reasons can be adduced in order to make that act or object acceptable to some audience (what is acceptable is, of course, local and indeterminate, but the act of adducing reasons to make something acceptable is, I believe, cross-situational). An argument, in other words, involves a two-part relation, one part (evidence, data, proof, support, reason, etc.) supporting the other (position, claim, assertion, conclusion, thesis, point, argument, proposition, etc.). Second, to say that something is "reasonable" is to assert that it admits of improvement, is corrigible, refutable, accountable; it is an act or object which can be interrogated, criticized, and elaborated by others (and even invites interrogation, criticism, and elaboration). An argument exists, that is, in a specifiable context of debate, controversy, opposition, or doubt; its position is thus necessarily contestable. Now, whatever else a picture can do, it cannot satisfy these two criteria. First, it lacks the requisite internal differentiation; it is impossible to reliably distinguish in a picture what is position, and what is evidence for that position. The distinction at the heart of argument, the difference between that which asserts and that which supports, is thus collapsed. Second, a picture cannot with reliability be refuted, opposed, or negated. It can be countered but only by introducing words into the situation; the picture itself makes no claim which can be contested, doubted, or otherwise improved upon by others. If I oppose the "position" you articulate in a picture, you can simply deny that your picture ever articulated that, or any other, position. The picture is only refutable if first translated into language-in which case we have left the realm of pictures altogether. Now, we can ignore these problems and call pictures "arguments" anyway. But to do so would, I believe, deprive the term of its significance. Because if a picture can (self-sufficiently) be an "argument," then what do we call the linguistic act of asserting and supporting debatable claims? To say that a picture can be an argument is to leave individuals with the impression that they have argued for something when they have merely placed it in someone else's field of vision. Further, to claim that a picture can be an argument is to make it less likely that analysts will attend to the rhetorical functions that pictures can and do serve. Edited for gendered language There are impacts in our Fleming evidence First, the interpretation that arguments can be non-verbal allows violenceonly limiting arguments to words precludes the use of force Second, it crushes debateimages are impossible to refute and they can alter the supposed meaning to avoid our argumentsit collapses deliberation and debate

Third, it link turns any reason why images and performance can be goodtreating them as arguments collapses the distinctions that allow them to be studied in their own right

MUST BE WORDS 2NC

More evdence that they destroy switch-side debate and rational deliberation FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer)
assertions). Habermas (1981/ 1984) also posits a close relation between reason-giving and social opposition. People What O'Keefe (1977) calls "argument[1]" (a reason-giving speech act), then, is fully understandable only in the context of "argument[2]" (a social interaction characterized by disagreement). We provide reasons for our beliefs, Toulmin (1958,p. 97, pp. 214-216) wrote, because other people can always demand them from us. Similarly, Kuhn (1991,pp. 12-13) proposes that we consider "rhetorical argument" (an assertion with accompanying justification) as interiorized "dialogic argument" (the juxtaposition of opposing

advance reasons, Habermas says, in order to gain intersubjective recognition for "criticizable validity claims" (p. 17). The "rationality of an expression," then, is a function of "its being susceptible of criticism" (p. 9) To our earlier principle that an argument always contains two parts, claim and support, we can now add the related principle that an argument always occurs in a context of (implicit or explicit) disagreement, doubt, and opposition. Pictures seem to have difficulty satisfying the first requirement; can they satisfy the second? Our definition of a picture as a representation meant to "look like" the visible world turns out to have some bearing on this question. Because if the picture is perceived to be closer to the material world than language, then it may be less negatable as a communicative entity. Why? Because negation is a linguistic function, foreign to the concrete and analogic world of the nonverbal. As Burke (1966,p. 419) put it, "the negative is a peculiarly linguistic resource."[6] It is only with language, he writes, and particularly through the linguistic act of proscription, that the nonverbal is imbued with negative force. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969,p.
155) also restrict negation to discourse, although they are more explicit about its social origins. From this perspective, the pictorial has no negative. "Art," says Langer (1942,p. 214), "gives form to something that is simply there." Worth (1981,p. 173) is also clear on this point. The "ability of words to deal with what is not," he writes, "is one of the central functions of language"; the picture is incapable of this function[7] We can use language to indicate what a picture is not, but there is no pictorial way of doing this. An example may help here. A photograph in a college brochure showing a smiling student walking down a sidewalk on a sunny day can be an effective device for promoting the school to high school students and their parents. When they arrive on campus as freshmen, however, many of those students will discover that there aren't many sunny days in that part of the world (what's worse, there aren't many smiling people either). The picture is not necessarily deceptive; unless faked, it is a recording of an actual-albeit posedevent. What on a sunny day suggest non-sunny days and non-smiling students. We

the picture cannot do, in other words, is provide viewers with access to its opposite, cannot by picturing a smiling student can't look at a picture and produce its pictorial opposite without first translating it into a negatable linguistic assertion. To pictorially "oppose" the picture, we would have to treat the original as somehow equivalent to or captioned by the relevant language which our new picture refutes. With words, on the other hand, there is always the possibility of negation; as Peirce (1991,p. 189) wrote, an "assertion always implies a denial of something else." When you say "It's hot out here," the statement is actually or potentially the opening volley for an infinite range of subsequent and easily-imagined or -produced opposing statements: "no, it's not, .... I think it's cold," etc.[8] Because language is, from this point of view, so distinct from the existential complex which it is apparently "about," any assertion pretending to "be" reality is-by its very difference from that reality-open to doubt, question, elaboration, criticism, testing, disagreement, endorsement, etc.[9] With pictures, however, what is shown just is. A picture, because it seems to have a closer material relationship with the represented world, is therefore less available for opposition than language. It resists opposition, improvement, and debate as much as it resists assertion. The point here is not that language is more responsible than pictures; only that it is difficult to access reliably with a picture any message other than the one being pictured. To doubt, question, or criticize that message, we would need to introduce language into the situation, an operation that can be especially difficult (and risky) if the initial message is not linguistically explicit. Now it is
true that we can construct a visual sign reliably translated as a verbal proscription; but this, Worth (1981,p. 173) claims, is simply a linguistic use of a visual form (e.g., a drawing of a cigarette superimposed by a red diagonal line is merely a visual substitute for the verbal utterance "No smoking").

The impact is extinction STANNARD 2006 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series Speech, April 18,
http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberation-democracy-and-debate.html)

The complexity and interdependence of human society, combined with the control of political decisionmaking and political conversation itselfin the hands of fewer and fewer technological "experts," the gradual exhaustion of material resources and the organized circumvention of newer and more innovative resource development, places humanity, and perhaps all life on earth, in a precarious position. Where we need creativity and openness, we find rigid and closed non-solutions. Where we need masses of people to make concerned investments in their future, we find (understandable) alienation and even open hostility to political processes. The
finding common, perhaps "universal" interests. Apocalyptic

dominant classes manipulate ontology to their advantage: When humanity seeks meaning, the powerful offer up metaphysical hierarchies; when concerned masses come close to exposing the structural roots of systemic oppression, the powerful switch gears and promote localized, relativistic micronarratives that discourage different groups from

scenarios are themselves rhetorical tools, but that doesnt mean they are bereft of material justification. The "flash-boom" of apocalyptic rhetoric isnt out of the question, but it is also no less threatening merely as a metaphor for the slow death of humanity (and all living beings) through environmental degradation, the irradiation of the planet, or the descent into political and ethical barbarism. Indeed, these slow, deliberate scenarios ring more true than the flashpoint of quick Armageddon, but in the end the "fire or ice" question is moot, because the answers to those looming threats are still the same: The complexities of threats to our collective well-being require unifying perspectives based on diverse viewpoints, in the same way that the survival of ecosystems is dependent upon biological diversity. In Habermass language, we must fight the colonization of the lifeworld in order to survive at all, let alone to survive in a life with meaning. While certainly not the only way, the willingness to facilitate

organized democratic deliberation, including encouraging participants to articulate views with which they may personally disagree, is one way to resist this colonization. And, we have an independent impactmixing aesthetic concerns with political argument encourages mass murdertotalitarian violence will remain unchecked TEACHOUT 2003 (Terry, Commentary music critic and the drama critic of the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, September 2003, proquest) Hitler, in short, was a deranged idealist, a painter who sought power over others in order to make his romantic dreams real, then grew ever more bloodthirsty when the human beings who were his flesh-and-blood medium resisted his transforming touch. He was not the first such murderous artist. As Irving Babbitt wrote of the similarly mad idealists who had unleashed their own reign of terror on France: Robespierre and Saint-Just were ready to eliminate violendy whole social strata that seemed to them to be made up of parasites and conspirators, in order that they might adjust this actual France to the Sparta of their dreams; so that the Terror was far more than is commonly realized a bucolic episode. It lends color to the assertion that has been made that the last stage of sentimentalism is homicidal mania. To READ Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics is to reflect not only on power but on the various ways in which artists through the ages have responded to power, and more specifically to the politicians and political ideas of their time. In Nazi Germany, this response, as Frederic Spotts reminds us, was overwhelmingly positive. The list of distinguished non-Jewish
artists who left the country after Hitler came to power is brief to the point of invisibility when placed next to the rogues' gallery of those who stayed behind, in many cases not merely accepting the inevitability of Nazi rule but actively collaborating with the regime. The composers Carl Orff and Richard Strauss, the conductors Wilhelm Furtwangler and Herbert von Karajan, the Nobel Prize-winning author Gerhart Hauptmann, the filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, the actor Emil Jannings, the stage designer Caspar Neher-all these and many more were perfectly prepared to make their peace with Nazism. What drove these men and women? No doubt, in some cases, the motive was the crudest sort of self-interest. For not only did Hitler subsidize the arts, he subsidized individual artists as well, in many cases lavishly. And even those who were not the direct objects of his personal largesse benefited from his open-handed arts policy, which included exemption from military service, as well as from the fact that the emigration and slaughter of prominent Jewish artists left more room at the top of the heap. In addition, many German artists were true Nazi believers; ironically, their number included a few, like the twelve-tone composer Anton Webern and the Expressionist painter Emil Nolde, whose modernist art was anathema to the Nazis. Others, whatever their reservations about

The relationship of these artists to the Nazi regime remains relevant to mis day. Though artists vary widely in their political awareness-from total indifference on the one hand to passionate involvement on the other-many, perhaps most, find it hard to resist the blandishments of politicians who appear to take an informed interest, however specious, in the arts. Shelley's famous assertion that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world" can also be read as a rueful admission that the world deigns at any given moment to acknowledge only a handful of serious artists. The rest are regarded with comparative indifference, especially in market-based democracies where no natural mechanism exists to introduce the "masses" to high art. Some artists accept their comparatively lowly status, finding sufficient reward in the practice of their calling. But others are enraged by it, particularly those romantics who long to remake the world so as to bring it into closer accord with their private visions. Such artists are irresistibly drawn to men of power, and are sometimes willing to pervert their art in the name of politics. Hitler, both a romantic and an artist manque, understood this temptation and made the most of it. The historian Paul Johnson understands it as well, and has it in mind when he writes: "Art, no less than politics, carries with it a whiff of sulphur, the stench of the charnel-house." It is
specific policies, shared Hitler's loathing for modernism and endorsed his vision of Germany as the savior of the West. to see what it is, so long as it seems to them well-meaning." But as he knew-better, perhaps, than any other politician of the 20th century-ideas

tempting to try to excuse this as mere foolishness. As Hitler himself once remarked, "Artists are simple-hearted souls. Today they sign this, tomorrow that; they don't even look

have consequences, and the artist who succumbs to the temptation to dabble in ill-digested political ideas, be he a Nazi, a Communist, or a pacifist, is as morally responsible for their ultimate consequences as any other human being. In the end, beauty excuses nothing, least of all mass murder.

And, our interpretation solves thisarguments composed of sequential claims and warrants allow ethical deliberationvisual imagery does not FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer) Now, why can't a picture satisfy this demand, that is, be structured so that claim-like and support-like entities can be identified? The answer appears to have something to do with the fact that a picture typically functions as a simultaneous whole rather than a sequence of bits. It lacks, in other words, the internal linear arrangement that characterizes verbal discourse. Argument requires a structure in which conceptually-distinct ideas can be sequentially linked (thus, "X, therefore Y," "X because of Y," etc.). Hintikka and Bachman (1991,p. 8), for example, define argument as a "line of reasoning,"
while Andrews, Costello and Clark (1993) characterize it as a sequence or chain. Langer's (1942) distinction between presentational and discursive symbols rests on this same notion of linearity (see pp. 63-83). For Postman (1985,p. 26), the sequentiality of verbal arguments has an

A2: AESTHETICS INEVITABLE

almost ethical quality to it; in arguing, each participant must delay his or her verdict until the other's turn is finished. Without syntactic arrangement, then, the visual can present or express ideas but cannot state them, an act which requires a more restricted structure. For Langer (1942,p. 75), visual forms are capable of combination, but not discursive combination. That is, the relation of constituents in a picture is grasped in one act of vision, "given all at once to the intelligent eye" (p. 77), and allowing simultaneous presentation of a direct, continuous articulation of reality. Although some claim a vocabulary and syntax for visual communication (Bowman, 1968, p. 8), it is more typically asserted that the visual lacks both lexicon and syntax. For Gombrich (1982,p. 138), this means that the visual, while "supreme" at arousal, is altogether incapable of statement. Goodman (1976,1978) concurs: the non-verbal can exemplify, but it cannot denote.

Our definition of argument is not rigged against the visualthis only serves to show the valuable distinction between picture and argument FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer) Now, it might be said that I define argument in such a way that it has a built-in bias towards linguistic forms. But that is precisely my point, that traditional conceptions of argument reflect an inherent connection to a particular kind of speech act, and to dissociate the term from that act would strip the concept of its most important qualities. While it may be true that form is often subordinate to use, it is also true that form can determine use to a degree. A stick may indeed "be" a spoon if it is used as one, but some things can be used as spoons only by completely distorting what we mean by "spoon." Argument, that is, may not be as flexible a concept as some have hoped. My approach here might also strike some as overly normative: it deals with what an argument should be but doesn't help us understand the range of arguments actually encountered in the world. But definitions of argument cannot avoid normative thinking.[12] Defining "argument" is not, in this regard, like defining "question." The criterion we use to demarcate argument from non-argument (for example, "reasonableness") is typically a criterion that has inescapable cultural value. For me, an argument is an intentional act structured in claim and support components and situated in a specifiable social dispute. This is normative in the sense that that kind of act often has cultural value; but something could be an argument by this criterion and still be "bad." My purpose in this paper has not been to disparage the pictorial. I am not arguing here that pictures are rhetorically uninteresting or irrelevant. Pictures exert enormous influence in our culture, and they deserve increased attention from scholars whose primary interests are verbal. I have rehearsed here a conventional theory of argument in the interest of highlighting features of that theory that might be obscured or lost if the concept is watered down.[13] If what we mean by "argument" is the act of advancing reasonable positions in contexts of doubt and difference, then a picture cannot, independent of language, be an argument.

A2: ARGUMENT DEFINITION BAD

A2: CAN BE PART OF AN ARGUMENT

And, visual presentations cannot even be parts of an argumentthey deny linear connections and can resist verbal interpretation FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer)
By itself, then, a picture lacks sequential syntax and is therefore unable to array ideas in the two-part conceptual structure of argumentation. But couldn't a picture still function as one part of an argument? That is, couldn't it function as claim or evidence even if, as a non-discursive entity, it cannot do both? This is, in fact, how some scholars have interpreted the argumentative function of the picture. According to Jamieson (1988,p. 240), if rhetoric is statement and proof, then visual rhetoric is statement alone. In the age of television, she writes, argument has been replaced by assertion; there is no narration, no definition, no counter-argument, no evidence. Concerning a different kind of visual, and acting as friend rather than enemy, Buchanan (1989,p. 108) proposes what he calls an "assertoric rhetoric" for material artifacts, a form of discourse presumably devoid of reason-giving but rich in positionality. But there are problems with this notion. If the visual can play an "assertoric" role in argument,

what kinds of things can it assert? How does it go about making assertions? How do we know when and if our interpretation of a picture's assertion is the same as someone else's? And how do we adduce and evaluate evidence for assertions if we can't with any reliability know exactly what is being asserted? The difficulty of answering these questions has led some scholars to claim that, because of their inherent richness, concreteness, and ineffability, visual artifacts actually resist assertion. According to Becker (1986,p. 275), pictures are too subtle to act as assertions. Given a photograph without linguistic accompaniment, it is nearly impossible to say what its topic is. And even if we know the topic, Becker argues, we still don't know the statement. The picture itself can be seen to assert, or be evidence for, multiple statements regarding multiple topics (again, the non-discursiveness of pictures makes these functions problematically collapsible). For Moran (1989,p. 101), this is, in fact, the great power of the picture: it "can be used to get a point across without incurring the risks and responsibilities of asserting that point or it." Fox (1994b, p. 70) agrees: the image is "the ultimate tool" of nuance, intimation, hint, and suggestion. It is for this reason, he writes, that imagemakers focus on values, attitudes, feelings, and effects, caring little about logic, proof, and argument (p. 77). Similarly, for Postman (1985), the photograph is limited to concrete
representation: As an "objective" slice of space-time, the photograph testifies that someone was there or something happened. Its testimony is powerful but it offers no opinions-no "should-have-beens" or "might-have-beens." Photography is preeminently a world of fact, not of dispute about facts or of conclusions to be drawn from them .... When applied to a photograph, the question, Is it true? means only, Is this a

reproduction of a real slice of space-time? If the answer is "Yes," there are no grounds for argument, for it makes no sense to disagree with an unfaked photograph. The photograph itself makes no arguable propositions, makes no extended and unambiguous commentary. (pp. 72-73) In the world of the photograph, Postman writes, there is no beginning, middle, and end: "there is only a present and it need not be part of any story that can be told" (p. 74). The ideational limitation that Postman identifies here has been described by Sontag (1990) as a kind of narrative failure. Gerbner (1994) and
Hayakawa (in Fox, 1994a) have also commented on the picture's inability to represent a temporal succession of ideas (cf. Lessing, 1962). For Berger (1972,p. 26), this means that a picture, independent of a sequential array of signs, is incapable of functioning as an argument. When a painting is reproduced in a film, and thus unfolds in time, it becomes part of the film-maker's argument. But outside of such use, a

painting has its

own authority and can potentially reverse or qualify any (verbal) conclusion reached about it. According to Berger and Mohr (1982,p. 120), it is an event's development over time which allows its meaning to be perceived. A photograph arrests this movement, and its meaning, therefore, is ambiguous.

And, visual imagery is not argumenttreating it as such either destroys the notion of argument or alters the visual so it is no longer useful FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer) To sum up, argument is reasoning towards a debatable conclusion. It is a human act conducted in two parts (claim and support) and with awareness of two sides (the claim allows for and even invites opposition). By this definition, something which cannot be broken down into claim and support, and whose claim is not reliably contestable, is not an argument, whatever else it may be and however else it may participate in argument. It would seem, then, that a picture can be considered an "argument" only by stretching the meaning of that word beyond recognition. Its lack of internal differentiation between claim and support precludes it from serving as a self-sufficient argument. And its non-refutability precludes it from acting as an argumentative claim without language because it is unable to assert a contestable position. To be refutable, the picture would have to be translated into a linguistic statement, in which case either the visual is irrelevant (since now duplicated by language), or the verbal is such a reduction of the visual as to be an entirely new thought altogether. This last possibility, in which the non-argumentative
artifact is translated into one, appears to be what Fisher and Filloy (1982) mean when they claim that fictional and dramatic works are "arguments." When they translate The Great Gatsby, what they end up with is clearly argumentative; but it is no longer The Great Gatsby.

A2: PICTURES = ARGUMENTS

A2: POLITICS WITHOUT AESTHETICS BAD

And, art is not just manipulated by fascists but is central to the projectreliance on aesthetic concerns can justify mass murder YOUNG 2003 (James E. Young is professor and chair of Judaic & Near Eastern studies at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, The
Terrible Beauty of Nazi Aesthetics, Forward, April 25, http://www.forward.com/articles/8694/) Hitler was both a product of his times aesthetic temper (as retrograde as his tastes may have been) and

possibly the greatest producer of political design and choreography who ever lived. We cannot separate his deeds, his policies and his Nazi ideology from his aesthetic temper. Our reflex may be to protect the aesthetic realm from the ugliness and barbarism committed in its name. But without recognizing the central role aesthetics actually played in the Nazis murderous regime, we ignore the basic historical fact at the heart of Spottss book: Art, beauty and aesthetics were not benign byproducts of the Nazi Reich, but part and parcel of its malevolent logic. Beauty and terror, aesthetics and power, may not only be paired after the historical fact but might now be regarded as historical forces that also drive events as they actually unfold.

And, argument must have a sequence of claim and warrantvisual presentation destroys this sequenceour interpretation is more ethical because sequential argument requires one to suspend judgement until evidence is presented FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer) Now, why can't a picture satisfy this demand, that is, be structured so that claim-like and support-like entities can be identified? The answer appears to have something to do with the fact that a picture typically functions as a simultaneous whole rather than a sequence of bits. It lacks, in other words, the internal linear arrangement that characterizes verbal discourse. Argument requires a structure in which conceptually-distinct ideas can be sequentially linked (thus, "X, therefore Y," "X because of Y," etc.). Hintikka and Bachman (1991,p. 8), for example, define argument as a "line of reasoning,"
while Andrews, Costello and Clark (1993) characterize it as a sequence or chain. Langer's (1942) distinction between presentational and discursive symbols rests on this same notion of linearity (see pp. 63-83). For Postman (1985,p. 26), the sequentiality of verbal arguments has an

A2: SEQUENCE INTERPRETATION BAD

almost ethical quality to it; in arguing, each participant must delay his or her verdict until the other's turn is finished. Without syntactic arrangement, then, the visual can present or express ideas but cannot state them, an act which requires a more restricted structure. For Langer (1942,p. 75), visual forms are capable of combination, but not discursive combination. That is, the relation of constituents in a picture is grasped in one act of vision, "given all at once to the intelligent eye" (p. 77), and allowing simultaneous presentation of a direct, continuous articulation of reality. Although some claim a vocabulary and syntax for visual communication (Bowman, 1968, p. 8), it is more typically asserted that the visual lacks both lexicon and syntax. For Gombrich (1982,p. 138), this means that the visual, while "supreme" at arousal, is altogether incapable of statement. Goodman (1976,1978) concurs: the non-verbal can exemplify, but it cannot denote.

A2: WE DONT KILL SWITCH-SIDE

And, more evidencevisual evidence undercuts switch-side debatethey make any negation impossible FLEMING 1996 (David, some kind of comm dude, Argumentation and Advocacy, Summer) Because, then, it partakes so powerfully of material reality, the picture lacks the distance both from "reality" and historical context which allow us to reliably negate it. Postman (1985,p. 73) writes that the photograph, for example, is "not refutable"; and Berger and Mohr (1982,p. 92) write that it is "irrefutable as evidence."[10] On this line of thought, refutability becomes a criterion of rationality. Sontag (1990,p. 23) writes, for example, that "all possibility of understanding is rooted in the ability to say no," in "not accepting the world as it looks" to the camera. Is it for this reason that the visual has often met with such suspicion and
hostility? Explaining his newspaper's refusal to print editorial cartoons, an editor of the New York Times argued that "A good strong cartoon is very likely to distort an editorial position that can be made more clearly, more fairly, and more accurately through the use of words" (as cited in Medhurst & DeSousa, 1981, p. 229). Gerbner (1994) claims that to resolve conflicts we must entertain a variety of perspectives, yet

dramatic imagery tends to inhibit the complexity of thought and preempt alternative points of view. Fox (1994b), meanwhile, writes that the emotional intensity of visuals limits the number of rational options we weigh in thinking through problems (p. 77). And Hayakawa (in Fox, 1994a) has said that it is easier for people to have an uncritical confidence in images than in words (p. 184). The only way to "negate" an image, Hay-akawa says, is to compare it with others and put it in a context (p.
188). Williams' (1987) analysis of the 1940 Nazi documentary The Wandering Jew is relevant to this point. The images in the film, he writes, are condensed (i.e., partial, synecdochic) versions of a formal ideology, achieving with their very compression the simplicity, ambiguity, and emotional intensity which can protect the argument against deconstruction. They are also present (i.e., concrete, metonymic), material instantiations whose very materiality-their apparent closeness to actual life-makes them hard to refute. Williams argues that the "condensation of abstract ideology into' representative form," combined with the "self-articulate vividness" of its images, makes The Wandering Jew seem "unimpeachable, if not 'incorruptible'" (p. 299). The film's "presence"-its sensory realism-imbues it with an "un-negated concreteness or totalization" (p. 300). As a "present" argument, Williams says, it "is what it is (undeconstructed; unhindered by negation)" (p. 303). He continues: Arguments which are visually, and perhaps more generally sensorily, present

are less susceptible to the deconstructive turn in linguistic representation: as sensations, they simply are. (p. 303) According to Williams, the Nazis represented their ideology in "picture units" whenever possible, knowing that rational argumentation could be better superceded in that way than through language (p. 305). Interestingly, the two characteristics of ideological argument that Williams points to-its compact and concrete qualities-would suggest that, according to the theory I have been advancing, the film isn't really an argument at all. That is, it lacks the requisite two-part structure of claim and support, and it is un-negatable. The Wandering Jew is dangerous, in other words, not so much because it argues a pernicious point, but because it communicates that point by avoiding argument altogether.

***Framework***

Framework Short 1nc

The affirmative must defend a world where the United States federal government substantially increases social services to persons living in poverty in the U.S. The sole purpose of the ballot is to answer the resolutional question: Is the outcome of the enactment of a topical plan better than the status quo or a competitive policy option? This is most predictable Resolved before a colon reflects a legislative forum Army Officer School, 04 (5-12, # 12, Punctuation The Colon and Semicolon, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)
The colon introduces the following: a.
A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive: Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. b. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael Shaara wrote: (colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle [Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more paragraphs.) c. A formal quotation or question: The President declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon) what can we do about it? d. A second independent clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. e. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) f. The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock g. A formal resolution, after the word "resolved:"Resolved: (colon) That this council

petition the mayor.

And, United States Federal Government should means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means Ericson, 03 (Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debaters Guide, Third Edition, p. 4)
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions.

topic contains certain key elements, although they have 1. An agent doing the acting ---The United

States in The United States should adopt a policy of free trade. Like the object of evaluation in a proposition of value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb shouldthe first part of a verb phrase that urges action. 3. An action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put a program or policy into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a limitation of the action desired. The phrase free trade, for example, gives direction
and limits to the topic, which would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing diplomatic recognition, or discussing interstate commerce. Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The entire debate is about whether something

ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative side in such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for
an audience to perform the future action that you propose.

The affirmative does not meet this because they ask you to __________________________ instead of defending the adoption of the resolution. This is a voting issue First, they are non-topical because they dont defend the enactment of a policy by the United States federal government. Topicality is an a-priori voting issue as judge you are only allowed to affirm those policies within your jurisdiction dictated by the resolution. Second is fairness it is impossible to be negative in their world. If the affirmative is not constrained by the topic, they get to just speak in general about the horrors of racism, talk about their personal experiences or interpret the resolution any way they see fit. These claims are nearly unlimited in scope, non-falsifiable, impossible to predict, and unfair for the team that is forced to debate against it. Third, defending a topical affirmative is the only way to ensure that teams must research and debate both sides of an argument and learn from multiple perspectives about the topic. Forcing a rigid adherence to the topic facilitates switch-side debating the advocacy of things you sometimes dont necessarily believe in. Topic based education and ground should be prioritized

because it encourages students to learn in-depth about new and important public policy issues each year. [Optional] There is no risk of offense. They can still read their ethics claims as a justification why the federal government should take action they just cant be the starting point of the plan. And, they can make their arguments as criticisms when they are negative. There is no unique reason why they need this ground every debate or on the affirmative. This is heart of switch-side debate. [Optional] You can vote negative to endorse their political and ethical strategy. Voting against the affirmative requires only a determination that they are outside the bounds of the topic, NOT that they are wrong this is a more effective way to rally support around their ideas This is a prior question that must be resolved first it is a pre-condition for debate to occur Shively, 2000 Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas A&M (Ruth Lessl, Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2)
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest-that consensus kills

debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics, on principles but not
on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There

can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target
audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication

about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other
words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.

Framework Long Version

*** Add these to the bottom of the short version *** Finally, our framework is also socially productive forcing students to assert policy solutions has tremendous research and education benefits and encourages them to become advocates for change rather than mere spectators Joyner , 99 Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University (Christopher C., Spring, 199, 5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377)
Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help

students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional roleplaying game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing

contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal

propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional

law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to

simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with
for the debates forces

other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research

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

2nc Counter Advocacy

While the contest round must focus on defending the enactment of a topical and concrete political strategy we also think that the debate activity as a whole should include but not be replaced by an emphasis on public debate, community service and other strategies to connect our activity to the larger political world we operate in. This not only helps ground our education in the real world but it helps encourage greater involvement in the activity and sustained institutional support for debate programs. Evaluate this like a counterplan that makes debate more accessible while still maintaining many of the benefits of competitive switch side debate. Coverstone, 05 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan H., Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact, Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05)
Acting on Activism

We need both strategic sense and insider savvy. Debaters who already shift easily between the technical field of the policy wonks and the rarified air of the ivory tower ought also to move easily in the public sphere. With some intentional effort by coaches, students will discover how easily they can enter this realm. Here again, however, some preparatory training is required. This training is easy, and public debates on campus, before parents, in the community and even as part of debate tournaments offer incredible starting points. Student engagement with authors and political leaders, meetings with social activists, and encounters with people whose lives are impacted by the policies and ideas they debate all offer incredible opportunities not to replace contest debating as it is so productively practiced but to supplement its training with a tangible training in public advocacy. Such training will ease the transition from contest debater to public citizen. Mitchell has advanced numerous tangible examples of political activism by debaters, and none of these required reflexive fiat (1998a; Mitchell & Suzuki, 2004). Debaters who participate in community service projects as a part of their commitment to the contest debate program at their school will not only learn to be socially conscious and capable public advocates, they will also become more competitively persuasive and successful contest debaters. Linking these aims offers the best chance to expand the magic of competitive debate rather than supplanting it in favor of risky strategies that may well upset the balance that makes debate so resilient.

*** Note If time doesnt permit you can stop here the rest describes and details the benefits of this hybrid strategy***
This idea is the unstated one behind my initial offering in this discussion, but it isnt mine alone.

I join Mitchell (2004) in borrowing the perspective of

Ehninger & Brockriede (1969). This criticism, although serious, does not argue for the abolition of tournament debating. What it suggests is that tournament debating must fit in with a total forensics program. If a director of debate (a) restricts the role of the tournament to the
preliminary development of those skills for which tournament rigor is appropriate; (b) makes clear to his [sic] students that tournaments develop only some of the skills they will need for adult debating; and (c) 307)

supplements the tournament with diversified debating in speaking situations that emphasize adaptation to the audience, the tournament may play a most useful and practical role in debate training. (Ehninger & Brockriede, 1969, 306Mitchell (2004) interprets the total forensics program this way: This vision of hybridized debate practice transcends the zero-sum perspective that pits tournament debating and public debating against each other as mutually exclusive options. In Sunsteins terminology, such a hybrid orientation preserves debate tournament culture as a deliberative enclave, but ensures that its ideas eventually enrich societys argument pool by connecting it to wider spheres of public deliberation. (Mitchell & Suzuki, 2004, p. 10)

The total forensics program is the kind of program in which both Mitchell and I were trained. Public debates played a regular part in our annual competitive debate program. While I was in college debate, I participated in several public debates and served other roles in other public engagements. We were actively engaged in the intellectualism of the university, attending public lectures, posing questions from the audience, and engaging speakers after events. I participated in demonstrations against apartheid and the Persian Gulf War, often encountering public exchanges that were unplanned and uncomfortable but wonderfully important to my long-term training for pro-social involvement in the world. Not all of these activities were part of the debate program per se, but they were all encouraged and supported by the coaches, and the idea that our work had relevance beyond the walls of the debate squad room was never far from my mind. The potential avenues for this kind of public advocacy training are limitless, and in my work as a high school debate coach, I have seen much potential realized. I have certainly seen potential unrealized as

Students who have been part of that program have taken Mitchells lead and inspiration to involve themselves in public debates (a few each year), email campaigns (promoting the ratification of the CTBT among other things), and even a two-way exchange with the team from Kansas City Central, whose
well, but as I review the last 10 years, I am confident that the importance of public involvement and activism has driven my efforts to pursue the total forensics program at my school.

appeals for alternative forms of debate as a way to promote broader access to this important activity first struck our students as dangerous but after the exchange helped them develop new friendships and broaden their concept of debate and its important role in the world. Mitchell has embraced the importance and power of simulation and role-playing in an outstanding examination of simulated public argument as a strategy for classroom instruction. His attention to the methods teachers should use to ensure that such simulations achieve their best effect provides a strong template for teachers to use. He addresses the limits of a traditional adversarial debate model in this context, and he offers a positive strategy for improving the experience in the classroom (Mitchell, 2000). It is important to note Deborah Tannens criticism of an over-reliance on adversarial debate in the public sphere (Tannen, 1998), as Mitchell does. While it may be more comfortable to pretend her criticism does not exist, we must come to grips with it if we are to improve access and expand the utility of contest debating as a prelude to public sphere activism and advocacy. Tannen does not argue that the adversarial model ought to be wholly discarded. If she did, she would be guilty of establishing another polarizing dichotomy between debate and dialogue where a

controversy and adversarial processes form an important part of the public dialogue that students need to learn, and students who are not trained to respond to such intense
complementary relationship is clearly more valuable (Graff, 2003, p. 85-87). After all,

controversy will be easily intimidated into silence in the public realm. So, Mitchells template for simulated public argument has utility not only as a classroom strategy but also as a coaching strategy in a contest debate squad room. Although contest debate coaching is seldom as intentionally structured as Mitchells classroom setting, simulated public argument does arise in the squad room. One of the most useful strategies for helping students understand arguments that they will eventually defend in contest debates is to simulate the experiences that different constituencies will have in response to the advocacy under examination. Even preparation for debates over the politics disadvantage (a favorite target for critics of policy debate) regularly involves examination through simulated public argument of a host of voices that will arise if a plan is actually adopted. Projecting into a future circumstance and role-playing a variety of voices provides incredible training for later participation in the public sphere because students learn that political controversy is a multidimensional experience, and that knowledge shapes their preparation for public advocacy in important ways.

Another important response to Tannens criticism of adversarial debate is to structure opportunities for open-ended debates without winners and losers. This model was employed to great effect at the Wake Forest Universitys Franklin Shirley Classic in November 2001. The last rounds of the tournament were replaced with publicly accessible debates responding to the public issues arose following the 9/11 attacks. This model ought to be pursued much more widely at college debate tournaments which, unlike most high school tournaments, enjoy a full three-day schedule in which to include some extra opportunities for structured public argument. People in our communities are hungry to see debate, and they appreciate what we do, but they often do not understand it. Tournaments could marshal much greater public and school support if some public exhibitions were included in the regularly scheduled tournament activities. There is no shortage of intellectual energy and good ideas. Mitchells work includes excellent example and suggestions for structuring opportunities for public advocacy within the operation of a competitive debate team regardless of the level (1998a). While some ideas are better suited to college than high school, there is no question that expanding our programs to include primary research, public sphere advocacy, public debate, and debate outreach is equally if not more important at the high school level. While the efforts of individual coaches, students and programs have indeed been impressive, one cannot help but join Mitchell in wondering why there hasnt been so much more. Robert Newman was the Director of Debate at the University of Pittsburgh from 1952-1967. He ran a program that exemplifies the total forensics program. Not only did his teams enjoy fantastic competitive success, they also led incredible outreach opportunities that affected thousands of people positively. Regular exchanges with other college teams supported an outreach program that brought excellent public debates to high school students. The Pittsburgh team also held regular public debates on the local television station. In 1954, at the height of Cold War McCarthyism, the college debate topic called for the recognition of the communist government of China (Mitchell, 2001). The obstacles to the total program could not have been higher, but the significance of maintaining a public and competitive presence in that climate cannot be overestimated. When we examine our own historical context and the strength of our competitive programs, we have to ask why we are so much less capable of making a similar impact. Should we be debating topics that are more politically incorrect? Should we teach our students to challenge the hegemony of politically acceptable orthodoxies? Doing so entails risks. I argued in my first response to Mitchell that developing the activism skills of our students would make us a political target (Coverstone, 1995). Mitchell has since done an excellent job of debunking this position (1998a), and I am now keenly aware of its intellectual timidity. I now realize that timidity was taught to me not by debate, but by the powerful, who told me to keep my opinions to myself and the codes of conduct in

debaters ought to be led into situations of public advocacy, and it is crucial that they have educators pushing them and accompanying them giving feedback and support all the way. Since becoming a debate coach, I have sought to pursue that lesson, and it is the one for which I am most indebted to Mitchell. Public debates, letters to the editor, campaign involvement, exchanges, community involvement (service), public advocacy. All are pedagogical and important for students to engage in. We need more of these opportunities, and debate coaches and
polite society that told me to eschew controversy. Let us be a target. Let them know we are here. Let us make a real impact! I agree more than ever that educators ought to require students to participate in them. We usually find that the students are far more courageous and resilient than the adults. The students will enjoy and learn from the experiences. Ideas and inspiration abound. I suspect that most debate programs do something in the way of public advocacy but many coaches probably feel they are not doing enough. Despite the unintended consequences that Mitchells efforts have had on arguments about contest round practice, his work has gained our attention and led us to look for was to become more public in the orientation of our programs. We know the benefits we will reap. Mitchell & Suzuki have amply described the skills that contest debating develops which are easily translated into support for public advocacy (2004). What is

Not only do contestants with public realm experience become more effective competitors, programs with thriving public components enjoy more institutional, parental, and community support.
missing is the equally significant contributions that public activism and advocacy makes for the contest round debater.

Students with public realm experience of the kinds Mitchell proposes (primary research, public advocacy, public debating, and outreach) benefit as contest debaters in at least three ways. First, students gain confidence from speaking in the public realm. The comfort level that ensues when they return to the familiar confines of contest debates enables them to think more clearly and respond more effectively. Confidence slows the contest debate down in the minds of those with this experience. Second, students develop deeper understandings of the issues under debate. This advantage is especially likely using primary research strategies to contact authors and make public debates on the arguments they debate differently when in contest rounds. Third, students discover persuasive personal narratives. Meeting people whose lives are directly and importantly affected by the policies under debate in their contest rounds, students develop understanding and empathy for the subject that makes

My own experience as a debater and coach confirms repeatedly that public debating, primary research, outreach exchanges, and public advocacy are all incredibly beneficial in helping contest debaters to improve their contest skills. Similarly, debate programs with a vibrant public component are far less likely to encounter budget pressures and loss of support from the institutions that they serve. Contest debate is much easier to defend to curious administrators and parents when it is clearly connected to the public performances that these academic supporters so clearly desire. Schools want us to train students to be strong public speakers, and we do, but programs that must rely solely on that assertion because the students
them more persuasive as advocates when they return to the contests. I could continue, and I will if anyone steps forward to challenge this notion seriously.

never actually speak in a public setting are walking a dangerous line and frequently lose their political and monetary support. Parents, teachers, and administrators constantly ask when they can see our debaters in action. In many cases, although we know well the benefits of contest round debating, we are embarrassed to show these people because we know the long conversation that will follow. Once more, we will defend speed and research, hoping that our credibility with our audience is strong enough to compel it to accept our defense in the absence of tangible proof. Three or four public debates each year are easily enough to convince these important constituents of the value of our activity, and the great irony is that in practice; the public debates dont even have to be that strong. Just seeing students, especially high school students, in front of a crowd discussing complex issues with a high level of understanding and clarity is quite impressive for most people. Given a choice between contest and public debate for displaying our team in order to secure public, parental, and institutional support, few would choose the contest. Once these same groups see the students in public, they view the contest debates as much more impressive. They may not understand them any more fully than previously, but they will see them in the context of a training and development system that is impressive in its own right as well as useful in training public advocates. Regardless of the style or focus of debate, we must pursue actions that increase access to our community. Programs that pursue both contest and public debates create more opportunities for students in their own school to experience the incredible benefits of this good idea (Baker, 2003). If the public programs generate community outreach and other civic involvement, even more people will benefit from the efforts. Exchanges can help build the friendships upon which the debate community ultimately relies. Cooperative projects between students from rival schools can change their relationships in ways that will bear lasting benefits for the students and their communities. All of these ideas and many more serve to advance clearly the educational mission of our academic institutions. Farrand (2000) argues convincingly that High school debate is more than a series of competitions to crown the best and the brightest. High school debate is an educational activity whose existence ought to be justifiable within the educational mission of American secondary schools and its direction ought to be in the hands of the professionals who understand the classroom process, whose job it is to teach. (Farrand, 2000) No matter what strategies of public sphere involvement are pursued, leadership is essential. Leadership among students must be actively cultivated. The parts of the program that place students in the public realm teach valuable lessons about planning, strategy, focus, deliberation, and organization. Involving students in all of these phases of preparation for public debates cultivates an understanding of leadership that is hard to generate in other academic settings. Yet even with strong student leadership skills as a positive outcome of strong public debate components of contest debate programs, there is no substitute for the guidance and direction of teaching professionals. Here, too, strong public components of contest debate programs can help. The greatest single limit on debate access in America today is the shortage of coaches. Bruschke (2001) said, We are debate coaches because we make unreasonable sacrifices. The reason why there is not more debate is easy to see: Being a debate coach is really hard, and not many people can (or want to) do it. (Bruschke, 2001) This recognition is accurate and sounded from about as many rooftops as we have in competitive debate. Virtually every major professional organization devoted to debate has acknowledged the crisis of coaching. We all understand that our most successful contest debate participants do not become coaches. Instead, they enter careers in law, public service, business, among other professions. Yet, we have thousands of people who are well meaning, intelligent, and dedicated who did not participate in debate but who have chosen to become teachers. These people have everything they need to help alleviate the coaching crisis, and they teach in the rooms next to ours. Why, then are they not more involved? What prevents them from filling the coaching gap? We do it to ourselves because of our one-dimensional programs. First, it is hard to convince an administrator to hire another coach if s/he cannot see the genuine fruits of our own labors. For most contest coaches, this reality comes through in an incredible pressure to win. We think that if we can just win national championships, then the principal will finally understand our significance. This pressure leads coaches to extreme behaviors and creates a zero sum mentality that strains professional relationships among coaches. All of these forces make it incredibly challenging to break into our community. New coaches are kept at arms length because they pose a threat to the only currency our administrators will understand wins. New programs feel the chill of isolation, and if they are slow to start winning, they begin to think the activity is stacked against them. No students want to play a rigged game, so they often quit before their program can become established. The result of all this pressure is an ever-

growing gap between the top programs and those just beginning. The entry barriers to debate grow and the demands on coaches grow in tandem. In the end, it is very difficult to convince a teacher without contest experience to get involved in this activity. Now consider the impact of a thriving public component to a program. Not only is this kind of program easier to sell to administrators because they can see and understand it, it also relies solely on its educational value to be judged a success. Teachers who have committed their professional lives to education can much more easily find an entre into public debates, and they are very likely to enjoy helping their contest coaches conduct these kinds of events. In fact, many teachers possess skill sets that are far superior to the contest coaches set when it comes to public debate, and drawing them into the program can improve the educational experience for the contest students even as it improves the visible image of the public program. If public program components can draw more teachers and students into the activity, they ought to be pursued. If they can do so while providing concrete benefits to our contest programs at the same time, it is imperative that we make the effort. At the college level, involving students from education departments in the planning and execution of public debates and other real-world public advocacy will serve the same purpose. This kind of outreach is likely to be well received, since education research frequently treats debate as an authentic teaching tool (Amoore & Langley, 2001; Elliot, 1993; Keller et al, 2001; Lantis, 2004; & Murphy, 2004). In fact, Mitchells work on simulated public argument (2000) is an incredible piece that people in education course regularly encounter in methods research. If college programs can fashion a solid connection between their contest programs and the education departments at their schools, the number of teachers in secondary schools with that experience will grow. As that happens, the high school communitys efforts to involve teachers in their contest program by drawing them in to help with the public part of the program should also expand. This entire effort should help to bridge the entry gap while easing the burdens on overworked contest coaches and broadening the support and appeal for our total forensics programs at the same time. Among students, access to debate is critical. Moss has examined the incredibly empowering benefits that access to debate brings students who reside in Americas toxic communities (2001). However, even as he celebrates the growing access that the Urban Debate Leagues have begun, he sounds the important cautionary notes that demonstrate the significance of the total forensics program for students. Access is ultimately only part of the question. We must also seriously consider what the activity to which we encourage access will encompass. Moss (2001) writes: All of these attributes that policy debate can engender in its adherents are essential to the success of any who would advocate on behalf of the residents of our toxic communities. In order to take full advantage of the potential offered by policy debate, however, we need to reassess our thinking about what constitutes a successful policy debate program.We must go beyond that strata of students who are likely to be consistent trophy winners and encourage those students to participate who might never win a trophy but who might have the courage to defend an embattled community.Our students should be sponsoring public debates in their communities on issues important to those communities.Students should publish community newsletters and journals to promote community-wide conversations. We must take advantage of public access television and community forumsappear at public hearingsform research collectives to examine the factual underpinnings of proposed or existing public policies. (emphasis added)

Access and its purposes are supported by programs that combine the rigorous training of high intensity contest rounds steeped in research and driven to intense clash by controversial public policy questions with the real impact and public face of serious public advocacy, primary research, and outreach. The public sphere is full of empty and even dangerous information. People untrained to think critically about governments, the media, and social institutions are incapable of resistance or activism. Apathy and detachment are tools of the powerful. We must promote empathy and engagement among our students. We must encourage students to develop their own voices, but we cannot let them shy away from the serious questions of power that lurk in our public policy resolutions. In order to develop serious voices capable of affecting toxic communities, students must learn facility with the language of power. The combined power of public policy contests and public sphere advocacy offers the best approach for empowering students. Graff (2003) concludes: Elaine Maimon makes the point well, Rebels are people who know the landscape and can move easily through it. Those who would keep students ignorant of the academic landscape in the name of helping them find their own rebellious voice do not understand much about guerilla warfare. Then too, as Lisa Delpit argues in Other Peoples Children, minority students are ill
served by attempts to protect them from standard forms of literacy that they desperately need in order to gain a measure of power in our culture (p. 36) The time has come to put away the notion that Mitchell and Coverstone present opposing dreams of debate. Vast agreement exists between the two on issues that are vital to the continued success of debate as an educational activity that enriches democracy and the public sphere. Where minor disagreement remains regarding alterations of contest practice in favor of activism, that disagreement pales in comparison to the dream with which we both agree.

Mitchell has advanced and defended a dream of contest activity that inspires and enriches public advocacy and public dialogue. I have advanced and defended a dream of public activity that enriches and inspires contest programs and coach recruitment. These dreams are two sides of the same coin, and the time has come for all involved to find ways to expand the public agenda of contest debate programs while also preserving and protecting the incredible training and empowerment that experience in contest debate so clearly offers. We need to work together on this important project, and in the words of Bob Dylan, Ill let you be in my dream, if I can be in
yours.

2nc Bigotry / Intolerance Impact

The preservation of equal ground and compliance with democratically agreed upon topic norms is crucial to instill an ethic of tolerance and respect for alterity the idea that the 1AC is more important than giving the other side a chance to talk is the root of bigotry and intolerance Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile)
Values clarification, Stewart is correct in pointing out, does not mean that no values are developed. Two very important values tolerance

and fairnessinhere to a significant degree in the ethics of switch-side debate. A second point about the charge of relativism is that tolerance is related to the development of reasoned moral viewpoints. The willingness to recognize the existence of other views, and to grant alternative positions a degree of credibility, is a value fostered by switch-side debate: Alternately debating both sides of the same question . . . inculcates a deep-seated attitude of tolerance toward differing points of view. To be forced to debate only one side leads to an ego-identification with that side. , . . The other side in contrast is seen only as something to be discredited. Arguing as persuasively as one can for completely opposing
views is one way of giving recognition to the idea that a strong case can generally be made for the views of earnest and intelligent men, however such views may clash with one's own. . . .Promoting this kind of tolerance is perhaps one of the greatest benefits debating both

sides has to offer. 5' The activity should encourage debating both sides of a topic, reasons Thompson, because debaters are "more likely to realize that propositions are bilateral. It is those who fail to recognize this fact who become intolerant, dogmatic, and bigoted.""* While Theodore Roosevelt can hardly be said to be advocating bigotry, his efforts to turn out advocates convinced of
their rightness is not a position imbued with tolerance.

At a societal level, the value of tolerance is more conducive to a fair and open assessment of competing ideas.
John Stuart Mill eloquently states the case this way: Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right. . . . the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race. . . . If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of the truth, produced by its collision with error."*'

At an individual level, tolerance is related to moral identity via empathic and critical assessments of differing perspectives. Paul posits a strong relationship between tolerance, empathy, and critical thought. Discussing the function of argument in everyday life, he observes that in order to overcome natural tendencies to reason egocentrically and sociocentrically, individuals must gain the capacity to engage in self-refiective questioning, to reason dialogically and dialectically, and to "reconstruct alien and opposing belief systems empathically."*- Our system of beliefs is, by definition, irrational when we are
incapable of abandoning a belief for rational reasons; that is, when we egocentrically associate our beliefs with our own integrity. Paul describes an intimate relationship between private inferential habits, moral practices, and the nature of argumentation. Critical thought and moral

identity, he urges, must be predicated on discovering the insights of opposing views and the weaknesses of our own beliefs. Role playing, he reasons, is a central element of any effort to gain such insight. Only an activity that requires the defense of both sides of an issue, moving beyond acknowledgement to exploration and advocacy, can engender such powerful role playing. Redding explains that "debating both sides is a special instance of role-playing,""" where debaters are forced to empathize on a constant basis with a position contrary to their own. This role playing, Baird agrees, is an exercise in reflective thinking, an engagement in problem solving that exposes weaknesses and strengths,** Motivated by the knowledge that they may debate against their own case, debaters constantly pose arguments and counter-arguments for discussion, erecting defenses and then challenging these defenses with a different tact."*' Such conceptual flexibility, Paul argues, is essential for effective critical thinking, and in turn for the development of a reasoned moral identity. A final point about relativism is that switch-side debate encourages fairness and equality of opportunity in evaluating competing values. Initially, it is apparent that a priori fairness is a fundamental aspect of games and gamesmanship."* Players in the game should start out with equal advantage, and the rules should be construed throughout to provide no undue advantage to one side or the other. Both sides, notes Thompson, should have an equal amount
of time and a fair chance to present their arguments. Of critical importance, he insists, is an equality of opportunity."*^

Equality of opportunity is manifest throughout many debate procedures and norms. On the question of topicalitywhether the affirmative plan is an example of the stated topicthe issue of "fair ground" for debate is explicitly developed as a criterion for decision.
Likewise, when a counterplan is offered against an affirmative plan, the issue of coexistence, or of the "competitiveness" of the plans, frequently turns on the fairness of the affirmative team's suggested "permutation" of the plans. In these and other issues, the value of fairness, and of equality of opportunity, is highlighted and clarified through constant disputation.

The point is simply that debate does teach values, and that these values are instrumental in providing a hearing for alternative points of view. Paying explicit attention to decision criteria, and to the division of ground arguments (a function of competition), effectively renders the value structure pluralistic, rather than relativistic.

2nc Violence Impact

Democratically established norms are key to politics the insistence upon the correctness of ones argument in contrast to procedural rules will end in violent revolutionary nightmares Wolin, 04 Distinguished Professor of History at City University of New York (Richard, The Seduction of Unreason, p. 312-313) <The postmodernists, on the other hand, are inconsistent and confused. They bask in the freedoms of political liberalismto whose institutions they are indebted for their brilliant academic careerswhile biting the hand that feeds them. As philosophers of differ-ence, they present themselves as advocates of the politically marginalized. Yet the antiliberal rhetoric thrust of their argu-ments risks undermining the very norms of tolerance that, histori-cally, have provided such groups with the greatest measure of political and legal protection.71 Were the claims of difference to become the norm, as postmodernists recommended, our inherited notions of selfhood and community would likely all but collapse. What kind of world would it be in which all forms of identity, both individual and collective, were anathematized to such an extent? In this and other respects the radical claims of difference risk becom-ing a recipe for epistemological, ethical, and political incoherence. As Michael Walzer observes succinctly, when all is said and done, isnt the postmodern project likely to produce increasingly shallow individuals and a radically diminished cultural life?72 Iden-tities shorn of substantive ethical and cultural attachments would conceivably set a new standard of immateriality. It is unlikely that fragmented selves and Bataille-inspired ecstatic communities could mobilize the requisite social cohesion to resist political evil. Here, too, the hazards and dangers of supplanting the autonomous, moral self with an aesthetic self are readily apparent. In the standard postmodernist demonology, the Enlightenment bears direct historical responsibility for the Gulag and Auschwitz. In the eyes of these convinced misologists, modern totalitarianism is merely the upshot of the universalizing impetus of Enlightenment reason. As Foucault proclaimed, Raison, cest la torture. According to the politics of difference, reason is little more than the ideology-ical window dressing for Eurocentrism and its attendant horrors. By making what is different the same or identical, reason, so the argument goes, is implicitly totalitarian. Conservatives hold postmod-ernists responsible for the latter-day decline of the West, accusing them of promoting relativism by undermining the traditional con-cepts of reason and truth. But they seriously overestimate post-modernisms impact and influence, which hashappilylargely been confined to the isolated and bloodless corridors of academe. Postmodernisms debilities lie elsewhere. In an era in which the values of tolerance have been forcefully challenged by the twin demons of integral nationalism and religious fundamentalism, post-modernisms neoNietzschean embrace of political agon remains at odds with democracys normative core: the ever-delicate balancing act between private and public autonomy, basic democratic liberties and popular sovereignty.73 Postmodernists claim they seek to rem-edy the manifest failings of really existing democracy. Yet, given their metatheoretical aversion to considerations of equity and fair-ness, accepting such de facto assurances at face value seems unwise. Paradoxically, their celebration of heterogeneity and radical differ-ence risks abetting the neotribalist ethos that threatens to turn the post-communist world order into a congeries of warring, fratricidal ethnicities. Differences should be respected. But there are also occa-sions when they need to be bridged. The only reasonable solution to this problem is to ensure that differences are bounded and sub-sumed by universalistic principles of equal liberty. Ironically, then, the liberal doctrine of justice as fairness (Rawls) provides the opti-mal ethical framework by virtue of which cultural differences might be allowed to prosper and flourish. If consensus equals coer-cion and norms are inherency oppressive, it would seem that dreams of political solidarity and common humanity are from the outset nothing more than a lost cause.

Resolved Definitions
Resolved means to enact a policy by law Words and Phrases, 64 (Permanent Edition) Definition of the word resolve, given by Webster is to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as it was resolved by the legislature; It is of similar force to the word enact, which is defined by Bouvier as meaning to establish by law. Next is a counter-interpretation: the resolution posits a question that must be affirmed by the affirmative Parcher, 01 former debate coach at Georgetown (Jeff, Re: Jeff P--Is the resolution a question? eDebate, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html) (1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. Resolved implies a policymaking frameworkalternative interpretations ignore the topic. Heidt, 05 NDT champion and debate coach at Emory (David, 4/8/2005, [eDebate] Re: Zomp and James, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061781.html) Its not a framer's intent argument. Its a context argument. The interpretations of "resolved" that speak to people's ability to personally get off about the topic are stupid (really) b/c they assume "resolved" in the context of a specific agent--ie, "I am resolved to never post on edebate again"--which is different from "Resolved: I should never post on edebate again". The first is a statement of action. The second is a resolution. "Resolved" in the context of a debate topic just means that the community expressed an opinion by voting for a topic. from dictionary.com: 3. A formal resolution made by a deliberative body. Or here's more ev from the Lousiana House: http://house.louisiana.gov/house-glossary.htm Resolution A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, and making decisions where some other form is not required. A bill includes the constitutionally required enacting clause; a resolution uses the term "resolved". Not subject to a time limit for introduction nor to governor's veto. ( Const. Art. III, 17(B) and House Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4) The debate community is obviously not the legislative body this evidence refers to, but I doub't you'll come up with another definition of "resolved" that both applies it to the resolutional context and even comes close to an alternate interpretation. This is clearly the origin of the word.

Now, you can maybe make the argument that context doesn't matter, that we should all make up our own interpretations of what words mean because that's truly liberating, and that you really need to prefer our interpretation b/c its vital to our ability to topically defecate in debate--but any determination that context doesn't matter is also a determination to just ignore the topic altogether. The same reasons to prefer your alternate interpretation of resolved easily justify preferring an alternate, made up interpretation of any other word in the topic. I guess when you say that most no plan teams you've seen are topical, you must really mean that these no plan teams just assert they're germane to the topic b/c at one point they said the word "energy", or maybe just "the", or that they're topical b/c "U.S." means "us" or "resolved" means "ignore everything after the colon". They may have an outrageous interpretation of certain words, but that doesn't make them topical.

Federal Government = 3 Branches of Government in D.C.

The federal government is comprised of the executive, judicial and legislative branches in Washington D.C. WordNet, 03 (2.0, Princeton University, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=us%20government) U.S. government n : the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States [syn: United States government, United States, U.S. government, US Government, U.S.]

ROLE PLAYING 1NC (K aff)

Debate should be an academic exercise where the Affirmative plays the role of the federal government and the Negative negates this plan in any way they choose. This creates a competitive space to imagine new ideas and translate them into practical suggestionsplaying devils advocate challenges the status quo and results in emancipatory change Andrews,06 (Peter, Consulting Faculty Member at the IBM Executive Business Institute in Palisades, New York, Executive Technology Report, August, www-935.ibm.com/services/us/bcs/pdf/g510-6313-etr-unlearnto-innovate.pdf) High stakes innovation requires abandoning conventional wisdom, even actively unlearning things we know are true. As science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said, The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 1 Venturing into the impossible carries many risks: discouragement, failure, loss of reputation and even ridicule. The trials of innovators those who had the courage to be disruptive are the stuff of legends. But their contributions have changed our world. Not everyone aspires to innovations that are high impact. Small but profitable innovations are welcome
and essential contributors to the growth and well-being of corporations and societies. But, even if your goal is modest, a look at unlearning can be of value since taking even a few steps at unlearning can lead to fresh ideas. In an article, William Starbuck of New York University said, learning often cannot occur until after there has been unlearning. Unlearning is a process that shows people they should no longer rely on their current beliefs and methods. But, how do we unlearn? Five steps seem to be essential. We need to: 1) Create space for thinking 2) Play with

ideas 3) Dare to believe that the impossible ideas might be true 4) Adapt the ideas to useful contexts 5) Take action, despite objections
of experts and authorities. Create space for thinking A classic Far Side cartoon shows a student raising his hand, asking to be excused because his brain is full. In these days of information overload, most of us have the same problem. We have been exposed to huge numbers of ideas, often at a rate that makes analysis and selection difficult. How do we put these aside? One technique is to list what we know about a subject. Then

challenge each one. What happens if you exaggerate the statement? What are the drawbacks? Does it become absurd? What does the world look like if the opposite is true? Conventional wisdom at many levels from the humors theory of disease to the inevitability of slavery, to the spoke and hub design of airlines has been successfully challenged. The unthinkable has become thinkable, and then the world has changed. The purpose of questioning is both to clear away clutter and create doubt. Starbuck focuses on this and suggests that we stop thinking of things theories, products and processes as finished. He says we should start from the premises that current beliefs and methods are not good enough or merely experimental. 3 This is an emancipating concept, but there is still work to
do. What can be put into the empty space that was created? This is where popular tricks for generating ideas can be valuable. Play with ideas The classic technique for idea generation is a freewheeling, nonjudgmental brainstorming session. And, bringing in people with different knowledge

and perspectives can help push the limits. To push even further, the process can be made competitive, using Red Team approaches (Red Teams assume the role of the outsider to challenge assumptions, look for unexpected alternatives and find the vulnerabilities of a new idea or approach). This interpretation is good Only our interpretation guarantees that we take positions that we dont agree with to facilitate debate on both sides. This promotes deliberation thats key to prevent extinction Stannard, 06 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series Speech,
April 18, http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberation-democracy-and-debate.html)

The complexity and interdependence of human society, combined with the control of political decisionmaking and political conversation itselfin the hands of fewer and fewer technological "experts," the gradual exhaustion of material resources and the organized circumvention of newer and more innovative resource development, places humanity, and perhaps all life on earth, in a precarious position. Where we need creativity and openness, we find rigid and closed non-solutions. Where we need masses of people to make concerned investments in their future, we find (understandable) alienation and even open hostility to political processes. The
dominant classes manipulate ontology to their advantage: When humanity seeks meaning, the powerful offer up metaphysical hierarchies; when concerned masses come close to exposing the structural roots of systemic oppression, the powerful switch gears and promote localized, relativistic micronarratives that discourage different groups from finding common, perhaps "universal" interests. Apocalyptic scenarios are

themselves rhetorical tools, but that doesnt mean they are bereft of material justification. The "flash-boom" of apocalyptic rhetoric isnt out of the question, but it is also no less threatening merely as a metaphor for the slow death of humanity (and all living beings) through environmental degradation, the irradiation of the planet, or the descent into political and ethical barbarism. Indeed, these slow, deliberate scenarios ring more true than the flashpoint of quick Armageddon, but in the end the "fire or ice" question is moot, because the answers to those looming threats are still the same: The complexities of threats to our collective well-being require unifying perspectives based on diverse viewpoints, in the same way that the survival of ecosystems is dependent upon biological diversity. In Habermass language, we must fight the colonization of the lifeworld in order to survive at all, let alone to survive in a life with

meaning. While certainly not the only way, the willingness to facilitate organized democratic deliberation, including encouraging participants to articulate views with which they may personally disagree, is one way to resist this colonization. Second, policy relevanceRole playing is the best way to promote critical policy analysis and well-informed students SCHAAP 2005 (Andrew, University of Melbourne, Politics, Vol 25 Iss 1, February) Learning political theory is largely about acquiring a vocabulary that enables one to reflect more critically and precisely about the terms on which human beings (do and should) co-operate for and compete over public goods, symbolic and material. As such, political theory is necessarily abstract and general. But, competency in political theory requires an ability to move from the general to the particular and back again, not simply by applying general principles to particular events and experiences but by reflecting on and rearticulating concepts in the light of the particular. Role play is an effective technique for teaching political theory because it requires that students employ political concepts in a particular context so that learning takes place as students try out new vocabularies together with their peers and a lifelong learner in the subject: their teacher. It turns the Afffailure to play Devils advocate undermines persuasion and theres no offense because it doesnt cause role confusion LUCKHARDT and BECHTEL 1994 (C. Grant and William, How to do Things with Logic, p 179)
This diagram indicates that first the arguers present their argument(s) for the conclusion in which they believe, here represented as A. Then the arguers formulate the best argument(s) possible for the exact opposite conclusion. If they argue in the first demonstration that, say, the best diagnosis for a patient is cholera, then as a second argumentative step the arguers will present the case for the best diagnosis not being cholera. As a third step, this strategy requires that the arguers then critique this second demonstration as well as possible. If that critique is successful, then the original demonstration stands, and the conclusion that follows is the original one, A. Why, you might wonder, would anyone ever want to engage

in what may appear to be logical gymnastics? The answer is that this strategy is useful in two ways. As a method for discovering the truth of a matter, it is often extremely helpful in warding off the intellectual malady called tunnel vision. This is the tendency we all have to stick to our first view of a matter, failing to recognize contrary evidence as it comes in, and thus failing to revise our view to be consistent with it. In extreme cases of tunnel vision contrary evidence to ones original view may even be noticed but be treated as confirming the original view. Requiring medical students who believe the patient has cholera to present the best case against this diagnosis will often cause them to rethink the case they had originally made. The conclusion in the end may still be the same as the original diagnosischolerabut now it will be a conclusion that has taken other options seriously. The devils advocate strategy has much to recommend in terms of its persuasiveness. Having demonstrated to your audience that you are aware of a case to be made against A, but that that case must fail, you will be perceived as having been extremely open-minded in your considerations. And you will have been open-minded, provided that you do not hedge in your demonstration of A. You are not being a true devils advocate if your demonstration of A is so weak that it is easily criticized in the third step. It is very tempting to hedge your demonstration of A in this way, but also dangerous, for it invites your audience to point out that there is a better case against A than the one you have presented.

ROLE PLAYING GOOD/A2: COOPTION

Arguing against the government perspective is criticalits key to refining our positions and building bridges with insiders GITLIN 2003 (Todd, Professor of Journalism and Sociology at Colombia and Former President of Students for a Democratic Society, Letters to a Young Activist, 96) Insider and outsider impulses sometimes coexist and war in the same breast. Some outsiders are former insidersDaniel
Ellsberg, for example, the career Pentagon official who, in 1971, released the Pentagon Papers on Vietnam to the Washington Post and New York Times, risking a long jail sentence and reprisals by President Nixons operatives. Ellsberg proceeded to cross the line, devoting himself for decades to civil disobedience against American nuclear policy. Outsiders may in turn become insiders. Tom Hayden, for example, principle author of SDSs Port Huron Statement, sought and held state office in California and became a powerful voice in education and environmental policy there for a quarter of a centurymuch longer than he spent as a student and community organizer and planner of demonstrations. Dont accuse ex-

outsiders of selling out, a charge that is not only smug, drenched as it is in moral superiority, but self-defeating, since it forswears influence and regresses to the Manichaean presumption that all will be better when all your outsiders displace all the other sides insidersa dubious proposition trailing Leninist fumesor when no more insiders exist (a hallucination). Rather than hallucinate or plot coups, it behooves outsiders to contact insiders, argue with them, learn something from them, challenge them and resist the all-or-nothing temptation to demonize them. Equally it behooves insiders to listen to outsiders, not just to cool them out. Any real reformer greets you and your friends as useful allies.

ROLE PLAYING GOOD EDUCATION

Role playing overcomes polarization and teaches students political jargon necessary to form critical opinions SCHAAP 2005 (Andrew, University of Melbourne, Politics, Vol 25 Iss 1, February) While every subject has its jargon, the object of study in political theory is the jargon itself. Perhaps because of its abstract nature, political theory often polarises politics students: it either alienates or inspires them. Role playing offers one valuable technique to overcome this divide by demonstrating in practice why we cannot do without theories of politics. By participating in this role play, students experienced at first hand how arguments made from within five traditions of political philosophy come into conflict in relation to the issue of human rights. Even self-avowed pragmatists have their own theories only they are implicitly assumed rather than explicitly articulated. In role playing the pragmatists' selfdeception is exposed: they are forced to declare their (imagined) hands and hold their (assigned) theories open to scrutiny. Once drawn into the game, in this way, they are on their way to becoming political theorists. Role playing is the most effective means of understanding conflicting roles of government actors GONZALES 08 (Angelo, Ph.D. Candidate, Travers Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley, Teaching American Political Institutions Using Role Playing Simulations, Feb 22, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/5/6/3/pages245631/p245631-1.php)
The observation that organizational actors can play multiple roles in political institutions is important from a pedagogical standpoint, because these roles provide the basis upon which teachers can design effective role-playing simulations. First, roles provide the essential structure for simulations, in conjunction with ones learning objectives. If ones goal is to teach students about the importance of parties in Congress, then ones simulation should include important roles for party leaders. To that end, a House floor debate or a Rules Committee deliberation might make the most sense, but a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing on western water might not be as effective. Second, with adequate preparation time,

roles help ensure that students are not just acting on their personal beliefs and preconceptions. In preparing for a role, students are forced to look at the individual whose part they are playing from different perspectives, considering the ways in which their multiple positions within the organization might conflict with each other. And even in situations where students havent prepared well, there are numerous opportunities in interacting with other simulation actors for students to learn about the ways in which multiple roles can come into play in a particular institution. Finally, roles can liberate shy students to take a more active role in simulations than they might otherwise do in more traditional class settings. Ill never forget one particularly shy student who came out of her shell
when asked to play a lawyer in a Supreme Court simulation I designed. Something about the act of playing a particular role helped her shed her fears of speaking in class, and from that day forward, she no longer had any qualms about participating actively in discussions. In sum, when designed properly,

role-playing simulations can be an effective pedagogical technique for teaching students about the dynamic interaction between political actors and the internal rules and processes of political institutions. The roleplaying aspect forces students to get into the heads of political actors and to consider why these actors make the decisions they do, given the structure of institutional incentives and constraints in which they operate. The simulation aspect forces students to engage in an actual decision-making process and to consider why the process works or fails to work as it does. Short of actually working in a political institution, role-playing simulations provide the best means by which students can learn about the complex inner workings of these organizations that are so central to the American political system. Role playing is critical to understand how government works and how it failstraditional education is less effective

GONZALES 2008 (Angelo, Ph.D. Candidate, Travers Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley, Teaching American
Political Institutions Using Role Playing Simulations, Feb 22, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/5/6/3/pages245631/p245631-1.php) Political institutions are central to many courses on American politics and government. From the institutions

of government represented by legislatures, executive agencies, and courts at all levels to the intermediary institutions that structure citizens interactions with their government (e.g., parties and interest groups), a thorough knowledge of political institutions is necessary to truly grasp the inner workings of the American political system. Unfortunately, it can be difficult for students to learn about the dynamic nature of these institutions from the pages of a textbook. For
example, it is important to know the textbook description of Congress as a bicameral institution, with representatives elected every two years and senators every six years, but such information does little to explain how these constitutional differences between the House and Senate can create incentives for members to act in different ways. Congress is a complex institution with numerous rules governing the consideration of business and multiple incentives structuring the behavior of members. The best way to truly understand the effects of these rules and incentives, I argue,

is to get inside the heads of the members themselves, and the most effective way to do so pedagogically is through the use of role-playing simulations. Congress is not the only political institution with interesting internal dynamics that can be
taught using simulations. Political parties are continually struggling to manage the diverse interests of their internal coalitions, while staking out policy positions that will give them an electoral advantage in the next election. Interest groups comprise nearly every conceivable interest, exhibit widely varying degrees of political sophistication, and interact with many different aspects of the political system (e.g., lobbying bureaucratic agencies during

the rule-making process, testifying before committees, lobbying individual members of Congress, and engaging in electioneering to influence the results of elections). The bureaucracy and the courts, though underappreciated, are essential actors in the policy process from start to finish. The Executive Office of the President walks a fine line between serving the individual interests of the President and respecting the statutory mandates of Congress. And the President (and most governors) wear several institutional hats that are often in conflict with one another (e.g., head of state, party leader, and chief policy maker). Understanding the ways in which these institutions manage all of their internal conflicts is critical

for understanding why the American political system works (or fails to work) as it does. In this paper, I argue that role-playing simulations are an essential technique in any professor's repertoire for teaching American political institutions. I also discuss two case studies from my own teaching experience: (1) a congressional committee hearing designed to simulate the role of
interest groups in the policy process, and (2) a Senate floor debate designed to simulate the interplay between Senate rules and the major interests that structure senators behaviors (i.e., committees, parties, and re-election). In both of these exercises, I argue that students came away with a better understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of each institution than had they simply been asked to memorize the textbook. Finally, I present results from a brief survey my former students to solicit their thoughts about the effectiveness of these simulations.

Switch side policy debates are good for critical thinking and education KELLER, WHITTAKER, AND BURKE, 2001 [Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service
Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, "Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning," Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost] The purposes of this article were to examine the potential of student debates for fostering the development of policy practice knowledge and skills, to demonstrate that debates can be effectively incorporated as an in-class assignment in a policy course, and to report findings on the educational value and level of student satisfaction with debates. Based on a review of the literature, the authors' experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those debates, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive

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

ROLE PLAYING GOOD EXCLUSION

Role-playing solves exclusionits ideal for people with limited knowledge of the subject SCHAAP 2005 (Andrew, University of Melbourne, Politics, Vol 25 Iss 1, February) #2 Concern and respect for students and student learning: Using the role play encouraged students to express ideas in terms of the concepts associated with the particular ideology they were asked to engage with. A particular advantage of the role play was that it enabled students to learn from each other; students with different levels of competence in political theory benefited from the questions and explanations that they gave to each other. Moreover, the teacher
naturally assumes a generous disposition in this situation as students ask for advice, help, clarification, etc. throughout the session. # 3 Appropriate assessment and feedback: The role play provided immediate opportunities to provide students with feedback on their ideas. Like Levy, I tended not to correct misinformation. However, I did reward students by pointing out when a particularly good point was being made. I also recorded the meeting so that students could listen to the discussion later and I posted the various draft declarations of human rights on the subject website. # 4 Clear goals and intellectual challenge: When devising the role play I was forced to articulate the learning outcomes I hoped to achieve more clearly than I had done when preparing regular lectures. This may have been related to the high-risk nature of this teaching method and my worry that students would not take it seriously if they could not see the point of it. A particular advantage of this teaching method is that it posed an intellectual

challenge to students, regardless of their level of competence in the subject.

Failure to engage the opposite side creates an echo chamber that cuts off any possibility for change GITLIN 2003 (Todd, Professor of Journalism and Sociology at Colombia and Former President of Students for a Democratic Society, Letters to a Young Activist, 120-121) Green rectitude is one case of a larger pitfall: self-enclosure. When you belong to a small minorityas I did in the sixtieson the one hand, its a comfort to share your life with fellow believers: to read the same articles, get the same references, wince at the same insults, pass around the same jokes. Very much on the other hand, disbelievers are a drag. Why bother talking to them when theres so much they dont get? When you live in an echo chamber where your cheers boom and cheerleading substitutes for thought, you enclose yourself in a sect, though you may call it a movement. The world of the saved substitutes for the world as it is, full of the unsaved. So I appeal to you: Persevere, but dont bury yourself in an army of the right-minded. Beware the perilous rapture of shrinking your world to the tribe of the saved, the cheerleading good guys who brandish the same slogans, curse the same enemies, thrill to the same saints, whether their names are Che, Fidel, Ho, Malcolm, Huey, Noam, whomever. Switch-side debate is critical to make real changearguments will only be accepted if we engage their opposites and prove them wrong GITLIN 2003 (Todd, Professor of Journalism and Sociology at Colombia and Former President of Students for a Democratic Society, Letters to a Young Activist, 159-160) Whoever exacted vengeance for that young womans audacity was stomping on democratic ideals, failing to understand that questioning is precisely what authority needs. Only in an autocracy is doubt a breach of decorum. The ruler is absolute and infallibleend of discussion. In a democracy, however, authority needs to be convincing. It cannot be convincing, cannot care for the public good, unless pressed to defend itself. This is what John Stuart Mill meant in On Liberty when he wrote that even if one and only one person dissented, the dissent should be heard, for two reasons. First, the dissenter might always be right. Second, the authority of the majority opinioneven if close to unanimousis heightened by having to confront its contraries. In the light of free competition, arguments only improve. So the expression of rival views is necessary for practical as well as principled reasons. We should play Devils advocatefailure to present an alternative, worst-case look at their ideas only silences dissent, makes them hard to implement, and allows flaws to slip through Chandra 08 (Sarvajeet, Managing Partner in Master Sun Consulting, MBA in Marketing Communications from MICA, Ahmedabad. He is a mechanical engineer from MS University, Role of Strategy Execution Team Be a Devil's Advocate, Bad News Messenger, Dec 17, http://ezinearticles.com/?Role-of-Strategy-ExecutionTeam---Be-a-Devils-Advocate,-Bad-News-Messenger&id=1797944) Become a Devil's Advocate to a Specific Strategy and look at the What Will Go Wrong We are all over-confident and over-optimistic beings. While that has spurred us on as a civilization, this over-confidence gets translated into strategic choices or strategic plans that we make. Most of us tend to believe in the veracity of our ideas, tenacity of our plans and our destiny
to win (regardless of market condition and competitive activity) It is the job of the execution team therefore to assume the role of a Devil's advocate. It is the job of the execution team to do so, since they have to drive the execution. They have to question the unrealistically precise estimates of time, resources and targets. They have to imagine a worst case scenario (most strategists do not come up with very gloomy worst case

SWITCH SIDE DEBATE GOOD CHANGE

Someone has to be given the role of challenging the false consensus or group-think that may have cause the dissenters to stay quiet. The execution team has to confront and ensure that worst case scenarios is put on the table. This will help the strategy become more 'implementable', give the strategic plan more flexibility and force the strategists to become more realistic. However for this to happen the management must encourage the culture of challenge and
scenarios). recognize the role of the strategy execution team as a ' Devil's Advocate'

Switch Side Debate Good Checks Dogmatism

Switch side debate helps checks dogmatism and empowers students to form their own moral identity Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) Yes, there may be a dangerous sense of competitive pride that comes with successfully advocating a position against one's own views, and there are ex-debaters who excuse their deceptive practices by saying "I'm just doing my job." Ultimately, however, sound convictions are distinguishable from emphatic convictions by a consideration of all sides of a moral stance. Moral education is not a guaranteed formula for rectitude, but the central tendencies of switch-side debate are in line with convictions built on empathic appreciation for alternative points of view and a reasoned assessment of arguments both pro and con. Tolerance, as an alternative to dogmatism, is preferable, not because it invites a relativistic view of the world, but because in a framework of equal access to ideas and equal opportunities for expression, the truth that emerges is more defensible and more justifiable. Morality, an emerging focal point of controversy in late twentieth-century American culture, is fostered rather than hampered by empowering students to form their own moral identity. Switch side debate increases education and checks dogmatism- turns their impact Galloway 7 (Ryan Galloway, Samford Debate Coach, Professor of Communication Studies at Samford, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate,
Vol. 28, 2007, LEQ)

Willingness to argue against what one beliefs helps the advocate understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own position. It opens the potential for a new synthesis of material that is superior to the first (Dybvig & Iverson, 2000). Serving as a devils advocate encourages an appreciation for middle ground and nuance (Dell, 1958). Failure to see both sides can lead to high levels of ego involvement and dogmatism (Hicks & Greene, 2000). Survey data confirms these conclusions. Star Muir found that debaters become more tolerant after learning to debate both sides of an issue (Muir, 1993).

Switch Side Debate Good Dismantles Us vs. Them Dichotomies

Switch-side debate allows us to understand unfamiliar positions and is key to dismantle absolutist us versus them dichotomies Mitchell, et al., 07 Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the William Pitt Debating Union at the University of Pittsburgh (Gordon R., Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief & Carly Woods, Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction June 2007, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 221 225, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf)
Within this context, the

Speech Association of America (precursor to todays National Communication Association) invited thousands of college students to debate the relative merits of an American diplomatic recognition of the Peoples Republic of China in 1954. Anxiety spread about the ability of students to engage the topic safely; every team would be asked to defend both sides of this resolution, a common tournament procedure known as switch-sides debate. Some argued that the practice would indoctrinate Americas youth, while giving aid and comfort to the enemy. For even a small segment of American college students to rise at this time to the defense of this Communist Government would be sweet
music to the ears of Moscow and Peiping, wrote debate instructor Charles R. Koch, as he pulled his own team from competition in protest.1 Given the switch-side norm of academic debate and the highly controversial nature of the resolution, the US Military Academy, the US Naval Academy and, subsequently, all of the teacher colleges in the state of Nebraska refused to affirm the resolution.2 A predominant military concern was that, a pro-recognition stand by men wearing the countrys uniforms would lead to misunderstanding on the part of our friends abroad and to distortion by our enemies.3 Karl Wallace, then president of the scholarly organization that now sponsors this journal, was pressured heavily to change the China topic.4 His firm and principled resistance is documented in an official statement emphasizing that inherent in the controversy over the 1954 debate resolution is an alarming distrust of the processes essential to a free society.5 The fierce controversy even drew in journalist Edward R. Murrow, who backed Wallaces position in an edition of the See it Now television program seen by millions. Some complained that discussions of this topic were channeled to bring out criticism of McCarthy himself.6 The timing of the red-baiting senators political implosion, which followed shortly after the Wallace and Murrow statements, suggests that the great 1954 debate about debate indeed may have helped rein in McCarthyism run amok. But this outcome seems paradoxical. How can an activity that gives voice to extreme views moderate extremism? Speech professor Jeffrey Auers 1954 statement may hold the key: A

person, because he supports the recognition of Communist China, isnt a communist, any more than because he supports the recognition of Communist China, he is a Chinaman.7 Just as walking a mile in unfamiliar shoes lends perspective, switch-side debating increases appreciation of contrary opinions as the debater tries on an unfamiliar idea rather than relying on simplification, reduction, or rejection. In fact, debating both sides encourages participants to dismantle absolutist us versus them dichotomies. This may explain why those invested in the stability of such polar categories find debate so threatening. The shadow of 1954 suggests that academic debating in a post-9/11 political environment could be hazardous. The New
York City high school debaters described above certainly had cause for alarm. But police confiscation of their speaking briefs was more accident than trend. A closer look at contemporary academic debate reveals features that make it seem markedly less subversive than its 1954 version.

Switch Side Debate Good Doesnt Cause Relativism

Switch-side debate doesn't encourage relativism it fosters tolerance without committing students to active moral irresponsibility Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) A final indictment of values clarification education is that it encourages relativism, Stewart, for example, sees value clarification as individualistic, personal, and situational.^' He also characterizes values clarification as possessing a hidden set of values (an "absolute relativism") that includes purposefulness, strong beliefs, and thoughtfulness, among others. This "hidden curriculum" of values clarification formulates responses to situations while decrying such pre-judgment. In obvious ways, switch-side debate illustrates the same dilemma: No one value is seen as correct and unassailable, yet certain values get placed above others as a matter of procedure. Both features need to be explicitly addressed since both reflect directly on debate as a tool of moral pedagogy. The first response to the charge of relativism is that switch-side debate respects the existence of divergent beliefs, but focuses attention on assessing the validity of opposing belief systems. Scriven argues that the "confusion of pluralism, of the proper tolerance for diversity of ideas, with relativismthe doctrine that there are no right and wrong answers in ethics or religionis perhaps the most serious ideological barrier to the implementation of moral education today. "^ The process of ethical inquiry is central to such moral education, but the allowance of just any position is not. Here is where cognitive-development diverges from the formal aims of values clarification. Where clarification ostensibly allows any value position, cognitive-development progresses from individualism to social conformity to social contract theory to universal ethical principles. A pluralistic pedagogy does not imply that all views are acceptable: It is morally and pedagogically correct to teach about ethics, and the skills of moral analysis rather than doctrine, and to set out the arguments for and against tolerance and pluralism. All of this is undone if you also imply that all the various incompatible views about abortion or pornography or war are equally right, or likely to be right, or deserving of respect. Pluralism requires respecting the right to hold divergent beliefs; it implies neither tolerance of actions based on those beliefs nor respecting the content of the beliefs.^^ The role of switch-side debate is especially important in the oral defense of arguments that foster tolerance without accruing the moral complications of acting on such beliefs. The forum is therefore unique in providing debaters with attitudes of tolerance without committing them to active moral irresponsibility. As Freeley notes, debaters are indeed exposed to a multivalued world, both within and between the sides of a given topic. Yet this exposure hardly commits them to such "mistaken" values. In this view, the divorce of the game from the "real world" can be seen as a means of gaining perspective without obligating students to validate their hypothetical value structure through immoral actions.

Switch Side Debate Good Enables Activism & Improves Research

Debate's emphasis on research provides effective preparation for pro-social activism Coverstone, 05 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan H., Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact, Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05) Purely Preparatory Pedagogy? Many have argued the value of an academic oasis in which to learn the skills of public participation (Coverstone, 1995; Farrand, 2000; Mitchell & Suzuki, 2004). Involvement in contest debates, especially those whose winners rely heavily on up to the minute research and daily involvement in the political and academic discourse of the day, without question offers a level of preparation for pro-social activism seldom surpassed in any educational institution today. Mitchell agrees that the skills developed in contest debates are incredibly useful as skills applied in public discourse (Mitchell, 2004, p. 10), and political news, advocacy groups, legal proceedings, academic institutions, and corporate boardrooms are littered with key figures who honed their skills in the crucible of high-level contest debating. Switch-side policy debate enables activism it is critical to foster maximum research skills, word economy and prioritization of arguments Brad Hall, 08 Masters in Communication Studies from Wake Forest and Special Projects Manager with the Offices of Al and Tipper Gore ([eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair, 7-11-2008, www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-July/075330.html, JMP) As someone who has (at least temporarily) left debate to do public policy-related research, I think Andy overlooks the benefits of the *process* of policy debate and its connection to his call for "political agency in the real world." Ross and others have made this point many times, but it is worth briefly reiterating: switch sides public policy debate enables activism by teaching a research and decision making process that is applicable outside of the insulated debate community. While debates do not directly change public policy (after all, Mohammed Ali Hammadi still roams the streets of Beirut), the skills of debate teach debaters how to help with "activist" causes once they leave debate. For example, policy debaters are taught the skills of researching a topic both quickly (finding one or two politics cards in 3 minutes) and in depth (consider that hundreds of high school debaters around the country are currently attempting to exhaust the debate over global warming and alternative energy). Debaters learn a number of other useful skills, from word economy to prioritization of the best arguments. But most importantly, the process of reflecting on this research and considering both sides of a public policy issue teaches the participants of debate a decision making process that is applicable to the rest of their life. Many, many traditional policy debaters have taken these skills and translated them into work at think tanks, law firms, universities, corporations, journalism, and other sectors. NDT Champion Larry Tribe has produced groundbreaking societal change through the law just to cite one example. Glenn Greenwald is one of the most popular progressive bloggers whose research acumen is obvious. Real change has been produced by these individuals (and many others), and it continues to be. The real question should be: how do alternative models of debate promote any of these skills/process, or if they don't (since they often base their existence on a criticism of these aspects of policy debate), what do they offer to activism outside of debate? It is somewhat noble to claim that the structures of debate are changed by alternative models (though this is often not the case), but unless you expect the actual channels of power like Congress to be similarly changed, what impact does non-traditional non-policy debate have on the "real world"? To return to the thrust of Andy's original post, there are few activities I would rather see public money be spent on than training high school and college students in traditional, switch sides policy debate.

Switch Side Debate Good Expands Critical Thinking

Switch-side policy debate empirically expands critical thinking skills empirically causes students to reshape their opinions on important issues Keller, et. al, 01 Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost)
Educational Effectiveness of Debates

academic debate has been recognized as one of the best methods of learning and applying the attributes of critical thinking (Freeley, 1996). Recent empirical studies of students participating in competitive interschool forensics societies illustrate the link between debating and proficiency in critical thinking. Colbert (1987) found that students involved in intercollegiate debating for one year showed a larger pretest to posttest gain on a critical thinking test than a nondebating control group. Likewise, Shinn (1995) discovered that, after statistically controlling for intelligence, high school students who engaged in two years of competitive debating exhibited higher levels of critical thinking than a comparison group of nondebaters.
Since its origins in classical times, Debates have been recommended as a strategy to engage students in active learning in the classroom (Bean, 1996; Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Schroeder & Ebert, 1983). The use of in-class debates has been reported in subjects as diverse as sociology and dentistry (Huryn, 1986; Scannapieco, 1997). Nevertheless, a search of the literature revealed no reference to student debates within social work education, despite evidence that debates have been assigned in some social work courses (Zlotnik, Rome,& DePanfilis, 1998). Furthermore, the authors discovered only Bourne (1989,1994), which

two studies, both by Combs and provide empirical evidence of the value of debates in a classroom context. In their initial report, Combs and Bourne (1989) presented findings on the use of debates in two upper level business courses with a combined enrollment of 59 students. Nearly 80% of the students (n=47) believed the debates provided them with a better understanding of both sides of the issues than a standard lecture format would have. Likewise, 66% (n=39) felt they had learned more than if the course material had been presented in a lecture. Another important finding was that students' confidence in
their public speaking skills increased following the debates. In general, there was satisfaction with the debates. At the beginning of the course only 57% of the students (n=35) looked forward to the upcoming debates, but by the end of the course 85% (n=50) stated that they enjoyed the debates, and 71% (n=42) wished debates were used in other courses. Combs and Bourne (1994) extended their initial study to cover a five-year period with a combined sample of over 500 students. The results were even stronger in favor of using debates, perhaps reflecting improvement in the instructors' application of the debate format over time. Incorporating Debates into a Policy Course

A practical example of how structured debates can be employed in a social work course is drawn from the authors' recent experience in "Child and Family Policy and Services," a required course for second year MSW students in the Children, Youth and
Families concentration at the University of Washington. Taught in the autumn of 1997, the course had an enrollment of 44 students and met weekly for three hours during a 10-week quarter.

The course focused on the children and families to whom social work has made an enduring commitment-those receiving publicly funded services. Content included the analysis of historical trends in service provision modalities, major child welfare reform movements, the social values expressed through policy, and the implications of policy for social work practice. Topical sessions addressed a representative sample of services from across the child welfare continuum (e.g., in-home
services, foster family care, group care) as well as a section on child poverty. Each session attempted to illustrate the interplay of policy, practice, and empirical research in a specific service context. A full outline is available from the second author, the primary instructor for the course. With the extremely tight schedule of the quarter system, it was crucial to lay the groundwork for the debates as soon as possible. Early in the first session

students were exposed to policy dilemmas that would recur throughout the course. In a small group exercise, students discussed conflicting perspectives on a particular issue. These included: child protection versus family preservation, providing universal services versus providing categorical services, and allocating resources for prevention versus allocating them for treatment. This

exercise was followed by a review of the syllabus and the introduction of structured debates as a major assignment for the course. In the introduction of the debate assignment the sense of competitiveness inherent in debates was downplayed. Students were cautioned against identifying individuals with the positions they took for the sake of the exercise. In addition, it was emphasized that there would be no formal judging or voting to determine which teams had "won" their debates. The introduction also covered the following information regarding the debates: Students had already been sorted alphabetically into 4 teams of 11 students each. Each team would participate in two of the four debates to be held during the quarter. Each student was expected to play a primary role in one debate for his or her team. Teams would have in-class time during class sessions two through four to prepare for the debates, and the debates would take place during class sessions five through eight. Debate topics would be selected by the class from the text Controversial Issues in Child Welfare (Gambrill & Stein, 1994). This book features 20 debates between experts in the field of child welfare. The debates would be conducted according to the following format: Pro position 5 minutes Rebuttal 3 minutes Con position 5 minutes Rebuttal 3 minutes teams question each other 5 minutes/team Open questions (audience) 10 minutes Closing statements 3 minutes/team The remainder of the first session was devoted to selecting debate topics. The instructors briefly described the salient points for each debate in the Gambrill and Stein text. Each student was allowed to vote for two choices. The four topics selected were: Should interracial adoption be permitted? Are intensive family preservation services effective? Is poverty a key contributor to child maltreatment? Should foster parents be given first preference in adoption of their foster children? During the second class session, each team discussed the four topics and indicated which it preferred to debate. Each team was able to have its favored topic for one debate. Teams also had been assigned second or third priority topics for their second debate. Pro and con positions were determined by a coin toss, with the requirement that each team had a pro and a con. Teams quickly divided into smaller groups of five or six students to concentrate on one topic or the other. Prior to the first debate, teams had class time to share information, to develop strategies, to apportion tasks and responsibilities, and to practice their presentations. Instructors used this time to offer suggestions and provide citations to relevant literature. Students were encouraged to also meet and work outside of class. Most teams divided the labor by designating one person to present the leading position, one to do the rebuttal, one to ask questions of the other team, one to respond to questions, and so forth. The actual debates were lively and informative. Audience enthusiasm was reflected by eager and incisive questioning during the open question period. The debaters were held to the structured format. Time was monitored closely with a stopwatch. After each debate, a debriefing session enabled each participant in the debate to reflect on the experience and add any additional comments or suggestions. In

Sometimes students admitted that they personally sided with the opposing team's position. Others stated that they had originally favored the other team's position but had reconsidered their opinions after investigating and arguing the alternative. Several
some cases, this opportunity generated further debate-like exchanges between team members or between the audience and team members.

expressed frustration that the debates polarized an issue when there actually was a fair measure of agreement between the two teams. These students wanted to take the next step toward resolving the issue and finding a workable consensus. Another frequent frustration was the fact that each side could find research to support its position. In other words, research alone was not providing a clear and

convincing direction for addressing these particular issues. In the debriefing sessions students also commented on what it was like to be in the debates. These comments were generally positive, except for those noting the common anxieties associated with public speaking.

Switch-side debate helps people throughout life by instilling a pattern of critical assessment Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) A third point about isolation from the real world is that switchside debate develops habits of the mind and instills a lifelong pattern of critical assessment. Students who have debated both sides of a topic are better voters, Dell writes, because of "their habit of analyzing both sides before forming a conclusion."^^ O'Neill, Laycock and Scales, responding in part to Roosevelt's indictment, iterated the basic position in 1931: Skill in the use of facts and inferences available may be gained on either side of a question without regard to convictions. Instruction and practice in debate should give young men this skill. And where these matters are properly handled, stress is not laid on getting the speaker to think rightly in regard to the merits of either side of these questionsbut to think accurately on both sides.^^

Switch Side Debate Good Facilitates Reflective Thinking & Sound Conviction
Switch side debate doesn't encourage intellectual dishonesty it is key to facilitate reflective thinking, problem-solving and sound conviction Baird, 55 Professor of Speech at the University of Iowa (C. A., The college debater and the red china issue, Central States Speech Journal, 6(2), 5-7)
Why this national, if momentary, furor? Why did teachers colleges of Nebraska timidly withdraw from the student program? We know of course that the policy of Red China was allegedly already settled (as if any issue of the times has been categorically settled). But behind these considerations were at least two basic objections: (1) Debating both sides of an issue tends to encourage intellectual and moral dishonesty; (2) debating both sides is bad propaganda. The speaker might be slanted toward the wrong sidewhatever that wrong S1de might be. Both of these charges are ancient ones. They are interest-lngly treated in the dialogues of Plato and in the works of his successors on up through Harry Overstreet, author of the Mature Mind. I shall attempt briefly to deal with these two indictments. First, does debating two sides of an issue encourage intellectual dishonesty? This charge assumes that students are

encouraged or required to debate the side of a proposition contrary to the arguer's real beliefs. As Theodore Roosevelt, in his
Autobiography, said: "Personally I have not the slightest sympathy with debating contests in which each side is arbitrarily assigned a given proposition and told to maintain it without the least reference to whether those maintaining it believe it or not . . . what we need is to turn out of our colleges young men with ardent convictions on the side of the right." Debaters, by thus developing an argument on a side in which they do not believe, are thus by implication hypocritical and sophistical. May I briefly summarize my reply in a series of propositions. My first proposition: Sound conviction depends upon a thorough

understanding of the controversial problem under consideration. The assumption here is that mature conviction should be more than an emotional attitude based largely on bias and prejudice. My second proposition: This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issues and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence. This proposition means definition and logical treatment rather than the emotional examination. My third proposition: This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done by the careful testing of each argument pro and con. This proposition calls for a method of refutation and rebuttal. My conclusion from this chain of reasoning: The learner's sound conviction, therefore, covering controversial questions, depends partly upon his experience of defending and/or rejecting tentative affirmative and legislative positions. These steps of the syllogistic pat-ern are, I hope, somewhat reflective of sound educational procedure. First is the insight into the subject under dispute. Second is the formation of goals related to the solution of the problem. Third is the examination of the various solutions, in both their theoretical and their practical aspects. Finally is the testing or evaluation of our thinking and expression. This testing process is that of exposing falacies and the give-and-take of rebut-al. Thus our reply to the critics of school and college debate is to invite them to examine these debates as educational procedures. These student performances are learning exercises. They are to be sharply distinguished from the later "practical life" situations in which you are preachers, lawyers, business men and women, politicians, or community leaders. Debate and discussion training is essentially training in reflective thinking, in the defense of different sides ("role playing" as some call it), and in the revelation of the strength and weakness of each position. In essence we are practicing techniques of problem-solving.
These methods in detail may be heavily criticized. They are experimental and are in detail often modified as colleges meet year after year. But we invite the critics to suggest improved methods of conducting these learning situations. Only one or two provisos we insist upon: that controversial propositions be retained implying some truth on both sides, and that no one of the two representative sides be neglected in the ensuing arguments. In this debating pattern full care should be taken, I agree, to encourage genuine expression of your independent opinion. At this point lies the

core of our reply to those critics who would end this two-sided debating and all its works. We are as much concerned as was Roosevelt in developing genuine conviction. The cornerstone of our instruction is that every debater is a responsible person and that his obligation is to represent and defend the highest moral standards. Sound conviction, we believe, should stem from mature reflection. Discussion and debate facilitate the maturing of such reflective thinking and conviction.

Switch Side Debate Good Highest Ethical Act

Switch side debating is the highest ethical act because it subordinates personal convictions to the importance of the decision-making process Day, 66 Professor of Speech at University of Wisconsin-Madison (Dennis, Central States Speech Journal, February, page 7)
All must recognize and accept personal responsibility to present, when necessary, as forcefully as possible, opinions and arguments with which they may personally disagree To present persuasively the arguments for a position with which one disagrees is, perhaps, the

greatest need and the highest ethical act in democratic debate. It is the greatest need because most minority views, if expressed at
all, are not expressed forcefully and persuasively. Bryce, in his perceptive analysis of America and Americans, saw two dangers to democratic government: the danger of not ascertaining accurately the will of the majority and the danger that minorities might not effectively express themselves. In regard to the second danger, which he considered the greater of the two, he suggested: The duty, therefore, of a patriotic statesman in a country where public opinion rules, would seem to be rather to resist and correct than to encourage the dominant sentiment. He will not be content with trying to form and mould and lead it, but he will confront it, lecture it, remind it that it is fallible, rouse it -out of its self-complacency .To present persuasively arguments for a position with which one disagrees is the highest ethical act in debate because it sets aside personal interests for the

benefit of the common good. Essentially, for the person who accepts decision by debate, the ethics of the decision-making process are superior to the ethics of personal conviction on particular subjects for debate. Democracy is a commitment to means, not ends. Democratic society accepts certain ends, i.e., decisions, because they have been
arrived at by democratic means. We recognize the moral priority of decision by debate when we agree to be bound by that decision regardless of personal conviction. Such an agreement is morally acceptable because the decision-making process guarantees our moral integrity by guaranteeing the opportunity to debate for a reversal of the decision. Thus, personal conviction can have moral significance in social decision-

making only so long as the integrity of debate is maintained. And the integrity of debate is maintained only when there is a full and forceful confrontation of arguments and evidence relevant to decision. When an argument is not presented or is not presented as persuasively as possible, then debate fails. As debate fails decisions become less "wise." As decisions become less wise the process of decision-making is questioned. And finally, if and when debate is set aside for the alternative method of decision-making by authority, the personal convictions of individuals within society lose their moral significance as determinants of social choice. Switch-side debate allows peaceful conflict resolution and teaches ethics Day, 66 Professor of Speech at University of Wisconsin-Madison (Dennis, Central States Speech Journal, February, page 7) The analysis of the ethics of democratic debate presented in this paper supports the position that educational debate is consistent with the highest ethic of public debate and suggests that it is an effective pedagogical practice for preparing students to meet their decision-making responsibilities. Debating both sides teaches students to discover, analyze, and test all the arguments, opinions, and evidence relevant to decision on a resolution. In addition, it provides an opportunity for students to substantiate for themselves the assumption that "truthful" positions may be taken on both sides of controversial questions. The ethics of public debate require full expression, and this is what the practice of debating both sides provides. While educational debate which permits students to debate only one side of a resolution does not violate the ethics of public debate, neither does it teach the positive ethical obligation inherent in debate. Murphy and others have argued that students can gain an understanding of the "opposition" through "analyzing and briefing" both sides of a question without giving verbal expression to both sides. Murphy himself, however, in another, and perhaps more thoughtful, moment observed: Through the ages the debater has made his contribution to keeping the lanes of truth open by enforcing a doctrine of "both sides." We no longer think, however, that analyzing lines of argument in order to accept or reject them is a large enough goal, . . . A statement by Karl Mannheim gives us a doctrine more in keeping with modern thought: "See reality with the eyes of acting human beings; . . . understand even . . . opponents in the light of their actual motives and their position." To discover the truth which democratic debate can provide we must attend "equally and impartially to both sides . . . to see the reasons of both in the strongest light." One side debating does not meet this ethical obligation. Debating both sides, however, prepares students to contribute maximally to the democratic solution of conflict. Leonard Cottrell has observed: One of the deepest problems of modern society is to deal with the profound and dangerous cleavages that threaten the basic consensus on which the society rests. . . . A democratic solution of the problem requires that the citizens interacting in their roles as members of opposing groups become increasingly able to take the roles of their opponents. It is only through this ability that integrative solution of conflict rather than armed truces can be arrived at.

Switch Side Debate Good Key to Democracy

Switch- side debate is the basis of stable democracy Baird, 55 Professor of Speech at the University of Iowa (C. A., The college debater and the red china issue, Central States Speech Journal, 6(2), 5-7) Thus our justification of free discussion and debate on opposing sides is the best guarantee of sound conclusions. This presentation of both sidesthe heart of legislative and all other debating is the basis of a stable democracy. What relation has this philosophy of free discussion and persuasion to bad propaganda? Here the debater has special responsibilities. Here the need for education in responsible thinking and utterance is especially urgent. Bad propaganda, as never before, is pouring upon us from every side. As we have been told so often, television and the other agencies have created mass communication and mass thinking. You are trained to alertness to the typical propagandists devices of glittering generalities, name calling, false analogies, biased authorities, false facts, and the other marks of evil propaganda. Sometimes this technique thunders at us from behind the Iron Curtain. At other times it disguises itself in soft phrases and pseudoobjectivity. In either case you are qualified to detect the genuine and expose the spurious. College debate teams are the last groups in this nation where Communistic propaganda has any chance of making headway. In this long race between education and catastrophe the colleges and universities have their key role. You discussants are typical of these institutions in their pursuit of truth and wisdom. Senator Fulbright recently, in commenting on the freedom to discuss controversial issues, observed that "I think there is no great merit in ignorance. The sad part about this (discussion ban) is that it is indicative of the low estate to which we have fallen where freedom of expression is concerned." I do not share the Senator's pessimistic outlook. Men and women, when the future of the state is in doubt, will some forward "to express the aspirations of our people in dignified honest speech." And their words will prevail.

Switch Side Debate Good Key to Effective Career and Political Training
Switch-side debating is crucial to education and effective political training learning only one side of an issue, no matter how right they may be about the merits, destroys critical thinking and collapses any capacity for people to take their debate skills and translate them into the real world. Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile)
The debate over moral education and values clarification parallels in many ways the controversy over switch-side debate. Where values clarification recognizes no one set of values, debate forces a questioning and exploration of both sides of an issue. Where cognitive-development emphasizes the use of role playing in the inception of moral judgment, debate requires an empathy for alternative points of view. Where discussion provides an opportunity for expressions of personal feelings, debate fosters an analytic and explicit approach to value assessment. Freeley
describes the activity this way:

Educational debate provides an opportunity for students to consider the significant problems in the context of a multivalued orientation. They learn to look at a problem from many points of view. As debaters analyze the potential affirmative cases and the potential negative cases, including the possibility of negative counter plans, they begin to realize the complexity of most contemporary problems and to appreciate the worth of a multivalued orientation; as they debate both sides of a proposition under consideration, they learn not only that most problems of contemporary affairs have more than one side but also that even one side of a proposition embodies a considerable range of values.^'
The comparison between moral education and debate is useful because it contextualizes the process of moral development within an educational setting. Several objections have been raised about the practice of moral education, and these objections have direct relevance to the issue of switch-side debate. A view of debate as a form of moral education can be developed by addressing questions of efficacy, of isolation from the real world, and of relativism. The first issue is one of effectiveness: Do clarification activities achieve the espoused goals? Social coercion and peer pressure, for example, still occur in the group setting, leaving the individual choice of values an indoctrination of sorts.^^ Likewise, the focus of clarification exercises is arguably less analytic than expressive, less critical than emotive.^^ The expression of individual preferences may be guided by simple reaction rather than by rational criteria. These problems are minimized in the debate setting, especially where advocacy is not aligned with personal belief. Such advocacy requires explicit analysis of values and the decision criteria for evaluating them. In contemporary debate, confronted with a case they believe in, debaters assigned to the negative side have several options: present a morass of arguments to see what arguments "stick," concede the problem and offer a "counterplan" as a better way of solving the problem, or attack the value structure of the affirmative and be more effective in defending a particular hierarchy of values. While the first option is certainly exercised with some frequency, the second and third options are also often used and are of critical importance in the development of cognitive skills associated with moral judgment. For example, in attacking a case that restricts police powers and upholds a personal right to privacy, debaters might question the reasoning of scholars and justices in raising privacy rights to such significant heights (analyzing Griswold v. Connecticut and other landmark cases), offer alternative value Structures (social order, drug control), and defend the criteria through which such choices are made (utilitarian vs. deontological premises). Even within the context of a "see what sticks" paradigm, these arguments require debaters to assess and evaluate value structures opposite of their own personal feelings about their right to privacy. Social coercion, or peer pressure to adopt certain value structures, is minimized in such a context because of the competitive pressures. Adopting a value just because everyone else does may be the surest way of losing a debate.

A second objection to debate as values clarification, consonant with Ehninger's concerns about gamesmanship, is the separation of the educational process from the real world. A significant concern here is how such learning about morality will be used in the rest of a student's life. Some critics question
whether moral school knowledge "may be quite separate from living moral experience in a similar way as proficiency in speaking one's native language generally appears quite separate from the knowledge of formal grammar imparted by school."^^ Edelstein discusses two forms of segmentation: division between realms of school knowledge (e.g., history separated from science) and between school and living experience (institutional learning separate from everyday life). Ehninger's point, that debate becomes a pastime, and that application of these skills to solving real problems is diminished if it is viewed as a game, is largely a reflection on institutional segmentation.

The melding of different areas of knowledge, however, is a particular benefit of debate, as it addresses topics of considerable importance in a real world setting. Recent college and high school topics include energy policy, prison reform, care for the elderly, trade policy, homelessness, and the right to privacy. These topics are notable because they exceed the knowledge boundaries of particular school subjects, they reach into issues of everyday life, and they are broad enough to force students to address a variety of value appeals. The explosion of "squirrels," or small and specific cases, in the 1960s and 1970s has had the effect of opening up each topic to many different case approaches. National topics are
no longer of the one-case variety (as in 1955's "the U.S. should recognize Red China"). On the privacy topic, for example, cases include search and seizure issues, abortion, sexual privacy, tradeoffs with the first amendment, birth control, information privacy, pornography, and obscenity. The multiplicity of issues pays special dividends for debaters required to defend both sides of many issues because the value criteria change from round to round and evolve over the year. The development of flexibility in coping with the intertwining of issues is an essential component in the interconnection of knowledge, and is a major rationale for switch-side debate. The isolation of debate from the real world is a much more potent challenge to the activity. There are indeed "esoteric" techniques, special terminologies, and procedural constraints that limit the

debate puts students into greater contact with the real world by forcing them to read a great deal of information from popular periodicals, scholarly books and journals, government documents, reports, newsletters, and daily newspapers. Debaters also frequently seek out and query administrators, policy makers, and public personae to gain more data. The constant consumption of material by, from, and about the real world is significantly constitutive: The information grounds the issues under discussion, and the process shapes the relationship of the citizen to the public arena. Debaters can become more involved than uninformed citizens because they know about important issues, and because they know how to find out more information about these issues. Switch-side debating is not peripheral to this value. A thorough research effort is guided in large part by the knowledge that both sides of the issues must be covered. Where a particular controversy might involve affirmative research among conservative sources, the negative must research the
applicability of debate knowledge and skills to the rest of the student's life. The first and most obvious rejoinder is that itself.

liberal perspective. Where scientific studies predominate in justifying a particular policy, research in cultural studies may be necessary to counter the adoption of the policy. Debating a ban on the teaching of creationism in public schools, for example, forces research on the scientific consensus on evolution, the viability of theological grounds for public policy, and a consideration of the nature of science

A primary value of switch-side debate, that of encouraging research skills, is fundamentally an attachment to the "real world," and is enhanced by requiring debaters to investigate both sides of an issue. A second response to the charge of segmentation is the proclivity of debaters to become involved in public policy and international affairs. Although the stereotype is that debaters become lawyers, students seeking other professional areas also see value in the skills of debate. Business management, government, politics, international relations, teaching, public policy, and so on, are all significant career options for debaters. In surveys, ex-debaters frequently respond that debate was the single most educational activity of their college careers.'" Most classes provide information, but debate compels the use, assimilation, and evaluation of information that is not required in most classrooms. As one debate alumnus writes: "The lessons learned and the experience gained have been more valuable to me than any other aspect of my formal education."" It is no wonder, then, that surveys of Congress and other policy-making institutions reveal a high percentage of exdebaters.'^ The argument

that debate isolates participants from the "real world" is not sustained in practice when debaters, trained in research, organization, strategy, and technique, are consistently effective in integrating these skills into success on the job.

Switch Side Debate Good Reduces Violence

Competitive switch-side debate decreases gang violence and debate focused around self identity causes verbal aggressiveness which makes violence inevitable Bellon, 00 Department of Communication at Georgia State (Joe, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161, A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Winter 2000, EBSCO) Because debate experience is so effective in helping students achieve positive goals, the preventative value of the activity did not receive a great deal of scholarly attention before the last fifteen years. With the creation of urban debate leagues in Atlanta, New York, Tuscaloosa, and Detroit, the debate community has been flooded with anecdotal reports describing a connection between forensic experience and reduced violence. Many coaches described situations where debate transformed students from gang members and trouble-makers into successful and cooperative students. Increasingly, scholars are proving that these reports represent an underlying and demonstrable relationship between increased debate skills and decreased physical violence. In 1976, Boone and Montare hypothesized that language skills are related to aggression. In their study, "high language proficiency was associated with low physical aggressive behavior" in minority populations (856). They concluded that "relatively higher levels of language proficiency may function more effectively and efficiently as inhibitors (or perhaps neutralizers) of overt physical aggressive behavior" (856). This relationship is fairly intuitive: when we feel capable of responding to a situation verbally, we are less likely to feel pressured to respond physically. Infante and Wigley (1986) note that this relationship emphasizes the need for those in the communication discipline to act "because [the communication discipline] is particularly able to remedy argumentative skill deficiencies and therefore could be instrumental in reducing the amount of... violence in society" (62). There is also reason to believe that debate develops the specific argumentation skills needed to prevent violence. Neer (1994) describes "a consensus... among many argument theorists regarding the value of argument within an interpersonal relationship" (17). His recommendation for ideal argumentative style reads like a description of debate practice: [F]lexible arguers will actively seek alternative points of view on an issue, hold multiple opinions on an issue, and examine viewpoints to which they are either unfamiliar or opposed when arguing the content of an issue (19). Because competitive debaters must alternately argue both "sides" of the topic in any given tournament, there is a powerful incentive for them to become flexible arguers. In any given debate round, students may be called on to affirm or negate a particular political perspective. Above all, debate teaches students to understand how others think--even those others with whom they strongly disagree. The key to understanding how debate helps prevent violence involves the distinction between argumentativeness (or assertiveness) and verbal aggression. This distinction was described by Infante and Wigley: The locus of attack may be used for distinguishing argument from verbal aggression (Infante and Rancer, 1982). Argument involves presenting and defending positions on controversial issues while attacking the positions taken by others on the issues. Verbal aggression, on the other hand, denotes attacking the selfconcept of another person instead of, or in addition to, the person's position on a topic of communication (61). While argumentativeness can have many positive benefits, there is broad agreement among scholars that verbal aggression is inherently damaging. Furthermore, verbal aggression tends to create more verbal aggression and, ultimately, physical violence. Infante, et al (1984) specifically studied the relationship between argumentation skills and verbal aggression among students. Their research provides an excellent description of the communication-violence dynamic: The individuals in an argument realize that they need to attack and defend positions. After an argument begins, the person who lacks skill in arguing is unable to refute the opponent's position. That person then satisfies the need to attack by attacking verbally the object closest to the opponent's position, the opponent. The need to defend is similarly corrupted. Since the unskillful arguer is unable to defend his or her position but still wishes to, he or she sets up a defense around the closest thing to the position, self. The opponent's attacks on position are then perceived as personal attacks and the individual feels justified responding in kind (76). Thus, improved argument skills can prevent verbal aggression not only by preventing students from being verbally aggressive, but also by preventing them from responding to verbal aggression in kind--creating a positive feedback loop that can impact the entire school community. Switch-side debate solves for verbal aggression

Bellon, 00 Department of Communication at Georgia State (Joe, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161, A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Winter 2000, EBSCO) Targeted research demonstrates that debate experience tends to increase beneficial argumentativeness while reducing verbal aggression. Colbert (1993) concludes that policy debate training can enhance argumentativeness without increasing verbal aggression and that debating values can actually reduce verbal aggression without decreasing argumentativeness. These findings were substantially replicated in 1994, when Colbert concluded a follow-up study by demonstrating that debate increases argumentativeness in participants without an increase in aggression. Furthermore, Colbert (1994) notes that "debating may be an effective method of assertiveness training," especially for women (7). Four separate studies now support the claim that debating increases argumentativeness and reject the claim that it increases verbal aggression. It is also worth noting that the value-oriented debate Colbert (1993) highlights as reducing aggression has been substantially incorporated into competitive debate. Indeed, students are now more likely to purse value-based perspectives on policy issues than ever before. Fine makes the connection between debate participation and violence reduction explicit. She concludes that debate gives students greater self esteem and that debaters "appear to assign higher value to resolving their conflicts through dialogue rather than force" (64). The students in her study provide extensive descriptions of their new ability to "stand back, reflect on their arguments, frame them more powerfully, and communicate without conveying an aggressive energy that might inhibit productive exchange" (64).

Debate Good Improves Career Prospects

Competitive debate improves career prospects Bellon, 00 Department of Communication at Georgia State (Joe, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161, A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Winter 2000, EBSCO) Given the positive benefits of debating, it is not surprising that forensic experience helps debaters succeed in the business world as well. Research demonstrates that certain of the professions are more likely to approve of students if they have debate experience. We have already seen how debate improves one's ability to succeed in governmental service (Pollock). Church (1975)surveyed opinion leaders in the legal field, finding that "both college prelegal advisors and law school deans expressed general approval of forensic participation" (52). These findings are certainly in keeping with the astonishing number of former debaters who now earn their living in the law. Schroeder and Schroeder (1995) similarly surveyed educational administrators, many of whom were former debaters. Their respondents "overwhelmingly indicated that debate was the single most important educational activity they engaged in and attributed many of their administrative skills to forensic participation" (19). Colbert and Biggers summarize debate's attraction for those interested in gainful employment: In a time when many of our students ask us how educational activities will help them get a job, the answer seems to be unequivocal. Debate experience is highly valued by the business world. The value placed on debate by business is well founded. Former debaters tend to be very successful people (239). Policy debaters tend to be more successful in law, education, and management then those with just a normal education Parcher, 98 Former Director of Georgetown Debate (Jeffrey, The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, 1998, http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf) A survey by Hobbs and Chandler showed that debate alumni overwhelmingly agreed that debate experience had aided them significantly in their professional careers (p5). In discussing their results, they report: In general, it seems that training in debate provides students with a positive experience which helps them to develop skills which will be needed in their professions. Several respondents, in response to the open-ended questions, reported that debate was the most valuable educational experience they received. One minister wrote, "The most useful training I received in college for the ministry came from my experience in debate. Period." A lawyer wrote, "personally, debate was the single most useful experience I had in 19 years of education." Another respondent indicated "The lessons learned and the experience gained have been more valuable to me than any other aspect of my formal education (p6). Hobbs and Chandler conclude that "this survey overwhelmingly supports the idea that participation in policy debate provides significant benefits for those entering the professions of law, management, ministry and teaching (p6)." Sheckels quotes a survey in which Midwest business hiring managers "listed debate first among twenty other activities and academic specializations that an applicant might present on a resume." In the same survey, debate was overwhelming the first choice of recruiting directors at major law firms (p 2). Surveys in the communication field indicate that many Department Chairs give credit to participation in debate/forensics for their success (Shroeder and Shroeder, p16). Specifically, Bill Hill, University of North Carolina, Charlotte; John Olsen, Everett Community College; Timothy Hegstrom, San Jose State; and Don Boileau, George Mason University cite participation in competitive forensics as an important source of their success (Shroeder and Shroeder, p16). It appears that debate is an especially excellent pre-professional activity for future law students. "The data suggesting that forensics is valuable to the pre-law student is overwhelming" (Colbert and Biggers p238). Swanson found that 70.3% of law school deans recommended participation in intercollegiate debate. In fact, support from lawyers and law school administrators ranges from a strong endorsement of debate for all prelaw students to a suggestion that it be required. The reason for such support may be the professional success of former debaters (Colbert and Biggers, p238). This is an important discovery since survey data indicate that a third of top level competitive debaters go on to law school (Matlon). Explaining this data is not a difficult task. Debate is valuable as pre-professional education because the skills that are learned by a competitive debater parallel those required for success in many of the professions. Most obvious among these skills are those of critical thinking, examination of evidence, rational decision making, organization, oral communication and listening. The Chronicle of Higher education summarized the value of debate when reporting that "debate, perhaps more than any other extra-

curricular activity, successfully bridges the gap between academics and careers, without skimping on either" (Muir). "In a time when many of our students ask us how educational activities will help them get a job, the answer seems to be unequivocal. Debate experience is highly valued by the business world" (Colbert and Biggers p239). The role-playing and political discussion in debate has caused debaters to be successful in a variety of careers including high positions in the government and law Parcher, 98 Former Director of Georgetown Debate (Jeffrey, The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, 1998, http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf) More modern data confirms this relationship between debate and leadership. The most extensive survey of former debaters reported: The specific positions held by former NDT debaters reads like a "Who's Who" in leadership. Here is a sample of positions currently or once held by competitive debate alumni: A Cabinet member; Congresspersons; presidents of bar associations, colleges and universities; educational leaders; ambassadors; commanding officers in the military; numerous state and federal government elected and appointed positions; publishers; bankers; corporate board chair persons; and judicial positions at all levels including law school deans and attorney generals (195). "It is doubtful that many other activities can boast of so many successful alumni" (Colbert and Biggers, p239). Freedom and Union, a magazine, surveyed leaders in politics, business and various professions in 1960 to find out how many of these leaders, who represented success in their field, had debated. One hundred of the 160 respondents had debated, and 90 of the 100 believed that debate experience had been extremely valuable in their careers (Klopf, p7). Survey data from 1926 reported that debaters went on to become bishops, congressmen, college presidents, senators, and governors (Brigance, p22). Survey data also demonstrates that debaters go on to leadership positions in a variety of fields. The Matlon data reveals that of competitive collegiate debaters, 30% became university educators , 15% were top corporate executives and 10% were working in the executive or legislative branches of government. Others entered the clergy, started their own businesses or became writers and publishers. A closer examination of data regarding political figures reveals interesting numbers and names. One survey showed that "over 80% of all current members of congress were on their schools forensics team" (Swanson, p2). Two lists can be found at the end of this section, one lists notable figures who were debaters and the other contains the remarks of notable leaders about the importance of competitive debate. Other scholarly material demonstrate the relevance of debate to leadership training. In a Chronicle of Higher Education article, Kaye (1991) argues that schools must educate the next generation of public intellectuals. The primary responsibility for this lofty goal is given to competitive forensics because of their unique value in teaching critical thinking, public debate, training in argumentation, and the foundation of argument in history, humanities and social sciences. The reason for this correlation lies in part in the skills that debate teaches. Debate programs typically draw some of the finest students in a school. The arguments stated elsewhere are clearly relevant here: Debate teaches students critical thinking, communication skills, research techniques, and listening skills. It educates them in the ethics of communication and engulfs them in debate about values and society. Debate also gives students a taste of policy and value-based decision making. It allows them to engage in role playing which models argumentation which occurs at the highest levels of many fields. The learning occurs in a way that facilitates confidence and eliminates the communication apprehension that can block bright minds from participating in the great decisions of the day (Sprague; Bartanen). Debate training empowers students by allowing them to influence policy choices. Debaters learn not to be intimidated by the rhetoric of policy debate (Dauber, 205). Moreover, participants in debate are some of those most qualified to take on leadership in our society. The Matlon survey reveals some astounding figures. Of 703 former debaters surveyed, 633 had at least 1 advanced degree, and 209 had more than one. Additionally, four in ten had law degrees, four in ten had masters degrees and two in ten had a Ph.D. or other doctoral degree.

Debate Good Improves Critical Thinking & Empowers Students

Competitive debate empowers students to speak out, increases openness to the ideas of others and improves critical thinking Bellon, 00 Department of Communication at Georgia State (Joe, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161, A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Winter 2000, EBSCO)
Academic debate does more than simply inform students--it teaches them how to evaluate the information they receive on a daily basis. Dauber (1989) asserts the unique emancipatory potential of forensics: To me, academic debate is primarily valuable in that it is a mechanism for empowerment .... Whatever else

academic debate teaches (and I would argue that it teaches a great deal), it empowers our students and ourselves, in that it proves to them they ought not be intimidated by the rhetoric of expertise surrounding questions of policy. They know that they are capable of making and defending informed choices about complex issues outside of their own area of interest because they do so on a daily basis (206). Indeed, Fine came to much the same conclusion when studying students in New York. She argues that debaters are more likely to speak out because they "feel they have something useful to say, and because they feel more articulate in saying it" (61). These finding closely resemble Corson's conclusion that encouraging students to speak forces them to "confront learners with viewpoints different from their own" and therefore to achieve "an openness to the world and others" (25). Fine also discovered that participating in
debate gives student better social skills and causes them to place more value on their social relationships. Debate is thus not only a way to connect students with academic subjects in meaningful ways; it is also a way to re-connect students to public life if they have been overcome by feelings of alienation. The best documented educational benefit of debating elaborates the connection between forensics and critical thinking. As far back as 1949, Brembeck demonstrated that students with argumentation training "significantly outgained the control students in critical

thinking scores" (187). Colbert (1987) reviews the contemporary literature and concludes that both the consensus of the literature and his own experimental findings justify the conclusion that "debaters' critical thinking test scores are significantly higher than those of nondebaters" (199). Barfield also found significant correlation between debate participation and increased critical thinking skills. Competitive debate improves critical thinking Bellon, 00 Department of Communication at Georgia State (Joe, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161, A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Winter 2000, EBSCO)
The most definitive research in this area has been conducted by Allen, et al. Their first (1995) study explicitly sought to correct the flaws of previous efforts to quantify the connection between debate and critical thinking. In comparing the effects of both forensic participation and formal communication instruction on critical thinking skills, they concluded that, while "both argumentation classes and forensic

participation increased the ability in critical thinking ... participation in competitive forensics demonstrates the largest gain in critical thinking skills" (6). Indeed, their study provides support for preferring debate to formal communication instruction. Their results "demonstrate that the gain [in critical thinking] is larger for a semester of competitive forensic participation than a similar time period spent in an argumentation class (and the argumentation
class was superior to public speaking or an introduction to interpersonal communication course)" (6). These findings were largely replicated in their more recent (1999) meta-analysis of studies exploring the link between communication skills and critical thinking.

Competitive debate allows to students to experience constructive controversy which is key to intellectual development. Switch side debate is also critical to develop problem-solving skills. Bellon, 00 Department of Communication at Georgia State (Joe, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161, A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Winter 2000, EBSCO) The positive benefits of debate are not limited to the classroom. In fact, much of the current research establishing the value of debate does account for the time students spend preparing for debate tournaments. Competitive tournaments are preceded by substantial cooperative research, argument development, and practice. Policy debate teams consist of two students, but the competitive success of any particular team is made possible only by the combined efforts of an entire school's roster of debaters and coaches. The contrast of cooperative preparation and competitive performance provides debaters with the unique opportunity to experience all the benefits of what Johnson and Johnson (1979) might call constructive controversy. They conclude that, properly managed, "controversy can arouse conceptual conflict, subjective feelings of uncertainty, and epistemic curiosity; increase accuracy of cognitive perspective-taking; promote transitions from one stage of cognitive and moral reasoning to another; increase the quality of problem solving; and increase creativity" (57). For controversy to be managed properly, however, instructors must also promote cooperative learning and intellectual disagreement. Competitive forensics provides opportunities for both modes of learning, and policy debate specifically teaches students to adopt multiple perspectives--which Johnson and Johnson describe as one of the most important problem-solving skills.

The space of the debate uniquely provides a forum that facilitates in-depth and focused discussions about the topic. This facilitates a unique sort of critical thinking that no other forum can solve. Muir ,93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) Firm moral commitment to a value system, however, along with a sense of moral identity, is founded in reflexive assessments of multiple perspectives. Switch-side debate is not simply a matter of speaking persuasively or organizing ideas clearly (although it does involve these), but of understanding and mobilizing arguments to make an effective case. Proponents of debating both sides observe that the debaters should prepare the best possible case they can, given the facts and information available to them,^^ This process, at its core, involves critical assessment and evaluation of arguments; it is a process of critical thinking not available with many traditional teaching methods." We must progressively learn to recognize how often the concepts of others are discredited by the concepts we use to justify ourselves to ourselves. We must come to see how often our claims are compelling only when expressed in our own egocentric view. We can do this if we learn the art of using concepts without living in them. This is possible only when the intellectual act of s tepping outside of our own systems of belief has become second nature, a routine and ordinary responsibility of everyday living. Neither academic schooling nor socialization has yet addressed this moral responsibility,^"* but switch-side debating fosters this type of role playing and generates reasoned moral positions based in part on values of tolerance and fairness. Competitive debate develops critical thinking, which is key to self-realization and success in almost every career Parcher, 98 Former Director of Georgetown Debate (Jeffrey, The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, 1998, http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf)
The degree to which the debate program enhances the critical thinking ability of its participants is a crucial criterion against which to weigh the debate program. Across the United States, high schools, colleges and universities have placed increasing emphasis on the attainment of critical thinking skills. The issue has been the subject of nationally funded reports, graduation requirements and the subject of countless scholarly and educational journals (McMillan). Shroeder and Shroeder report that:

Almost every institution of education has, as a part of its mission, the preparation of articulate and critical thinking individuals who are able to speak intelligently about the issues of the day. Forensics, or competitive speech activities, clearly fit within this mission of the institution, and, indeed, may have a more integral relationship with the educational mission than many other activities (p13). One of the most renown professors of debate in the United States, concurs on page one of his treatise: Competency in critical thinking is rightly viewed as a requisite intellectual skill for self-realization as an effective participant in human affairs, for the pursuit of higher education, and for successful participation in the highly competitive world of business and the professions. Debate is today, as it has been since classical times, one of the best methods of learning and applying the principles of critical thinking (Freely, 1990). Many authors note that leadership in a changing world requires students to learn to critically analyze and evaluate ideas (Adler; Dressel & Mayhew; Young). Besides being an obvious and important goal of any educational institution, forensics directors have rated developing critical thinking ability as the highest educational goal of the activity (Rieke). Debaters themselves have suggested that it should be considered the most important goal (Matlon and Keele). A healthy ability to think critically about information is especially critical in a world overflowing with data. An old debater research adage holds that "you can prove anything if you look long enough." The shuddering growth in information and access to it has changed this sarcastic notion into a virtual truism. The ability and willingness to critically examine information is a highly prized skill among employees, managers and executives, lawyers, doctors and other professions. Society desperately needs training devices that can help people manage information in a trenchant fashion. The empirical evidence demonstrating a connection between participation in debate and learning the skills of critical thinking is quite extensive. In a recent review of research on the subject, Colbert and Biggers noted that "50 years of research correlates debate training with critical thinking skills" (p212). Keefe, Harte and Norton reviewed the research and concluded that, "[m]any researchers over the past four decades have come to the same general conclusions. Critical thinking ability is significantly improved by courses in argumentation and debate and by debate experience" (p33-34).The most recent study concluded not only that participation in competitive debate enhances critical thinking skills, but that compared to academic pursuits of a similar time length, "competitive forensics demonstrates the largest gain in critical thinking skills" (Allen, p6). The kind of oppositional thinking encouraged by debate clearly contributes to critical thinking skills for a variety of reasons. There is strong empirical evidence, for example, that utilizing devils advocacy helps improve the understanding of strategic problems. In fact, devils advocacy has been used successfully by a number of companies for this exact purpose (Schwenk, 1988). Such research mirrors what debate coaches have known for 3 decades. Debaters learn much more about critical thinking than the old adage "there are two sides to every coin."

learn how to spot errors in reasoning and proof. They gain a greater respect for the complexity of ideas and they learn how to criticize in a productive way based on facts and logic. Many former debaters have testified that participation in debate exposed them to complex ways of thinking which prepared them for what they would face in graduate school and their professional lives. James Greenwood, Chairperson in Communications at the University of Findlay noted that "debate was more important to my career than any single course on the undergraduate and graduate level. Debate develops skills in organization, clarity and depth of analysis that most students do not encounter until the master's thesis" (Shroeder and Shroeder, p16).
They

Debate Good Improves Research Skills & Career Skills

Evidentiary debate is key to building research skills that are helpful for gaining degrees and employment Parcher, 98 Former Director of Georgetown Debate (Jeffrey, The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, 1998, http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf) No class or activity compares to debate as a means of teaching students methods of research. Since students in debate often engage in 20 hours or more a week of preparation, they gain more experience in research in one year than in all the rest of their studies combined. Hunt gives this advice to potential debaters: ...you will learn research methods as you learn to support your advocacy. You will learn to use the library and all its resources. You will learn to find books, articles, government documents, and special studies. You will learn to utilize every sort of index, both print indexes and computerized indexes. You will also learn both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies as you begin to examine and criticize the research you read. Good forensics students have to be familiar with humane, social scientific, and scientific methodologies and with case studies, surveys, and statistics. Without such knowledge, you cannot separate good logic, good reasoning, and good evidence from mediocre or poor logic, reasoning and evidence (p8). All of the debaters interviewed who had obtained advanced degrees suggested that the research efforts that they engaged in for debate were many times more challenging than those required for a law degree, masters thesis or dissertation. Debaters will regularly use every conceivable resource available not only at The Meadows, but also all collegiate resources available in the metropolitan area. Debaters often conduct extensive research at law and medical schools, utilizing the Library of Congress, specialized libraries at the Agency for International Development, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Institute for Medicine, Middle East Institute and countless others. They collect material from a large diversity of think tanks and special interest groups. They access materials from the Congressional Research Service as well as committees and members of Congress. Debaters have become versed in the techniques of research on the Internet and are utilizing a plethora of computerized research databases. The research skills of debaters are so well known that they have been prized employees and interns for a variety of private, governmental and international institutions. The most distinguished think tank studying international relations in the world, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has recently established a special internship to be rewarded exclusively to participants at the National Debate Tournament (Lennon)

Debate Good Increases Education About Current Events

Topic focused debate increases education about key social issues Bellon, 00 Department of Communication at Georgia State (Joe, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p161, A Research-Based Justification for Debate Across the Curriculum. Winter 2000, EBSCO) While it seems intuitive that an activity involving competitive speaking would improve communication skills, debate also facilitates education in other, more subtle ways. Debate experience induces student involvement in important social issues. Every year, debaters study one prominent social issue, researching policy options from multiple perspectives. The knowledge thus gained often far surpasses the typical educational experience of non-debaters. Robinson (1956) describes debate experience as "an introduction to the social sciences" (62). The sheer breadth of topics a debater is likely to encounter, along with the competitive incentive to understand how the political world operates, virtually ensures that students who debate will be well versed in current events and public decision-making dynamics. Topic-Focused debate is key to in depth education it is equivalent of masters level research Parcher, 98 Former Director of Georgetown Debate (Jeffrey, The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, 1998, http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf) The knowledge gained by students about the subject of the debate topic has been compared to masters research (Shroeder and Shroeder, p16), dissertation research (Interviews) and the knowledge of experts themselves (Brigance, p17-19). The
educational value of the content of debater's studies would justify the existence of the debate program as an educational exercise even if one were to completely ignore each of the process values we have already discussed. Debaters spend an average of between 10 and 30 hours

a week preparing to debate. They begin preparation in July with the announcement of the topic and finish in April when the national tournament is concluded. By the end of the season, one two person debate team will carry 47 large filing tubs (1.5' by 2.5') filled with briefs on the various issues covered by the debate topic. The depth in which students examine the issues under the debate topic are unmatched by any other academic endeavor. A common research goal of a debate team is to examine every piece of published material in existence on a given topic (Interviews). Debate students often report having read entirely or major portions of 250300 books in a debate season (Interviews). Students study a debate question from every conceivable disciplinary angle. It is not uncommon for a single competitive debate to include argument and evidence relating to political science, sociology, metaphysical philosophy, history, hard sciences and law. Debaters have thoroughly studied such questions in recent
years as: When does life begin? What are the cultural and historical roots of the Arab/Israeli conflict? What would be the physiological effect of a limited nuclear war? Is sentencing law gender neutral? Should it be? How does U.S. trade policy interact with programs to preserve the genetic diversity of critical crops? Does empiricism accurately describe the universe? How does language effect human perception of reality? What are the implications of various interpretations of the 5th amendment on societal equality? Should the U.S. place troops on the Golan Heights to secure peace between Israel and Syria? What will be the strategic effect of selling 32 F-16s to Jordan? What will be the effect of releasing greenhouse gases on global temperature over the next 4 decades? What are the implications of recent discoveries in quantum physics on accurate policy predication? Do feminine principles hold the key to preservation of a livable environment? What are the costs and benefits of biological weapons research? What are the prospects for democracy in post-soviet Russia? What are the implications of determinate sentencing for inner city communities? How will the increased rate of deforestation affect the mutation and release of new diseases?

Debate improves research skills and education on key social issues Parcher, 98 Former Director of Georgetown Debate (Jeffrey, The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, 1998, http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf) A working group of the Quail Roost Conference on Assessment of Professional Activities of Directors of Debate recently reported: A well established and supported debate program offers exceptional opportunities for both undergraduate and graduate education that are equaled by few other academic programs. Debate permits undergraduates to

develop such humanistic capabilities as research, analysis, critical evaluation of claims, and the construction and judgment of argument on important social issues. Debate introduces the intellectual excitement and rigor of research into the undergraduate curriculum in a manner characterized by both its intensity and interdisciplinary nature... The benefits derived from debate thus seem particularly appropriate for, and consistent with, the emerging concerns and trends in higher education (Quail Roost, p19). In their monumental study of former debaters, Matlon and Keele conclude that "[t]here is an affirmative relationship between participation in competitive debate and the goals of higher education" (p 205). Colbert and Biggers agree, stating that "[t]raining in debate has long been considered a vital part of the educational process" (p237). They go on to note that "[t]he educational benefits of debate seem to be well documented..."(p238). Finally, Kruger argues that debate is perhaps the "most valuable" activity in a liberal arts curriculum (p. vii). In attempting to discover why these educational benefits are attributed to debate, several reasons are suggested. There is a close connection between the skills that debate teaches and the proclaimed goals of our educational institutions. Listen to Professor Hunt: A forensics education is a microcosm of the Western Intellectual Tradition and of the liberal arts. The fundamental knowledge and skills potentially gleaned in forensics reads like a list taken from Mortimer Adler's The Paideia Proposal, the U.S. Department of Education's A Nation at Risk, or any of a number of recent documents about fundamentals and excellence in higher education. Forensics helps you learn how to learn, to be able to think clearly and adapt to rapid change (p9).

Debate Good Key to Democracy

Traditional Western Debate is key to maintaining democracy Parcher, 98 Former Director of Georgetown Debate (Jeffrey, The Value of Debate: Adapted from the Report of the Philodemic Debate Society, 1998, http://www.principlestudies.org/docs/The_Value_of_Debate_Secular.pdf) Debate and argumentation are at the center of nearly all American political, social and economic decisionmaking. In many ways, it was a faith in debate itself that was at the root of the formation of American democracy and capitalism. The construction of our democratic institutions was founded on the notion that decision makers presented with a diversity of ideas, freely advocated and freely defended, could rationally choose different courses of action based upon the facts and arguments at hand. It would not be surprising if those trained in the principles of debate were most capable of succeeding within such institutions. Evidence for this proposition begins with the very origins of the nation, as our founding fathers were trained in the great traditions of argument and rhetoric: Forensics disputations came through the Western Intellectual Tradition, from Greece and Rome, through the Catholic Church, through Great Britain and its schools, to the United States. Disputations were an essential part of the basic education at such universities as Harvard, Yale, William and Mary, and the University of Virginia from their earliest days. Seniors did not write a thesis, rather they gave a senior speech. Besides formal work in classes on rhetoric, students formed literary and debating societies. The Spy Club at Harvard and the Linonian Society at Yale, among others, debated issues, studied controversial current events, and invited speakers to their activities. This kind of education was essential in developing the minds of American Founding Fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. The kind of thinking and rhetorical skills this type of education produced can be seen in the expressions of the Federalist papers, The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution (Hunt, p3).

Policy Focus / Security Studies Good

Debate over concrete and specific policy options is crucial to prevent security studies from degenerating into self-indulgent intellectualizing policy debates restrain the excesses of the state and prevent miscalculation Walt, 91 Professor at the University of Chicago (Stephen, International Studies Quarterly, The Renaissance of Security Studies, JSTOR) A second norm is relevance, a belief that even highly abstract lines of inquiry should be guided by the goal of solving real-world problems. Because the value of a given approach may not be apparent at the beginning-game theory is an obvious example-we cannot insist that a new approach be immediately applicable to a specific research puzzle. On the whole, however, the belief that scholarship in security affairs should be linked to realworld issues has prevented the field from degenerating into self-indulgent intellectualizing. And from the Golden Age to the present, security studies has probably had more real-world impact, for good or ill, than most areas of social science. Finally, the renaissance of security studies has been guided by a commitment to democratic discourse. Rather than confining discussion of security issues to an elite group of the best and brightest, scholars in the renaissance have generally welcomed a more fully informed debate. To paraphrase Clemenceau, issues of war and peace are too important to be left solely to insiders with a vested interest in the outcome. The growth of security studies within universities is one sign of broader participation, along with increased availability of information and more accessible publications for interested citizens. Although this view is by no means universal, the renaissance of security studies has been shaped by the belief that a well-informed debate is the best way to avoid the disasters that are likely when national policy is monopolized by a few self-interested parties. Academic policy debates are critical to shape long-term state policy and prevent miscalculation and war war and violence will not just go away Walt, 91 Professor at the University of Chicago (Stephen, International Studies Quarterly, The Renaissance of Security Studies, JSTOR)
The Evolution of Knowledge The history of security studies reveals several features about the evolution of social science. First, it illustrates how external events influence the scholarly agenda: as noted throughout this essay, research in security studies has been heavily shaped by changing international

conditions. Obviously, an excessive focus on immediate policy issues can stifle long-term progress and increase the danger that research support will be subject to a "feast or famine" cycle as international tensions rise and fall (Jervis et aI., 1986:60; Nye & Lynn-Jones, 1988:21). On the whole, however, the attention paid to policy issues has positive effects: it is the main source of new research questions and discourages any drift toward academic irrelevance.
Second, the history of security studies also illustrates the mechanisms by which social science advances. One avenue is borrowing from other disciplines: like the rest of international relations, security studies has profited by drawing upon other bodies of knowledge. The other source of progress is competition between rival theories. Competition encourages contending approaches to refine their arguments and to seek better empirical support, and it usually leads them to incorporate each other's ideas as well. As noted earlier, the past decade has seen a partial convergence between the subfields of security studies, peace research, and international political economy, a development that is likely to benefit all three. The end of the Cold War will reinforce this trend by removing some of the substantive divisions between these subfields.38 The lesson, of course, is that while competition is essential for scientific progress, scholars with different theoretical perspectives can learn a great deal from each other.39 Security Studies and the Ivory Tower A recurring theme of this essay has been the twin dangers of separating the study of security affairs from the academic

world or of shifting the focus of academic scholarship too far from real-world issues. The danger of war will be with us for some time to come, and states will continue to acquire military forces for a variety of purposes. Unless one believes that ignorance is preferable to expertise, the value of independent national security scholars should be apparent. Indeed, history suggests that countries that suppress debate on national security matters are more likely to blunder into disaster, because misguided policies cannot be evaluated and stopped in time. As in other areas of public policy, academic experts in security studies can help in several ways. In the short term, academics are well place to evaluate current programs, because they face less pressure to support official policy. The longterm effects of academic involvement may be even more significant: academic research can help states learn from past mistakes and can provide the theoretical innovations that produce better policy choices in the future. Furthermore, their role in training the new generation of experts gives academics an additional avenue of influence. Assuming they perform these tasks responsibly, academics will have a positivealbeit gradualimpact on how states deal with the problem of war in the future.

Focusing on theoretical or methodological issues will undermine the effectiveness of security studies a focus on practical policies issues is a necessity Walt, 91 Professor at the University of Chicago (Stephen, International Studies Quarterly, The Renaissance of Security Studies, JSTOR)
Potential Problems Despite these grounds for optimism, several dangers could undermine the future development of the field. As noted earlier, the resources at stake in debates over defense and foreign policy create a strong temptation to focus on short-term policy analysis. Moreover, as Hans Morgenthau once warned, active involvement in policy debates inevitably tempts participants to sacrifice scholarly integrity for the sake of personal gain or political effectiveness (Morgenthau, 1970; Walt, 1987a: 146-60). At the very least, there are powerful incentives to concentrate on consulting work and policy analysis rather than on cumulative scholarly research. If security studies neglects long-term research questions and focuses solely on

immediate policy issues, a decline in rigor and quality will be difficult to avoid. Yet the opposite tendency may pose an even greater danger. On the whole, security studies have profited from its connection to real-world issues; the main advances of the past four decades have emerged from efforts to solve important practical questions. If security studies succumbs to the tendency for academic disciplines to pursue "the trivial, the formal, the methodological, the purely theoretical, the remotely historical-in short, the politically irrelevent" (Morgenthau, 1966:73), its theoretical progress and its practical value will inevitably decline. In short, security studies must steer between the Scylla of political opportunism and the Charybdis of academic irrelevance. What does this mean in practice? Among other things, it means that security studies should remain wary of the counterproductive tangents that have seduced other areas of international studies, most notably the "postmodern" approach to international affairs (Ashley, 1984; Der Derian and Shapiro, 1989; Lapid, 1989). Contrary to their proponents' claims, post-modern approaches have yet to demonstrate much value for comprehending world politics; to date, these works are mostly criticism and not much theory.26 As Robert Keohane has noted, until these writers "have delineated. . . a research program and shown ... that it can illuminate important issues in world politics, they will remain on the margins of the field" (Keohane, 1988:392). In particular, issues of war and peace are too important for the field to be diverted into a prolix and self-indulgent discourse that is divorced from the real world. Failure to study security issues forces opponents to cedes the political to self-interested elites Walt, 91 Professor at the University of Chicago (Stephen, International Studies Quarterly, The Renaissance of Security Studies, JSTOR)
The End of the Golden Age The first wave of security studies ended in the mid-1960s, and the field entered a period of decline. Several different causes were at work. First, the research program of security studies had reached something of a dead-end by this time. The central questions identified by the rational deterrence paradigm were now well understood if not yet fully resolved, and the relnaining issues, such as the tradeoff between the alleged need for first-strike options to n1ake extended deterrence credible and the increased risk of war that these capabilities created, seemed beyond resolution within the existing theoretical framework (Trachtenberg, 1989:332). Although doctrines and weapons programs could still be and were debated, further advances would require new conceptual approaches or more advanced analytical tools. A second problem was the failure of the first wave of scholars to produce a significant group of Ph.D. students. Although individuals like Albert Wohlstetter at the University of Chicago and William Kaufn1ann at MIT did train a number of protgs, they were more likely to become consultants or government officials than to enter academic departments. As a result, a large "successor generation" did not emerge until relatively recently. A third reason for decline was the Vietnam War. Not only did the debacle in Indochina cast doubt on some of the early work

in the field (such as the techniques of "systems analysis" and the application of bargaining theory to international conflict), it also made the study of security affairs unfashionable in many universities. The latter effect was both ironic and unfortunate, because the debate on the war was first and foremost a debate about basic security issues. Was the "domino theory" accurate? Was U.S. credibility really at stake? Would using military force in Indochina in fact make the U.S. more secure? By neglecting the serious study of security affairs, opponents of the war could not effectively challenge the official rationales for U.S. involvement. 13 The persistent belief that opponents of war should not study national security is like trying to find a cure for cancer by refusing to study medicine while allowing research on the disease to be conducted solely by tobacco companies. Debates over central policy problems play a critical role in security studies basing claims on systematic social science research checks unverified assertions by authority and ensures acceptance in the academic world Walt, 91 Professor at the University of Chicago (Stephen, International Studies Quarterly, The Renaissance of Security Studies, JSTOR) In the mid-1970s, the field of security studies began a dramatic resurgence. In addition to a noticeable increase in professional activity and published work on security-related topics, security studies became more rigorous, methodologically sophisticated, and theoretically inclined. Scholars continued to differ on specific policy issues, but competing views were increasingly based on systematic social scientific research rather than on unverified assertions or

arguments by authority. These developments help explain the recent prominence of the subfield and its growing acceptance within the academic world, and they establish a firm foundation for future work. Given the continued need for independent analyses of security issues, the resurgence of security studies is an important positive development for the field of international relations.
This article examines this recent renaissance with several aims in mind. First, I seek to provide a survey of the field and a guide to the current research agenda. 1 Second, by examining the evolution of a particular subfield, I hope to offer some basic insights into the sociology of knowledge in international relations. What determines the prominence of different fields, the attention paid to specific topics within them, and their ability to generate cumulative knowledge? Finally, by tracing the rise, fall, and recovery of security studies, I seek to identify some practical lessons for managing the field in the years ahead. This article is divided into five sections. Part I offers a definition of security studies and describes its place within the broader field of international relations. Part II outlines the central features of the so-called Golden Age (1955-1965) and discusses why the field declined in the late 1960s. Part III describes the recent renaissance, examining both how the field has changed and why this rebirth occurred. Part IV summarizes the current research agenda and considers some potential pitfalls; Part V offers several lessons and guidelines for enhancing future progress. What is "Security Studies?" The boundaries of intellectual disciplines are permeable; as a result, any effort to delineate the precise scope of security studies is somewhat arbitrary. The main focus of security studies is easy to identify, however: it is the phenomenon of war. Security studies assumes that conflict

between states is always a possibility and that the use of military force has far-reaching effects on states and societies (Bull, 1968; Martin, 1980). Accordingly, security studies may be defined as the study of the threat, use, and control of military force (Nye and Lynn-Jones, 1988). It explores the conditions that make the use of force more likely, the ways that the use of force affects individuals, states, and societies, and the specific policies that states adopt in order to prepare for, prevent, or engage in war.
The security studies literature often overlaps with more general works on international relations, and most of it fits comfortably within the familiar realist paradigm. In general, however, the research program of security studies is usually informed by debates over

central policy problems and tends to address phenomena that can be controlled by national leaders (Smoke, 1975:259).2 As a result, scholarship tends to concentrate on manipulable variables, on relationships that can be altered by deliberate acts of policy. Given the military power is the central focus of the field and is subject to political control, this tendency
is appropriate.3

Security studies should privilege empirical research rather than political propaganda from consultants and think tanks Walt, 91 Professor at the University of Chicago (Stephen, International Studies Quarterly, The Renaissance of Security Studies, JSTOR)
Throughout this essay, I

concentrate primarily on works that meet the standards of logic and evidence in the social sciences. It is important to recognize, however, that much of the published work on security topics does not meet these standards. Because national security issues are highly politicized and the resources at stake are enormous, work on these topics is often written for political rather than scientific goals (Walt, 1987a). This tendency is exacerbated by classification procedures that limit public access to relevant information and is compounded further by the extensive network of consultants and "think tanks" supported by defense contractors or the Defense Department itself. Although some of this work meets basic scholarly standards, much of it should be viewed as propaganda rather than as serious scholarship. This is not true of all "policy analysis," which often employs sophisticated theoretical concepts and careful empirical research. But there is a difference between the scholarly side of security studies and works that are largely political advocacy, just as there is a difference between scholarship in criminology and the public debate on gun control.

A2: AMERICA BAD/SPANOS

Criticizing the U.S. government only isolates the leftbrutal American history is a reason to engage the state, not reject it GITLIN 2005 (Todd, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, The Intellectuals and Patriotism,
http://www.ciaonet.org/book/git01/)

From the late New Left point of view, then, patriotism meant obscuring the whole grisly truth of the United States. It couldnt help spilling over into what Orwell thought was the harsh, dan- gerous, and distinct phenomenon of nationalism,
with its aggres-sive edge and its implication of superiority. Scrub up patriotism as you will, and nationalism, as Schaar put it, remained patrio- tisms bloody brother. Was Orwells distinction not, in the end, a distinction without a difference? Didnt his patriotism, while refusing aggressiveness, still insist that the nation he affirmed was the best in the world? What if there was more than one feature of the American way of life that you did not believe to be the best in the worldthe national bravado, the overreach of the marketplace. Patriotism might well be the door through which you marched with the rest of the conformists to the beat of the national anthem. Facing these realities, all the left could do was criticize empire and, on the positive side, unearth and cultivate righteous tradi-tions. The much-mocked political correctness of the next aca- demic generations was a consolation prize. We might have lost politics but we won a lot of the textbooks. The tragedy of the left is that, having achieved an unprecedented victory in helping stop an appalling war, it then proceeded

to commit suicide. The left helped force the United States out of Vietnam, where the country had no constructive work to doei- ther for Vietnam or for itselfbut did so at the cost of disconnecting itself from the nation. Most U.S. intellectuals substituted the pleasures of condemnation for the pursuit of improvement. The orthodoxy was that the system precluded reformnever mind that the antiwar movement had already demonstrated that reform was possible. Human rights, feminism, environmental- ismthese worldwide
initiatives, American in their inception, flowing not from the American Establishment but from our own American movements, were noises off, not center stage. They were outsider tastes, the stuff of protest, not national features, the real stuff. Thus when, in the nineties, the Clinton administra-tion finally mobilized armed force in behalf of Bosnia and then Kosovo against Milosevics genocidal Serbia, the hard left only could smell imperial motives, maintaining that democratic, anti-genocidal intentions added up to a paper-thin mask. In short, if the United States seemed

fundamentally trapped in militarist imperialism, its opposition was trapped in the mir-ror-image opposite. By the seventies the outsider stance had be-come second nature. Even those who had entered the sixties in diapers came to maturity thinking patriotism a threat or a bad joke. But anti-Americanism was, and remains, a mood and a metaphysics more than a politics. It cannot help but see practical politics as an illusion, entangled as it is and must be with a sys-tem fatally flawed by original sin. Viewing the ongoing politics of the Americans as contemptibly shallow and compromised, the demonological attitude naturally rules out patriotic attachment to those very Americans. Marooned (often selfmarooned) on university campuses, exiled in left-wing media and other cultural outpostsall told, an archipelago of bitternesswhat sealed it- self off in the postsixties decades was what Richard Rorty has called a spectatorial, disgusted, mocking Left rather than a Left which dreams of achieving our country.

And, switch-side debate doesnt require this Galloway 2007 (Ryan Galloway, Samford Debate Coach, Professor of Communication Studies at Samford, Contemporary Argumentation and
Debate, Vol. 28, 2007, LEQ) However, this does not mean that debaters are victims. The

A2: ARGUING AGAINST CONVICTION BAD

sophistication of modern argument and the range of strategic choices available to modern debaters allow them to choose positions that are consistent with their belief structures. The rise of plan-inclusive counterplans, kritiks, and other strategies allow negative teams to largely align themselves with agreeable affirmative cases while distinguishing away narrow slivers of arguments that allow debaters to rarely argue completely against their convictions. While some contend that this undermines the value of switch-side debate (Ellis, 2008b; Shanahan, 2004), in fact, the notion that debaters employ nuanced answers to debate topics illustrates the complexity of modern debate resolutions.

Debate is not public speaking- we arent meant to convince the opponents but illustrate who won- debate is a private event not public whether they want it to be or not
Galloway 2007 (Ryan Galloway, Samford Debate Coach, Professor of Communication Studies at Samford, Contemporary Argumentation and
Debate, Vol. 28, 2007, LEQ, LEQ)

The argument that debaters should not argue in favor of ideas that they do not believe treats debate as with a normal public speaking event. This controversy was discussed thoroughly in various speech journals throughout the 1950s and 1960s, with
most authors coming to the conclusion that debate is a unique public speaking event, where participants and observers disassociate the debater from their role. Richard Murphy lays out the case that students should not be forced to say something they do not believe, a concept quite similar to modernday advocates of the notion that affirmatives should not have to defend the topic (1957; 1963). Murphy contends, The argument against debating both sides is very simple and consistent. Debateis a form of public speaking. A public statement is a public commitment (1957, p. 2). Murphy believed students should discuss and research an issue until they understood their position on the issue and then take the stand and defend only that side of the proposition. Murphys fear was that students risk becoming a weather vane, having character only when the wind is not blowing (1963, p. 246). In contrast, Nicholas Cripe distinguished between speaking and debating (1957, p. 210). Cripe contended that, unlike

a public speaker, a debater is not trying to convince the judges, or his opponents of the argument but merely to illustrate that their team has done the superior debating (p. 211). Debating in this sense exists with an obligation to give each position its best defense, in much the way an attorney does for a client. Here, the process of defending a position for the purposes of debate is distinct from their advocacy for a cause in a larger sense. As such, they are like Socrates in the Phaedrus, speaking with their heads covered so as not to anger the gods (Murphy 1957, p. 3). Additionally, debate is unlike public speaking since it happens almost always in a private setting. There are several distinctions. First, very few people watch individual contest rounds. The vast majority of such rounds take place with five people in the roomthe four debaters, and the lone judge. Even elimination rounds with the largest audiences have no more than approximately one hundred observers, almost all of whom are debaters. Rarely do people outside the community watch debates. Also, debate has developed a set of norms and procedures quite unlike public speaking. While some indict these norms (Warner 2003), the rapid rate of speed and heavy reliance on evidence distinguishes debate from public speaking. Our activity is more like the closed debating society that Murphy admits can be judged by pedagogical, rather than ethical, standards (1957, p. 7).

Defending an argument in a debate doesnt force you to be a real life proponent of it only subjecting your views to examination can establish their validity Baird, 55 Professor of Speech at the University of Iowa (C. A., The college debater and the red china issue, Central States Speech Journal, 6(2), 5-7) A second indictment of you debaters is that if you discuss recognizing Red China you may fall victim to the Communistic propaganda. The assumption is that you may become inoculated. You may become brainwashed. The issue here is whether you may be gullible enough to swallow the "wrong" side of any subject whatever that "wrong" side isif you happen to argue it. This criticism is a vote of non-confidence in you. It amounts to the expression of the ancient distrust of democratic participation. The implication is that we Americans, even if we are reasonably well trained, are nevertheless incompetent to decide important questions. We cannot be trusted to push out into the troubled seas of propagandist^ conflict. Our only reply at this point is to invite those who fear open discussion on important issues, to read again any treatise on American government. We furthermore suggest a reading again of the great documents of our heritage. The principles in all of these documents steadily affirm that ours is a government by talk; that the secret voting is accompanied by popular assemblies and the free exchange of ideas and arguments; that all citizens share the right and ability to think, communicate, and decide, and that we can rely upon the molding of public opinion through these avenues of our democratic system.

My other recommendation to those who look askance at free discussion and debate is to read again John Stuart Mill's Liberty of Thought and Expression. According to Mill, the opinion or side which we ignore or sidestep may be true. Or, continued Mill, the forbidden side or opinion which we ignore or sidestep may be partly true. Or, concluded Mill, even if one hundred per cent truth is on our side, our opinions or conclusions become valid and properly significant only if we subject them to examination. Indeed, as Mill suggested, our beliefs and convictions, unless under continual review, may become enfeebled or lost, and so "inefficacious for good." Sound conviction can only happen after thoroughly researching and debating both sides of an issue it is hypocritical and immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) In a tolerant context, convictions can still be formed regarding the appropriateness and utility of differing values. Responding to the charge that switch-side debaters are hypocritical and sophistical, Windes responds with a series of propositions: Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under consideration. . . . This thorough understanding of the problem depends upon careful analysis of the issues and survey of the major arguments and supporting evidence. . . , This measured analysis and examination of the evidence and argument can best be done by the careful testing of each argument pro and con. . . . The learner's sound conviction covering controversial questions [therefore] depends partly upon his experience in defending and/or rejecting tentative affirmative and negative positions.""* Sound conviction, a key element of an individual's moral identity, is thus closely linked to a reasoned assessment of both sides. Some have even suggested that it would be immoral not to require debaters to defend both sides of the issues."" It does seem hypocritical to accept the basic premise of debate, that two opposing accounts are present on everything, and then to allow students the comfort of their own untested convictions. Debate might be rendering students a disservice, insofar as moral education is concerned, if it did not provide them some knowledge of alternative views and the concomitant strength of a reasoned moral conviction. The educational benefits of switch side debating outweigh any problems from being forced to defend something one doesnt believe Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) Reasons for not taking a position counter to one's beliefs (isolation from the "real world," sophistry) are largely outweighed by the benefit of such mental habits throughout an individual's life. The jargon, strategies, and techniques may be alienating to "outsiders," but they are also paradoxically integrative as well. Playing the game of debate involves certain skills, including research and policy evaluation, that evolve along with a debater's consciousness of the complexities of moral and political dilemmas. This conceptual development is a basis for the formation of ideas and relational thinking necessary for effective public decision making, making even the game of debate a significant benefit in solving real world problems.

A2: CAN ROLE PLAY AS ACTIVISTS

And, state policy is the only way to make criticism socially relevanttheir framework condemns social activism to useless complaining that leaves power in the hands of the same elites McCLEAN 2001 (David, New School University, The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope, http://www.americanphilosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion%20papers/david_mcclean.htm) Those who suffer or have suffered from this disease Rorty refers to as the Cultural Left, which left is juxtaposed to the Political Left that Rorty prefers and prefers for good reason. Another attribute of the Cultural Left is that its members fancy themselves pure culture critics who view the successes of America and the West, rather than some of the barbarous methods for achieving those successes, as mostly evil, and who view anything like national pride as equally evil even when that pride is tempered with the knowledge and admission of the nation's shortcomings. In other words, the Cultural

Left, in this country, too often dismiss American society as beyond reform and redemption. And Rorty correctly argues that this is a disastrous conclusion, i.e. disastrous for the Cultural Left. I think it may also be disastrous for our social hopes, as I will explain. Leftist American culture critics might put their considerable talents to better use if they bury some of their cynicism about America's social and political prospects and help forge public and political possibilities in a spirit of
determination to, indeed, achieve our country - the country of Jefferson and King; the country of John Dewey and Malcom X; the country of Franklin Roosevelt and Bayard Rustin, and of the later George Wallace and the later Barry Goldwater. To invoke the words of King, and with reference to the American society, the time is always ripe to seize the opportunity to help create the "beloved community," one woven with the thread of agape into a conceptually single yet diverse tapestry that shoots for nothing less than a true intra-American cosmopolitan ethos, one wherein both same sex unions and faith-based initiatives will be able to be part of the same social reality, one wherein business interests and the university are not seen as belonging to two separate galaxies but as part of the same answer to the threat of social and ethical nihilism. We who fancy ourselves philosophers would do well to create from within ourselves and from within our ranks a new kind of public intellectual who has both a hungry theoretical mind and who is yet capable of seeing the need to move past high theory to other important questions that are less bedazzling and "interesting" but more important to the prospect of our flourishing - questions such as "How is it possible to develop a citizenry that cherishes a certain hexis, one which prizes the character of the Samaritan on the road to Jericho almost more than any other?" or "How can we square the political dogma that undergirds the fantasy of a missile defense system with the need to treat America as but one member in a community of nations under a "law of peoples?" The new public

philosopher might seek to understand labor law and military and trade theory and doctrine as much as theories of surplus value; the logic of international markets and trade agreements as much as critiques of commodification, and the politics of complexity as much as the politics of power (all of which can still be done from our arm chairs.) This means going down deep into the guts of our quotidian social institutions, into the grimy pragmatic details where intellectuals are loathe to dwell but where the officers and bureaucrats of those institutions take difficult and often unpleasant, imperfect decisions that affect other peoples' lives, and it means making honest attempts to truly understand how those institutions actually function in the actual world before howling for their overthrow commences. This might help keep us from being slapped down in debates by true policy pros who actually know what they are talking about but who lack awareness of the dogmatic assumptions from which they proceed, and who have not yet found a good reason to listen to jargon-riddled lectures from philosophers and culture critics with their snobish disrespect for the so-called "managerial class."

A2: CASE IS A TURN

Their arguments can be included in our framework, but debate over government policy is still criticaltheoretical critique debates with no policy relevance distance the academy from government and hinder education JENTLESON 2002 (Bruce, Director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy and Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke
University, International Security 26.4) So, a Washington foreign policy colleague asked, which of your models and theories should I turn to now? What

do you academics have to say about September 11? You are supposed to be the scholars and students of international affairsWhy did it happen? What should be done? Notwithstanding the surly tone, the questions are not unfair. They do not pertain just to political scientists and international relations
scholars; they can be asked of others as well. It falls to each discipline to address these questions as they most pertain to its role. To be sure, political science and international relations have produced and continue to produce scholarly work that does bring important policy insights. Still it is hard to deny that contemporary political science and international relations as a discipline put limited value on policy

relevancetoo little, in my view, and the discipline suffers for it. 1 The problem is not just the gap between theory and policy but its chasmlike widening in recent years and the limited valuation of efforts, in Alexander George's phrase, at "bridging the gap." 2 The [End Page 169] events of September 11 drive home the need to bring policy relevance back in to the discipline, to seek greater praxis between theory and practice. This is not to say that scholars should take up the agendas of think tanks, journalists, activists, or fast fax operations. The academy's agenda is and should be principally a more scholarly one. But theory can be valued without policy relevance being so undervalued. Dichotomization along the lines of "we" do theory and "they" do policy consigns international relations scholars almost exclusively to an intradisciplinary dialogue and purpose, with conversations and knowledge building that while highly intellectual are excessively insular and disconnected from the empirical realities that are the discipline's raison d'tre. This stunts the contributions that universities, one of society's most essential institutions, can make in dealing with the profound problems and challenges society faces. It also is counterproductive to the academy's own interests. Research and scholarship are bettered by pushing analysis and logic beyond just offering up a few paragraphs on implications for policy at the end of a forty-page article, as if a "ritualistic addendum." 3 Teaching is enhanced when students' interest in "real world" issues is engaged in ways that reinforce the argument that theory really is relevant, and CNN is not enough. There also are gains to be made for the scholarly community's
standing as perceived by those outside the academic world, constituencies and colleagues whose opinions too often are self-servingly denigrated and defensively disregarded. It thus is both for the health of the discipline and to fulfill its broader societal responsibilities that

greater praxis is to be pursued.

A2: COMPETITION BAD

And, competition in debate is goodit encourages education, strong community, and increases quality of work GILLESPIE AND GORDON 2006 (William and Elizabeth, Kennesaw State University, Competition, Role-Playing, and Political
Science Education, Sep 1, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/1/0/0/pages151007/p151007-1.php) But, for the most part, coaches report that the competitive element enhances learning in several ways. First, many coaches perceive that competition

motivates their students to put in the time and do their best work. Some indicate that no other means of motivation is as effective. Engaging in competition allows students to measure their progress. It also provides a goal, raises the stakes of the activity, and provides more rewards. Second, as one coach said, the activity faithfully recreates many of the dynamics of the adversarial model, and my students report learning a lot. For the goal of substantive learning about how American law functions, especially in litigation, competition is an essential element. Mock trial allows students to experience some of the processes, constraints, and emotions associated with competition in a courtroom. Third, the stress of competition itself helps students gain flexibility and adaptability. Many coaches mention the ability to think on ones feet as a skill that students acquire in the fluid environment of a mock trial competition. Competition enhances the learning experience. The students seem to absorb lessons more quickly and thoroughly under fire, writes one coach. Another writes: They also learn to adjust and adapt quickly to the different evaluators. That is something they don't get from their regular classes. Fourth, some coaches explain that competing against other schools allows their students to learn by seeing different approaches to the same case. Representative
comments along these lines include: Students get to see what other teams do and learn from those experiences. [Competition] exposes the students to different techniques and approaches that the other teams use. Fifth, many coaches explain that the competition enhances camaraderie

and teamwork among their students. One coach explains that competition gives a sense of duty to fulfill an obligation to their fellow teammates. Students learn teamwork in an interactive and dynamic setting, reports another. Competition is goodit creates excellence and strenghtens communitiesits the only way to keep participation high LEWIS 1992 (Martin, Professor of Geography at George Washington University and recovered radical environmentalist, Green Delusions,
pp 176-177) But as anyone who has ever played sports knows full well, competition

usually creates strong social bonds. Camaraderie not only links team members, but it can even develop between opposing contingents. Such bonding between competitors is most clearly evident in nonteam sports; people generally play tennis or racquetball with their closest friends, not their most bitter enemies. Noncompetitive sports, on the other hand, not only fail to bring out peak performances, but they seldom prove satisfying. When I was an undergraduate at the University of California at Santa Cruz, where Marxist, primitivist, and anarchist philosophies prevailed, many students declared that they would no longer play games such as racquetball in competitive manner. Instead they would merely bat the ball around for a while, and in so doing spare the egos of the less-skilled players. In short time, however, most of these caring persons ceased playing altogether.

Topic specificwe encourage the Negative to develop specific critiques and require the Aff to have a critical defense tied to the planthis requires much less generic research than their interpretationthis mix of particular and general is good which is our 1NC Schaap evidence heres more BETTS 1997 (Richard, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, and he is
Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, World Politics, 50.1) Two academic pathologies should raise the stock of policy studies. One is that the professional

A2: CRITICAL EDUCATION OUTWEIGHS

premium on theorizing tends to proliferate theories, promote constant revision of theories, and encourage production of second-rate theories over first-rate applications. Albert Hirschman, with impeccable credentials as a theorist, long ago indicted "the tendency toward compulsive and mindless theorizing." 48 One sure sign of intellectual degeneration in a field is when the logical relationship between generalization and specification is inverted, theories threaten to outnumber their applications, and the shelf life of theoretical work turns out to be hardly longer than that of policy analysis. Some social scientists are untroubled that professional incentives encourage such imbalance, because never having had to meet a payroll in the policy world, they overestimate the ease with which an effective application can be derived from a theoretical insight. Every intellectual would rather be an Einstein than an engineer, but useful knowledge is not advanced if the academy generates a horde of would-be Einsteins but few competent engineers. Strategists are not just engineers, but they consider empiricism and application no less important than the theoretical part of their work. The other pathology is when theorization becomes a closed system, with no connection through which insights can be applied to the outside world--when theorists communicate effectively with no one but each other. When this happens, a theory may remain beautiful but it loses the claim to utility. It is the widespread perception in the outside world that theorization is a closed system that makes "academic" a pejorative adjective in normal parlance. A system can be closed in two senses: lack of feedback from policy application, or lack of interest in testing theories against evidence. Both problems are addressed in typical strategic studies research programs that proceed from policy issues, to theoretical formulation, to empirical testing, to policy application. Intellectuals who
spend much time in Washington sometimes worry that much theoretical work in contemporary political science reflects both pathologies and has not proved much less ephemeral or more useful than good applications of old theory. Unless academics themselves [End Page 31] become

involved on the periphery of policy-making, the only way that their work can have effect outside the closed system in universities is if practitioners read it. Few high-level staff in the U.S. government read anything more academic than Foreign
Affairs, and high-level policymakers seldom have time to read any unofficial material but op-ed pieces. One academic journal that is read occasionally in Washington is International Security, because it melds policy analysis and theory. This is one reason it has had a circulation 50 to 80 percent higher than its IPE counterpart International Organization and that academics in other fields sometimes denigrate its academic quality. Some academics

may value the aesthetic qualities of theory as much as the utilitarian. Strategists can get as excited as anyone over the elegance
of an idea, but see elegance without empirical confirmation and applicability as no more science than art. As Brodie suggested, any criterion for strategy but a utilitarian one is a contradiction in terms: "The question that matters in strategy is: Will the idea work? . . . . Strategy is a field where truth

is sought in the pursuit of viable solutions." 49

A2: Debate = Site for Activism

Using debate as a site of activism to encourage social change fails Atchison and Panetta, 09 *Director of Debate at Trinity University and **Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334)
Debates as Sites of Community Change The debate community has become more self-reflexive and increasingly invested in attempting to address the problems that have plagued the community from the start. The degrees to which things are considered problems and the appropriateness of different solutions to the problems have been hotly contested, but some fundamental issues, such as diversity and accessibility, have received considerable attention in recent years. This section will address the debate as activism perspective that argues that the appropriate site for addressing community problems is individual debates. In contrast to the debate as innovation perspective, which assumes that the activity is an isolated game with educational benefits, proponents of the debate as activism perspective argue that individual debates have the potential to create change in the debate community and society at large. If the first approach assumed that debate was completely insulated, this perspective assumes that there is no substantive insulation between individual debates and the community at large. From our perspective, using individual debates to create community change is an insufficient

strategy for three reasons. First, individual debates are, for the most part, insulated from the community at large. Second, individual debates limit the conversation to the immediate participants and the judge, excluding many important contributors to the debate community. Third, locating the discussion within the confines of a competition diminishes the additional potential for collaboration, consensus, and coalition building. Individual debates can't generate community change Atchison and Panetta, 09 *Director of Debate at Trinity University and **Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334) The first problem that we isolate is the difficulty of any individual debate to generate community change. Although any debate has the potential to create problems for the community (videotapes of objectionable behavior, etc.), rarely does any one debate have the power to create community-wide change. We attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problems inherent in individual debates and the collective forgetfulness of the debate community. The structural problems stem from the current tournament format that has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years. Debaters engage in preliminary debates in rooms that are rarely populated by anyone other than the judge. Judges are instructed to vote for the team that does the best debating, but the ballot is rarely seen by anyone outside the tabulation room. Given the limited number of debates in which a judge actually writes meaningful comments, there is little documentation of what actually transpired during the debate round. During the period when judges interact with the debaters, there are often external pressures (filing evidence, preparing for the next debate, etc.) that restrict the ability of anyone outside the debate to pay attention to the judges justification for their decision. Elimination debates do not provide for a much better audience because debates still occur simul- taneously, and travel schedules dictate that most of the participants have left by the later elimination rounds. It is difficult for anyone to substantiate the claim that asking a judge to vote to solve a community problem in an individual debate with so few participants is the best strategy for addressing important problems. The community is collectively forgetful no undermines its ability to promote social change Atchison and Panetta, 09 *Director of Debate at Trinity University and **Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334) In addition to the structural problems, the collective forgetfulness of the debate community reduces the impact that individual debates have on the community. The debate community is largely made up of participants who debate and then move on to successful careers. The coaches and directors that make up the backbone of the community are the people with the longest cultural memory, but they are also a small minority of the community when considering the number of debaters involved in the activity. This is not meant to suggest that the activity is reinvented every yearcertainly there are conventions that are passed down from coaches to debaters and from debaters to debaters. However, the basic fact remains that there are virtually no

transcriptions available for the community to read, and, therefore, it is difficult to substantiate the claim that the debate community can remember any one individual debate over the course of several generations of debaters. Additionally, given the focus on competition and individual skill, the community is more likely to remember the accomplishments and talents of debaters rather than a specific winning argument. The debate community does not have the necessary components in place for a strong collective memory of individual debates. The combination of the structures of debate and the collective forgetfulness means that any strategy for creating community change that is premised on winning individual debates is less effective than seeking a larger community dialogue that is recorded and/or transcribed. The debate community is too large to be affected by one debate Atchison and Panetta, 09 *Director of Debate at Trinity University and **Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334) A second problem with attempting to create community change in individual debates is that the debate community is comprised of more individuals than the four debaters and one judge that are present in every round. Coaches and directors have very little space for engaging in a discussion about community issues. This is especially true for coaches and directors who are not preferred judges and, therefore, do not have access to many debates. Coaches and directors should have a public forum to engage in a community conversation with debaters instead of attempting to take on their opponents through the wins and losses of their own debaters. In addition to coaches and debaters, there are many people who might want to contribute to a community conversation, but are not directly involved in competition. For instance, most debate tournaments take place at an academic institution that plays host to the rest of the community. For that institution to host everyone, they must make tremendous sacrifices. It would be beneficial to the debate community to have some of the administrators who make decisions about supporting debate come to a public forum and discuss what types of information they need when they make decisions about program funding. Directors and coaches would benefit from having administrators explain to the community how they evaluate the educational benefits of debate. Additionally, every institution has unique scholars who work in some area and who could be of benefit to the debate community. The input of scholars who study argument, communication, race, gender, sexuality, economics, and the various other academic interests could provide valuable advice to the debate community. For example, a business professor could suggest how to set up a collective bargaining agreement to reduce the costs associated with travel. Attempting to create an insulated community that has all the answers ignores the potential to create very powerful allies within academic institutions that could help the debate community. After all, debate is not the first community to have problems associated with finances, diversity, and competition. These resources, however, are not available for individual debates. The debate community is broader than the individual participants and can achieve better reform through public dialogue than individual debates. Striving for change through debates fails because of the emphasis on winning maintaining a resolutional focus is key Atchison and Panetta, 09 *Director of Debate at Trinity University and **Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334) The final problem with an individual debate round focus is the role of competition. Creating community change through individual debate rounds sacrifices the community portion of the change. Many teams that promote activist strategies in debates profess that they are more interested in creating change than winning debates. What is clear, however, is that the vast majority of teams that are not promoting community change are very interested in winning debates. The tension that is generated from the clash of these opposing forces is tremendous. Unfortunately, this is rarely a productive tension. Forcing teams to consider their purpose in debating, their style in debates, and their approach to evidence are all critical aspects of being participants in the community. However, the dismissal of the proposed resolution that the debaters have spent countless hours preparing for, in the name of a community problem that the debaters often have little control over, does little to engender coalitions of the willing. Should a debate team lose because their director or coach has been ineffective at

recruiting minority participants? Should a debate team lose because their coach or director holds political positions that are in opposition to the activist program? Competition has been a critical component of the interest in intercollegiate debate from the beginning, and it does not help further the goals of the debate community to dismiss competition in the name of community change. The larger problem with locating the debate as activism perspective within the competitive framework is that it overlooks the communal nature of the community problem. If each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy dedicated toward creating community change. One frustrating example of this type of argument might include a judge voting for an activist team in an effort to help them reach elimination rounds to generate a community discussion about the problem. Under this scenario, the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change. Downplaying the important role of competition and treating opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community may increase the profile of the winning team and the community problem, but it does little to generate the critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem, because the competitive focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for addressing the community problem. There is no role for competition when a judge decides that it is important to accentuate the publicity of a community problem. An extreme example might include a team arguing that their opponents academic institution had a legacy of civil rights abuses and that the judge should not vote for them because that would be a community endorsement of a problematic institution. This scenario is a bit more outlandish but not unreasonable if one assumes that each debate should be about what is best for promoting solutions to diversity problems in the debate community. If the debate community is serious about generating community change, then it is more likely to occur outside a traditional competitive debate. When a team loses a debate because the judge decides that it is better for the community for the other team to win, then they have sacrificed two potential advocates for change within the community. Creating change through wins generates backlash through losses. Some proponents are comfortable with generating backlash and argue that the reaction is evidence that the issue is being discussed. From our perspective, the discussion that results from these hostile situations is not a productive one where participants seek to work together for a common goal. Instead of giving up on hope for change and agitating for wins regardless of who is left behind, it seems more reasonable that the debate community should try the method of public argument that we teach in an effort to generate a discussion of necessary community changes. Simply put, debate competitions do not represent the best environment for community change because it is a competition for a win and only one team can win any given debate, whereas addressing systemic century-long community problems requires a tremendous effort by a great number of people. Academic debate is not conducive to creating direct social change you arent convincing the judges of anything substantive. It is far more important to preserve the method of switch-side debate. Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) The game of debate The emphasis on methodfocusing on the technique of debate as an educational endis characteristic of the defense of debating both sides of a resolution. Interscholastic debate, many scholars reason, is different from "real world" disputation; it lacks the purposes or functions of a senate speech, a public demonstration, or a legal plea.- Debate is designed to train students to construct arguments, to locate weaknesses in reasoning, to organize ideas, and to present and defend ideas effectively, not to convert the judge to a particular belief. As such, it is intended to teach debaters to see both sides of an issue and to become proficient in the exposition of argument independent of moral or ethical convictions.^ The debaters are to present the best case possible given the issues they have to work with.'* The definition of debate thus shapes a conception of its role in the development of the individual, Windes reaffirms the value of such procedural training in his view of the activity: Academic debating is a generic term for oral contests in argumentation, held according to established rules, the purpose being to present both sides of a controversy so effectively that a decision may be reachednot on which side was right or wrong but on which side did the better job of arguing. Academic debating is gamesmanship applied to argumentation, not the trivial and amusing gamesmanship often thought of, but sober, realistic, important gamesmanship.^

Focusing debates around social movements undermines the ability to train students for political careers this cedes the political to the right Coverstone, 05 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan H., Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact, Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05) Mitchells idea here clearly stops short of the uses to which it has been put, but he does acknowledge that If reflexive fiat became successful as a legitimate tactic on a widespread basis, it is true that the face of debate would change as contest rounds would come to resemble social movement organizing sessions more than hypothetical expert policy making forums (1998b, p. 20). In and of itself, this is not a bad outcome. I have seen numerous debates with this focus that have been incredibly edifying. However, in the extreme this outcome does mean that we will abandon our role in training and inspiring students to find careers within the halls of power. We will train our students to eschew attempts to change government policy from within and pursue often-marginal social movements as their principal strategy for pro-social change. We will abandon the incredible insider-influence after graduation that academic debate has always supported. Perhaps this outcome would be better for society, but former debaters like Karl Rove seem very unlikely to pursue this path, and that means that we would be ceding the halls of power to the right. I would prefer a middle ground that preserves the American tradition of debate and deliberation within government. Making the debate a question of social movement strategy will fail without maintaining an element of competitiveness and controversy just amounts to preaching to the choir Coverstone, 05 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan H., Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact, Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05) Debates about social movement strategy can be just as beneficial as debates about governmental action and public policy, but supporters of this view need to account for four important limitations on reflexive fiat if the central benefits of contest debate are to be maintained. First, the strategy must remain competitive and controversial. If, instead, the internal strategy debates of the social movement we create work to minimize problematic assertions and controversy by preaching to the choir, then we lose the competitive magic that Baker identified as so central to the good idea of debate. At the same time, we risk becoming the very argumentative enclave against which Sunstein and Mitchell warn us so persuasively. Second, reliance on community spirit for enforcement of follow through on promises of activism is
understandably optimistic, but ultimately unworkable. This area MAY represent a point of separation between high school and college, but I doubt it. I know that follow through would be nearly impossible to evaluate or maintain in high school debate. The community would quickly divide over the rumor mill that team so and so failed to follow through fully, and I suspect the same would happen in college. We would risk turning ourselves into moralistic, holier-than-thou vigilantes policing each others good works for the purpose of winning debates rather than for the purpose of improving society. Third, the strategy sessions would be no less preparatory to actual activism than policy debates are to actual voting. Finally, and most importantly in many ways, no specific solvency evidence would exist. Mitchell references solvency evidence that speaks eloquently and generally about the power of an active, engaged citizenry to keep the military industrial complexs power in check (1998b, p. 12). Unfortunately, reflexive fiat offers no more impressive claim on that general statement than policy fiat if policy fiat also trains citizens for active participation. For reflexive fiat to offer specific solvency evidence, advocates would need evidence proving that they would actually follow through on their activist pledges. Evidence that the particular debater would enjoy success as a movement activist would be inherently subjective, and the contests in competitive debate would be divisive and aimed at personal characteristic. Social movements that engage in that kind of struggle to select leadership seldom go far in accomplishing their goals. Successful movement leaders must inspire followers, not compete with other leaders to show his/her personal superiority for the role.

Switch side policy debate is good teaches students information management and decisionmaking to transition effectively to political life Coverstone, 95 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan, An Inward Glance; A Response to Mitchells Outward Activist Turn, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China.htm)
CONCLUSION As we enter the twenty-first century, let us take pride in the unique activity in which we engage. Debaters,

more than any other segment of American society, are capable of functioning effectively in the political world. Debaters acquire superior skills in information management and decision-making. Because our activity is non-political, students receive the space they need to test ideas, opinions, and beliefs. This testing process is put at risk by an outward activist turn. Yet, even more dangerous is the potential for new forms of domination within our academic oasis. We must
be careful not to replace domination by media/government elites with domination with our community elite. Mitchell's call for activism, as well as his examples of thriving participation should raise our awareness of both our responsibilities and opportunities.

Individuals who have learned to make and defend their own political decisions will continue to move easily into

political life. Let us do nothing to lessen that impact. Let us encourage greater involvement in debate. Such involvement holds greater potential for reinvigoration of political discourse than direct mass activism. Let us not stoop to the level of
modem political discourse, but elevate that discourse to our own level of deliberation.

Policy debate is net good for promoting social activism Coverstone, 05 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan H., Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact, Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05) Almost without even trying, competitive policy debate is unique among educational activities in its promotion of pro-social involvement and activism. Without meaning to disparage other forensic activities at all, I do not know of any that experience the level of concern about getting students involved in the real world as the policy debate community does. I am willing to be corrected here, but Lincoln-Douglas debate, extemporaneous speaking, and even public forum are not engaged in anything like this controversy regarding the utility of their training for future political action. It probably is understood within these activities that practitioners believe confronting controversy and public argument by itself is enough to train students to move from spectators to participants. There is a sense of self-importance among those of us in policy debate who feel that our research and government policy focus better situates us to become meaningfully participating citizens. Often this self-importance fuels our guilt at not doing more, but this same self-importance leads us to believe we are so gifted that we can short change training if necessary in order to dive directly into activism. Even if we're not activists now, debate trains us to be activists later Coverstone, 05 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan H., Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact, Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference, 11/17/05) While Mitchell correctly points to precious little tangible public participation by contest debaters during their time in competitive activity, he would be hard pressed to challenge the assertion that a high percentage of debate participants do indeed find ways to make meaningful contributions to their communities both locally and nationally. Typically, those contributions are small while in contest debates, but after graduation these same people find their way into the public realm with a frequency unsurpassed by graduates of any other educational program. Given the skills and critical perspectives that success in competitive debate requires, one would have difficulty arguing that these same people are not more likely to become active participants in public discourse across ideological lines than if they had never participated at all. But then, that is not what I take Mitchells argument to be.

A2: Debate Jargon Bad

Debate jargon is good provides a role in understanding society's problem Muir, 93 Department of Communications at George Mason (Star A., A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate, Philosophy and Rhetoric, Vol. 26, No. 4. Gale Academic Onefile) Even the specialized jargon required to play the game successfully has benefits in terms of analyzing and understanding society's problems. Consider the terminology of the "disadvantage" against the affirmative's plan: There is a "link" between the plan and some effect, or "impact"; the link can be actions that push us over some "threshold" to an impact, or it can be a "linear" relationship where each increase causes an increase in the impact; the link from the affirmative plan to the impact must be "unique," in that the plan itself is largely responsible for the impact; the affirmative may argue a "turnaround" to the disadvantage, claiming it as an advantage for the plan. Such specialized jargon may separate debate talk from other types of discourse, but the ideas represented here are also significant and useful for analyzing the relative desirability of public policies. There really are threshold and brink issues in evaluating public policies. Though listening to debaters talk is somewhat disconcerting for a lay person, familiarity with these concepts is an essential means of connecting the research they do with the evaluation of options confronting citizens and decision makers in political and social contexts. This familiarity is directly related to the motivation and the ability to get involved in issues and controversies of public importance.

A2: EXCLUSION
Exclusion is inevitablethe structure of the Aff does it too Galloway 2007 (Ryan Galloway, Samford Debate Coach, Professor of Communication Studies at Samford, Contemporary Argumentation and
Debate, Vol. 28, 2007, LEQ)

While affirmative teams often accuse the negative of using a juridical rule to exclude them, the affirmative also relies upon an unstated rule to exclude the negative response. This unstated but understood rule is that the negative speech act must serve to negate the affirmative act. Thus, affirmative teams often exclude an entire range of negative arguments, including arguments designed to challenge the hegemony, domination, and oppression inherent in topical approaches to the resolution. Becoming more than just a ritualistic tag-line of fairness, education, time skew, voting issue, fairness exists in the implicit right to be heard in a meaningful way. Ground is just thata ground to stand on, a ground to speak from, a ground by which to meaningfully contribute to an ongoing conversation.

A2: Focus on Government is Bad

A focus on reforming policies is necessary to fix societal problems other criticisms are irrelevant to the day-to-day affairs that we confront McClean, 01 Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, Molloy College, New York
(David E., The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope, Presented at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion %20papers/david_mcclean.htm, JMP)
There is a lot of philosophical prose on the general subject of social justice. Some of this is quite good, and some of it is quite bad. What distinguishes the good from the bad is not merely the level of erudition. Displays of high erudition are gratuitously reflected in much of the

writing by those, for example, still clinging to Marxian ontology and is often just a useful smokescreen which shrouds a near total disconnect from empirical reality. This kind of political writing likes to make a lot of references to

other obscure, jargon-laden essays and tedious books written by other true believers - the crowd that takes the fusion of Marxian and Freudian private fantasies seriously. Nor is it the lack of scholarship that makes this prose bad. Much of it is well "supported" by footnotes referencing a lode of other works, some of which are actually quite good. Rather, what makes this prose bad is its utter lack of relevance to extant and

critical policy debates, the passage of actual laws, and the amendment of existing regulations that might actually do some good for someone else. The writers of this bad prose are too interested in our arrival at some social place wherein we will
finally emerge from our "inauthentic" state into something called "reality." Most of this stuff, of course, comes from those steeped in the Continental tradition (particularly post-Kant). While that tradition has much to offer and has helped shape my own philosophical sensibilities, it is anything but useful when it comes to truly relevant philosophical analysis, and no self-respecting Pragmatist can really take seriously the strong poetry of formations like "authenticity looming on the ever remote horizons of fetishization." What Pragmatists see instead is the hope that we can fix

some of the social ills that face us if we treat policy and reform as more important than Spirit and Utopia. Like light rain released from pretty clouds too high in the atmosphere, the substance of this prose dissipates before it can reach the ground and be a useful component in a discussion of medicare reform or how to better regulate a pharmaceutical industry that
bankrupts senior citizens and condemns to death HIV patients unfortunate enough to have been born in Burkina Faso - and a regulatory regime that permits this. It is often too drenched in abstractions and references to a narrow and not so merry band of other social justice literature. Since I have no particular allegiance to these other intellectuals, no particular impulse to carry their water or defend their reputations, I try and forget as much as I can about their writings in order to make space for some new approaches and fresh

intellectuals (Nietzsche, Bataille, Foucault, Lukcs, Benjamin) to be of much use to those who are the supposed subject matter of this preternatural thinking about that important question that always faces us - "What is to be done?" I am, I think, lucky to have taken this

decision before it had become too late. One might argue with me that these other intellectuals are not looking to be taken seriously in the construction of solutions to specific socio-political problems. They are, after all, philosophers engaged in something called philosophizing. They are, after all, just trying to be good culture critics. Of course, that isn't quite true, for they often write with specific reference to social issues and social justice in mind, even when they are fluttering about in the ether of high theory (Lukcs, for example, was a government officer, albeit a minister of culture, which to me says a lot), and social justice is not a

Platonic form but parses into the specific quotidian acts of institutions and individuals. Social justice is but the genus heading which may be described better with reference to its species iterations- the various conditions of cruelty and sadism which we wittingly or unwittingly permit. If we wanted to, we could reconcile the grand general theories of these thinkers to specific bureaucracies or social problems and so try to increase their relevance. We could construct an account which acts as a bridge to relevant policy considerations. But such attempts, usually performed in the reams of secondary literature generated by their devotees, usually make things even more bizarre. In any event, I don't think we owe them that amount of effort. After all, if they wanted to be relevant they could have said so by writing in such
a way that made it clear that relevance was a high priority. For Marxians in general, everything tends to get reduced to class. For Lukcs everything tends to get reduced to "reification." But society and its social ills are far too intricate to gloss in these ways, and the engines that drive competing interests are much more easily explained with reference to animal drives and fears than by Absolute Spirit. That is to say, they are not easily explained at all.

Turn our framework increases the knowledge and skills to understand the inner workings of the government. This allows students to become advocates for change not mere spectators. That is Joyner. Change outside the state is temporary only engaging institutions produces lasting remedies Milbrath, 96 Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Sociology at SUNY Buffalo (Lester W., Building Sustainable Societies, Ed. Pirages, p. 289)
In some respects personal change cannot be separated from societal change. Societal transformation will not be successful without change at the personal level; such change is a necessary but not sufficient step on the route to sustainability. People hoping to live sustainably must adopt new beliefs, new values, new lifestyles, and new worldview. But lasting personal change is unlikely without simultaneous transformation

of the socioeconomic/political system in which people function. Persons may solemnly resolve to change, but that resolve is likely to weaken as they perform day-today within a system reinforcing different beliefs and values. Change agents typically are met with denial and great resistance. Reluctance to challenge mainstream society is the major reason most efforts

emphasizing education to bring about change are ineffective. If

societal transformation must be speedy, and most of us believe it must, pleading with individuals to change is not likely to be effective. Engaging in political reform is essential to forge a compromise between the Cultural Left and Cultural Right their criticism prevents us from taking active steps to reign in the right. McClean, 01 Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, Molloy College, New York
(David E., The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope, Presented at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion %20papers/david_mcclean.htm, JMP)

Our new president, possessing no towering intellect, talks of a people who share a continent, but are not a nation. He is right, of course. We are only beginning to learn to put tribal loyalties aside and to let ourselves take seriously other more salutary possibilities, though we delude ourselves into believing that we have made great progress. Perhaps so-called "compassionate conservatism," though a gimmick to win a political contest, will bear a small harvest of unintended and positive consequences, although I remain dubious about this if the task of thinking through what it might actually mean remains the chore of George W. Bush. But if the not-tooNeanderthal-Right is finally willing to meet the not-too-wacky-Left at a place of dialogue somewhere in the "middle," then that is good news, provided the Left does not miss the opportunity to rendevous. Yet, there is a problem here. Both the Cultural Left and the Cultural Right tend to be self-righteous purists. The best chance, then, is for the emergence of Rorty's new Political Left, in conjunction with a new Political Right. The new Political Left would be in the better position of the two to frame the discourse since it probably has the better intellectual hardware (it tends to be more open-minded and less dogmatic) to make a true dialogue work. They, unlike their Cultural Left peers, might find it more useful to be a little less inimical and a little more sympathetic to what the other side might, in good faith, believe is at stake. They might leave behind some of the baggage of the Cultural Left's endless ruminations (Dewey's philosophical cud chewing) about commodity fetishization, or whether the Subject has really died, or where crack babies fit into neo-capitalist hegemonies, and join the political fray by parsing and exposing the more basic idiotic claims and dogmas of witless politicians and dangerous ideologues, while at the same time finding common ground, a larger "We" perspective that includes Ronald Reagan and Angela Davis under the same tent rather than as inhabitants of separate worlds. The operative spirit should be that of fraternal disagreement, rather than self-righteous cold shoulders. Only debating state policies can avert nuclear conflict this doesnt mean accepting the system Spanier, 90 PhD from Yale and Teacher at the University of Florida (John, Games Nations Play, p. 115) Whether the observer personally approves of the "logic of behavior" that a particular framework seems to suggest is not the point. It is one thing to say, as done here, that the state system condemns each state to be continually concerned with its power relative to that of other states, which, in an anarchical system, it regards as potential aggressors. It is quite another thing to approve morally of power politics. The utility of the state-system framework is simply that is points to the "essence" of state behavior. It does not
pretend to account for all factors, such as moral norms, that motivate states. As a necessarily simplified version of reality, it clarifies what most basically concerns and drives states and what kinds of behavior can be expected. We, as observers, may deplore that behavior and the anarchical system that produces it and we may wish that international politics were not as conflictual and violent as the twentieth century has already amply demonstrated. We may prefer a system other that one in which states are so committed to advancing their own national interests and protecting their sovereignty. Nevertheless, however much we may deplore the current system and prefer a more peaceful and harmonious world, we

must first understand the contemporary one if we are to learn how to "manage" it and avoid the catastrophe of a nuclear war.

A2: Gordon Mitchell / Switch Side Debate Good

Mitchell now agrees that switch-side policy debate is superior debate should be protected space for students to take imaginary positions that go against their convictions Mitchell, 02 (11/9/02, Gordon, [eDebate] Adri and Ross, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2002-November/044264.html) Politically I have moved quite a bit since 1998, when I wrote that debate institutions should pay more attention to argumentative agency, i.e. cultivation of skills that facilitate translation of critical thinking, public speaking, and research acumen into concrete exemplars of democratic empowerment. Back then I was highly skeptical of the "laboratory model" of "preparatory pedagogy," where students were kept, by fiat, in the proverbial pedagogical bullpen. Now I respect much more the value of a protected space where young people can experiment politically by taking imaginary positions, driving the hueristic process by arguing against their convictions. In fact, the integrity of this space could be compromised by "activist turn" initiatives designed to bridge contest round advocacy with political activism. These days I have much more confidence in the importance and necessity of switch-side debating, and the heuristic value for debaters of arguing against their convictions. I think fashioning competitive debate contest rounds as isolated and politically protected safe spaces for communicative experimentation makes sense. However, I worry that a narrow diet of competitive contest round debating could starve students of opportunities to experience the rich political valence of their debating activities. I have preliminary ideas of how to cope with this political conundrum, yet could make great use of follow-on feedback.

A2: Gordon Mitchell / Debate Trains Effective Decision-Makers

Debates insulated space is good helps train students to be effective decision-makers in the rapidly expanding information age Coverstone, 95 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan, An Inward Glance; A Response to Mitchells Outward Activist Turn, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China.htm) INTRODUCTION Mitchell's call for an outward activist turn among academic debate practitioners is, indeed, a wake up call. The problems inherent in political discourse today are manifold. As the information age gathers momentum, the power of the information "haves" in society dramatically increases. As masters of information, academic debaters are uniquely situated to direct the future flow of political life in America. Mitchell's work is important for its potential to elevate our awareness of the latent power we possess and the responsibilities such power confers upon us. There is value in the inspiration he provides for individual and collective participation in the democratic process. By identifying channels of influence that are open to debate practitioners, he enables effective involvement. Yet, Mitchell goes too far. In two important areas, his argument is slightly miscalibrated. First, Mitchell underestimates the value of debate as it is currently practiced. There is greater value in the somewhat insular nature of our present activity than he assumes. Debate's inward focus creates an unusual space for training and practice with the tools of modem political discourse. Such space is largely unavailable elsewhere in American society. Second, Mitchell overextends his concept of activism. He argues fervently for mass action along ideological lines. Such a turn replaces control by society's information elite with control by an elite all our own. More than any other group in America today, practitioners of debate should recognize the subtle issues upon which political diversity turns. Mitchell's search for broad themes around which to organize mass action runs counter to this insight. As a result, Mitchell's call for an outward activist turn threatens to subvert the very values it seeks to achieve. AN OASIS IN THE DESERT Mitchell's argument underestimates the nature of academic debate in three ways. First, debate trains students in the very skills required for navigation in the public sphere of the information age. In the past, political discourse was controlled by those elements who controlled access to information. While this basic reality will continue in the future, its essential features will change. No longer will mere possession of information determine control of political life. Information is widely available. For the first time in human history we face the prospect of an entirely new threat. The risk of an information overload is already shifting control of political discourse to superior information managers. It is no longer possible to control political discourse by limiting access to information. Instead, control belongs to those who are capable of identifying and delivering bits of information to a thirsty public. Mitchell calls this the "desertification of the public sphere." The public senses a deep desire for the ability to manage the information around them. Yet, they are unsure how to process and make sense of it all. In this environment, snake charmers and charlatans abound. The popularity of the evening news wanes as more and more information becomes available. People realize that these half hour glimpses at the news do not even come close to covering all available information. They desperately want to select information for themselves. So they watch CNN until they fall asleep. Gavel to gavel coverage of political events assumes top spots on the Nielsen charts. Desperate to decide for themselves, the public of the twenty-first century drinks deeply from the well of information. When they are finished, they find they are no more able to decide. Those who make decisions are envied and glorified. Debate teaches individual decision-making for the information age. No other academic activity available today teaches people more about information gathering, assessment, selection, and delivery. Most importantly, debate teaches individuals how to make and defend their own decisions. Debate is the only academic activity that moves at the speed of the information age. Time\ is required for individuals to achieve escape velocity. Academic debate holds tremendous value as a space for training. Mitchell's reflections are necessarily more accurate in his own situation. Over a decade of debate has well positioned him to participate actively and directly in the political process. Yet the skills he has did not develop overnight. Proper training requires time. While there is a tremendous variation in the amount of training required for effective navigation of the public sphere, the relative isolation of academic debate is one of its virtues. Instead of turning students of debate immediately outward, we should be encouraging more to enter

the oasis. A thirsty public, drunk on the product of anyone who claims a decision, needs to drink from the pool of decision-making skills. Teaching these skills is our virtue.

A2: Gordon Mitchell / Making Debate a Site for Activism is Bad

Making debate a site for activism encourages dangerous elite infiltration and politicizes debates training process Coverstone, 95 masters in communication from Wake Forest and longtime debate coach (Alan, An Inward Glance; A Response to Mitchells Outward Activist Turn, http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Coverstone1995China.htm) Second, Mitchell's argument underestimates the risks associated with an outward turn. Individuals trained in the art and practice of debate are, indeed, well suited to the task of entering the political world. At some unspecified point in one's training, the same motivation and focus that has consumed Mitchell will also consume most of us. At that point, political action becomes a proper endeavor. However, all of the members of the academic debate community will not reach that point together. A political outward turn threatens to corrupt the oasis in two ways. It makes our oasis a target, and it threatens to politicize the training process. As long as debate appears to be focused inwardly, political elites will not feel threatened. Yet one of Mitchell's primary concerns is recognition of our oasis in the political world. In this world we face well trained information managers. Sensing a threat from "debate," they will begin to infiltrate our space. Ready made information will increase and debaters will eat it up. Not yet able to truly discern the relative values of information, young debaters will eventually be influenced dramatically by the infiltration of political elites. Retaining our present anonymity in political life offers a better hope for reinvigorating political discourse. As perhaps the only truly non-partisan space in American political society, academic debate holds the last real possibility for training active political participants. Nowhere else are people allowed, let alone encouraged, to test all manner of political ideas. This is the process through which debaters learn what they believe and why they believe it. In many ways this natural evolution is made possible by the isolation of the debate community. An example should help illustrate this idea. Like many young debaters, I learned a great deal about socialism early on. This was not crammed down my throat. Rather, I learned about the issue in the free flow of information that is debate. The intrigue of this, and other outmoded political arguments, was in its relative unfamiliarity. Reading socialist literature avidly, I was ready to take on the world. Yet I only had one side of the story. I was an easy mark for the present political powers. Nevertheless, I decided to fight City Hall. I had received a parking ticket which I felt was unfairly issued. Unable to convince the parking department to see it my way, I went straight to the top. I wrote the Mayor a letter. In this letter, I accused the city of exploitation of its citizens for the purpose of capital accumulation. I presented a strong Marxist critique of parking meters in my town. The mayor's reply was simple and straightforward. He called me a communist. He said I was being silly and should pay the ticket. I was completely embarrassed by the entire exchange. I thought I was ready to start the revolution. In reality, I wasn't even ready to speak to the Mayor. I did learn from the experience, but I did not learn what Gordon might have hoped. I learned to stop reading useless material and to keep my opinions to myself. Do we really want to force students into that type of situation? I wrote the mayor on my own. Debaters will experiment with political activism on their own. This is all part of the natural impulse for activism which debate inspires. Yet, in the absence of such individual motivation, an outward turn threatens to short circuit the learning process. Debate should capitalize on its isolation. We can teach our students to examine all sides of an issue and reach individual conclusions before we force them into political exchanges. To prematurely turn debaters out threatens to undo the positive potential of involvement in debate.

A2: Green & Hicks Switch Side Debate Causes Exceptionalism

Turn Switch-side debate is key to engaging in a policy of liberalism and preventing misappropriation of security policy. And, debaters often transition to greatly impact real world politics in progressive ways. Mitchell, et al., 07 Associate Professor of Communication and Director of the William Pitt Debating Union at the University of Pittsburgh (Gordon R., Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief & Carly Woods, Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction June 2007, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 221 225, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf)
Todays intercollegiate debaters find themselves in a political landscape resembling 1954 in several respects. Once again, we find prominent political figures attempting to define the contours of public debate by portraying critics as unpatriotic. Vice President Cheney says that disagreement, argument and debate are the essentials of democracy, yet stipulates that charges of pre-war intelligence manipulation are dishonest and reprehensible.9 Such contortions are typical examples of how skillfully McCarthys ideological descendants attack the process of democracy in the name of democracy. The conservative punditry also does its part. While Ann Coulter accuses Iraq war critics of treason, David Horowitz revives fears of a liberal (and therefore dangerous) academic elite poisoning the minds of Americas young adults. Despite these and countless other examples of McCarthyist tendencies, many directed specifically at academia, there has been no outcry about college students taking the side of terrorists in competitive debate tournaments. Why? One answer is that intercollegiate policy debate has become remarkably isolated and esoteric. Competitive pressures

have molded the activity into a highly technical art form, where students argue in jargon at breakneck speeds that regularly top 300 words per minute. Because so few people can participate in these debates, virtually no one observes them;
untrained spectators are often baffled. The coin has two sides, for the isolation of this form of debate both protects it from criticism and prevents it from having a broader social effect. The result is an odd oasis of intellectual ferment bearing resemblance to the carefully demarcated free speech zones that dot the periphery of todays controversial public events. Second, while the pedagogical benefits of switch-side debating for participants are compelling,10 some worry that

the technique may perversely and unwittingly serve the ends of an aggressively militaristic foreign policy. In the
context of the 1954 controversy, Ronald Walter Greene and Darrin Hicks suggest that the articulation of the debate community as a zone of dissent against McCarthyist tendencies developed into a larger and somewhat uncritical affirmation of switch-side debate as a technology of liberal participatory democracy. This technology is part and parcel of the post-McCarthy ethical citizen, prepared to discuss issues from multiple viewpoints. The problem for Greene and Hicks is that this notion of citizenship becomes tied to a normative conception of American democracy that justifies imperialism. They write, The production and management of this field of governance allows liberalism to trade in cultural technologies in the global cosmopolitan marketplace at the same time as it creates a field of intervention to transform and change the world one subject (regime) at a time.11 Here, Greene and Hicks argue that this new conception of liberal governance, which epitomizes the ethical citizen as an individual trained in the switch-side technique, serves

as a normative tool for judging other polities and justifying forcible regime change. One need look only to the Bush administrations framing of war as an instrument of democracy promotion to grasp how the switchside technique can be appropriated as a justification for violence. It is our position, however, that rather than acting as a cultural

technology expanding American exceptionalism, switchside debating originates from a civic attitude that serves as a bulwark against fundamentalism of all stripes. Several prominent voices reshaping the national dialogue on homeland security have come from the academic debate community and draw on its animating spirit of critical inquiry. For example, Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal served as lead plaintiff s counsel in Hamdan , which challenged post-9/11 enemy combat definitions.12 The foundation for Katyals winning argument in Hamdan was laid some four years before, when he collaborated
with former intercollegiate debate champion Laurence Tribe on an influential Yale Law Journal addressing a similar topic.13 Tribe won the National Debate Tournament in 1961 while competing as an undergraduate debater for Harvard University. Thirty years later, Katyal

represented Dartmouth College at the same tournament and finished third. The imprint of this debate training is evident in Tribe and Katyals contemporary public interventions, which are characterized by meticulous research, sound argumentation, and a staunch commitment to democratic principles. Katyals reflection on his early days
of debating at Loyola High School in Chicagos North Shore provides a vivid illustration. I came in as a shy freshman with dreams of going to medical school. Then Loyolas debate team opened my eyes to a different world: one of argumentation and policy. As Katyal recounts, the most important preparation for my career came from my experiences as a member of Loyolas debate team.14 The success of former debaters like Katyal, Tribe, and others in challenging the dominant dialogue on homeland

security points to the efficacy of academic debate as a training ground for future advocates of progressive change. Moreover, a robust understanding of the switch-side technique and the classical liberalism which underpins it would help prevent misappropriation of the technique to bolster suspect homeland security policies. For buried within an inner-city debaters files is a secret threat to absolutism: the refusal to be classified as with us or against us, the embracing of intellectual experimentation in an age of orthodoxy, and reflexivity in the face of fundamentalism. But by now, the irony of our story should be apparent *the more effectively academic debating practice can be focused toward these ends, the greater the proclivity of McCarthys ideological heirs to brand the activity as a weapon of mass destruction. Switch side debate is an antidote to exceptionalism

Lacy, 06 debate coach at Wake Forest (J.P., RE: Re-open the debate about switch side debate, Edebate, 40/13/06. http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2006-April/066558.html) Leaving aside their logical leap that "liberalism's universal norms circulate in and through specific national and economic histories re-writing its moral geographies by separating those who need the universal norms of liberalism from those exceptional subjects that can embody those norms, judge how well others are inculcating those norms, and can govern the world," It seems a stretch from "liberalism's norms separating exceptional subjects" to the claim that "debate [as often practiced]...[is a]...form of cultural technology re-affirming a commitment to American Exceptionalism and global domination." There is still place for conviction in debate: Day's version of switch-sides is that we are obligated to ignore our personal convictions (and interests) when there are minority viewpoints under-represented in public debate by articulating those views to the best of our abilities (hence "deliberative" rather than "majoritarian" democracy.) Not that we should just get up and say stuff we disagree with. (Yes, this *does* implicate the way we currently write topics & debate.) I cannot comprehend how this particular "tool of liberalism" can possibly lead to the worst forms of American Exceptionalism. I'd like to think that the articulation and understanding of under-heard standpoints is an antidote to il-liberal exceptionalism. Myself, I'll take my chances with deliberative democracy and liberalism. "The force of better argument" seems much more attractive than the personal conviction driving Bush's War on Terrorism. And, Hicks and Greene are wrongswitch-side debate is good and any alternative links worse to their criticism of debate STANNARD 2006 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series
Speech, April 18, http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberation-democracy-and-debate.html) If it is indeed true that debate inevitably produces other-oriented deliberative discourse at the expense of students' confidence in their first-order convictions, this would indeed be a trade-off worth criticizing. In all fairness, Hicks and Greene do not overclaim their critique, and they take care to acknowledge the important ethical and cognitive virtues of deliberative debating. When represented as anything other than a political-ethical concern, however, Hicks and Greene's critique has several problems: First, as my colleague J.P. Lacy recently pointed out, it seems a

tremendous causal (or even rhetorical) stretch to go from "debating both sides of an issue creates civic responsibility essential to liberal democracy" to "this civic responsibility upholds the worst forms of American exceptionalism." Second, Hicks and Greene do not make any comparison of the potentially bad power of debate to any alternative. Their implied alternative, however, is a form of forensic speech that privileges personal conviction. The idea that students should be able to preserve their personal convictions at all costs seems far more immediately tyrannical, far more immediately damaging to either liberal or participatory democracy, than the ritualized requirements that students occasionally take the opposite side of what they believe. Third, as I
have suggested and will continue to suggest, while a debate project requiring participants to understand and often "speak for" opposing points of view may carry a great deal of liberal baggage, it is at its core a project more ethically deliberative than institutionally liberal. Where Hicks and

Greene see debate producing "the liberal citizen-subject," I see debate at least having the potential to produce "the deliberative human being." The fact that some academic debaters are recruited by the CSIS and the CIA does not undermine this thesis. Absent healthy debate programs, these think-tanks and government agencies would still recruit what they saw as the best and brightest students. And absent a debate community that rewards anti-institutional political rhetoric as much as liberal rhetoric, those students would have little-to-no chance of being exposed to truly oppositional ideas. Moreover, if we allow ourselves to believe that it is "culturally imperialist" to help other peoples build institutions of debate and deliberation, we not only ignore living political struggles that occur in every culture, but we fall victim to a dangerous ethnocentrism in holding that "they do not value deliberation like we do." If the argument is that our participation in fostering debate communities abroad greases the wheels of globalization, the correct response, in debate terminology, is that such globalization is non-unique, inevitable, and there is only a risk that collaborating across cultures in public debate and deliberation will foster resistance to dominationjust as debate accomplishes wherever it goes.
Indeed, Andy Wallace, in a recent article, suggests that Islamic fundamentalism is a byproduct of the colonization of the lifeworld of the Middle East; if this is true, then one solution would be to foster cross-cultural deliberation among people on both sides of the cultural divide willing to question their own preconceptions of the social good. Hicks and Greene might be correct insofar as elites in various cultures can either

forbid or reappropriate deliberation, but for those outside of that institutional power, democratic discussion would have a positively subversive effect.

A2: Hip Hop

Hip Hop has failed to create any type of social movement Brentus and Kitwana 09 *writer for Scheme Magazine, a Black Culture information source; **author, educator, journalist, political analyst, and notable figure in Hip Hop politics (*Bryan, **Bakari; Hip Hops Consummate Optimist April 7, 2009; http://schememag.com/daily-news/hip-hops-consummate-optimist/) SCHEME: Hip Hop is still battling to create a positive image in the mainstream culture. Even the Black political elite are struggling with this challengefrom Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit to Sheila Dixon of Baltimore to Roland Burris of Illinois. Considering the rampant negative images in Hip Hop, is political and social development too great a burden for Hip Hop to carry? BK: The previous generation of Black political leadership, which is essentially the civil rights movement, articulated a moral vision, so even when individual members who came out of that circle arent maintaining that moral vision, [they] then became an aberration. Hip Hop as a political movement has failed to articulate a moral vision. I think that until we are able to articulate a moral vision in the same way that weve identified a political vision, were going to continue to have problems in that area. Its one of the fundamental hurdles for our generation. The older generation looks at it as if we lack respect, but what theyre really saying is that our movement hasnt articulated a moral visionso our movement seems to lack morality. We continue to get beat up on that.

A2: Limits Bad Butler

The failure to articulate norms and standards allows subversion and parody to be used in counterproductive ways preventing the ultimate goals they wish to achieve.

Nussbaum, 99 Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago

(Martha C., The New Republic, The Professor of Parody, 2-22-1999, http://www.akad.se/Nussbaum.pdf, JMP)
Suppose we grant Butler her most interesting claims up to this point: that the social structure of gender is ubiquitous, but we can resist it by subversive and parodic acts. Two significant questions remain. What should be resisted, and on what basis? What would the acts of resistance be like, and what would we expect them to accomplish? Butler uses several words for what she takes to be bad and therefore worthy of resistance: the "repressive," the "subordinating," the "oppressive." But she provides no empirical discussion of resistance of the sort that we find, say, in Barry Adam's fascinating sociological study The Survival of Domination (1978), which studies the subordination of blacks, Jews, women, and gays and lesbians, and their ways of wrestling with the forms of social power that have oppressed them. Nor does Butler provide any account of the concepts of resistance and

oppression that would help us, were we really in doubt about what we ought to be resisting.

Butler departs in this regard from earlier social-constructionist feminists, all of whom used ideas such as non-hierarchy, equality, dignity, autonomy, and treating as an end rather than a means, to indicate a direction for actual politics. Still less is she willing to elaborate any positive normative notion. Indeed, it is clear that Butler, like Foucault, is adamantly opposed to normative notions such as human dignity, or treating humanity as an end, on the grounds that they are inherently dictatorial. In her view, we ought to wait to see what the political struggle itself throws up,

rather than prescribe in advance to its participants. Universal normative notions, she says, "colonize under the sign of the same." This idea of waiting to see what we get--in a word, this moral passivity--seems plausible in Butler because she tacitly assumes an audience of like-minded readers who agree (sort of) about what the bad things are-discrimination against gays and lesbians, the unequal and hierarchical treatment of women--and who even agree (sort of) about why they are bad (they subordinate some people to others, they deny people freedoms that they ought to have). But take that assumption away, and the absence of a normative dimension becomes a severe problem. Try teaching Foucault at a contemporary law school, as I have, and you will quickly find that subversion takes many forms, not all of them congenial to Butler and her allies. As a perceptive libertarian student said to me, Why can't I use these ideas to resist the tax structure, or the antidiscrimination laws, or perhaps even to join the militias? Others, less fond of liberty, might engage in the subversive performances of making fun of feminist remarks in class, or ripping down the posters of the lesbian and gay law students' association. These things happen. They are parodic and subversive. Why, then, aren't they daring and good?
Well, there are good answers to those questions, but you won't find them in Foucault, or in Butler. Answering them requires discussing which liberties and opportunities human beings ought to have, and what it is for social institutions to treat human beings as ends rather than as means--in short, a normative theory of social justice and human dignity. It is one thing to say that we should be humble about our universal

norms, and willing to learn from the experience of oppressed people. It is quite another thing to say that we don't need any norms at all. Foucault, unlike Butler, at least showed signs in his late work of grappling with this problem; and all his writing is

animated by a fierce sense of the texture of social oppression and the harm that it does. Come to think of it, justice, understood as a personal virtue, has exactly the structure of gender in the Butlerian analysis: it is not innate or "natural," it is produced by repeated performances (or as Aristotle said, we learn it by doing it), it shapes our inclinations and forces the repression of some of them. These ritual performances, and their associated repressions, are enforced by arrangements of social power, as children who won't share on the playground quickly discover. Moreover, the parodic subversion of justice is ubiquitous in politics, as in personal life. But there is an important difference. Generally we dislike these subversive performances, and we think that young people should be strongly discouraged from seeing norms of justice in such a cynical light. Butler cannot explain in any purely structural or procedural way why the subversion of gender

norms is a social good while the subversion of justice norms is a social bad. Foucault, we should remember, cheered for the

Ayatollah, and why not? That, too, was resistance, and there was indeed nothing in the text to tell us that that struggle was less worthy than a struggle for civil rights and civil liberties. There is a void, then, at the heart of Butler's notion of politics. This void can look liberating, because the reader fills it implicitly with a normative theory of human equality or dignity. But let there be no mistake: for Butler,

as for Foucault, subversion is subversion, and it can in principle go in any direction. Indeed, Butler's naively empty politics is especially dangerous for the very causes she holds dear. For every friend of Butler, eager to engage in subversive performances that proclaim the repressiveness of heterosexual gender norms, there are dozens who would like to engage in subversive performances that flout the norms of tax compliance, of non-discrimination, of decent treatment of one's fellow students. To such people we should say, you cannot simply resist as you please, for there are norms of fairness, decency, and dignity that entail that this is bad behavior. But then we have to articulate those norms--and this Butler refuses to do.

A2: Lower Standards

Traditional policy debate is good lowering the standards of debate for less privileged groups dumbs down debate making everyone worse off Parcher, 04 former Director of Debate at Georgetown (Jeff, The Ignorance Project, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2004-April/055983.html) Warning: If you suspect what I have to say will piss you off you are almost certainly correct. If you are tempted to take it personally - just imagine I said your plan would cause a nuclear war rather than significantly increased dumbness. Get it? Making debate easier does not serve those who are underpriveleged. If you slow debate down, remove rational critieria,denegrate research and preparation, and reward appeals to win on the basis of superior victimhood, all you are doing is removing those aspects of debate that make a smart. Dumbness is not good for anyone. If we were all dumb we would not be more equal. Infact, if we all get dumber then money, social status, and color would all matter more, NOT less. Inner city schools that have dumbed down standards in recognition of poverty, white privelege, socio-economic injustice or for whatever barrier argument they give, have not served their populations well. Two decades of research reveal that inner city youths are disadvantaged by "alternative" standards. They are disadvantaged when they get to college and they can't read, write, think, speak or perform mathematics. They are disadvanatged when they try to get jobs and don't have the discipline, leadership skills or critical thinking abilities to succeed. In what realm of society are those who reject such standards rewarded? It seems a poor prize to seize the badge of honor offered by entering some circle of rebellion if one remains poor and uneducated. The growhing and successful black middle class in this country is not being purchased at the alter of lower standards. Success has come from more integrated suburbs where african-american parents have been able to send their students to better schools - resulting in more blacks attending and graduating from college. And education (especially a college education) is the most important determinant of income in this country. None of this is meant to say that standards are more important than the resources we invest in education. Resources are crucial and raising standards has a diminishing marginal utility. But the result of lowering standards (especially drastically lowering them) is apparent and also quite obvious. Dumber standards translates into less effort and consequently less education. All of the arguments made about "white privelege" and debate also apply to almost every other educational practice in this country. I dispute that research/evidence, rational method, speaking fast, plans, topical cases, etc advantage whites any more than any other standard we could choose. But to the extent standards do advantage some aspects of privelege - imagine how far and how silly this argument becomes: What students arrive in kindergarten better prepared to engage in reading and math? White students or black students? That some black students are, for socioeconomic reasons, less prepared to learn to read or do math is NOT AN INDICTMENT OF READING OR MATH. It's an indictment of socio-economic inequality. What would happen if we told black children that they don't have to learn to read because "blacks are disadvantaged" if we have reading standards. DOES ANYONE SERIOUSLY BELIEVE BLACK CHILDREN WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEY READ LESS???? And does anyone really believe black debaters are better served in the long term by a slow down in debate, or rap in debate or cardless debate? How will that make them better candidates for law school? How does that make them smarter? Ultimately policy debate is good because it is hard. It's good that you have to learn to read, think and speak fast. It's good that you have to cut lot's and lot's of evidence. It's good that teams can't just interpret every resolution as a statement about white privelege and avoid learning anything at all about the world outside their personal experiences. That's what education means - it means learning something new. It means having the humility to admit that there are people who know more than you and that you have something to learn from them. Denigrating "expert evidence" and intepreting the resolution as a metaphor for the thing you want to talk about every round might be a good way to win ballots by tugging on the heart strings of white guilt - but it's quite obviously educational nonsense. Perhaps debate as we dinosaurs have known it will eventually die out and/or evolve into some variant of parlimentary debate. But until it does die out - anyone who thinks it's too hard can still choose another activity like forensics or parli. The status quo solves your barrier arguments. And if debate does change or die out - it's hard for me to see how we are better off. Should we close down MIT because, well, it's just too hard for some students to get in and even harder to compete once they have. Very few blacks get in and succeed there after all. Maybe we should just shut it down or turn it into a community college in the intersts of equality. P.S. If you are tempted to attack me just to flash your progressive credentials - please include in your post an explanation of what exactly is progressive about educational mediocrity. I will always believe that education is the great equalizer and that there is nothing so dangerous as the notion that all truth is a product of power. The former is our great hope, the latter is unilateral surrender.

A2: NIHILISM
They confuse the cart with the horse- conviction flows from discussion not prior to it Galloway 2007 (Ryan Galloway, Samford Debate Coach, Professor of Communication Studies at Samford, Contemporary Argumentation and
Debate, Vol. 28, 2007, LEQ)

Those who worry that competitive academic debate will cause debaters to lose their convictions, as Greene and Hicks do in their 2005 article, confuse the cart with the horse. Conviction is not a priori to discussion, it flows from it. A. Craig Baird argued, Sound conviction depends upon a thorough understanding of the controversial problem under consideration (1955, p. 5). Debate encourages rigorous training and scrutiny of arguments before debaters declare themselves an advocate for a given cause. Debate creates an ethical obligation to interrogate ideas from a neutral position so that they may be freely chosen subsequently.

A2: Personal Beliefs

The best learning comes when students temporarily suspend their personal beliefs and look at both sides of an issue Sullivan, et. al, 09 Department of Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Bradford [Paul, Mark Smith, Eugene Matusov, Bakhtin, Socrates and the carnivalesque in education, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VD44VJBCKH1&_user=99318&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=9 64576352&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000007678&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=99318&md5=9f f84fe6b9efc9d6651812fb0e7dac9d] 1. Introduction In this article, we are particularly interested in looking at how learning intertwines with the speaking subject and their associated desires, values and personality. Partly our motivation is experiential and personal. I (the first author) find my teaching does not entirely resonate with Piagetian and Vygotskian models of education that emphasise cognitive capacity to the neglect of individual identity. For example, in my introductory first year psychology teaching, I find that for students to comprehend Freud, they often have to (sometimes painfully) suspend their own cherished ethical, moral, and taste values of family life in order to see the family as an arena of possible sexual tension. Similarly, when I teach undergraduate psychology courses on the social construction of personality and emotions, I find my students often struggle, not with the logic and the course material per se, but with the value-system that such a view entails. Suddenly, they need to re-orient their perception to see possible political and power-laden forces that underpin concepts upon which they have hitherto grounded their lives e.g. love, care, childhood. Privileging peer review is critical to deter dangerous and unsupported claims and correct common errors this ensures the value of research. Murray et al., 01 Director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Adjunct Professor at Georgetown [David, Joel Schwartz, Senior Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and S. Robert Lichter, President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. It Aint Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, p. 148-149. http://books.google.com/books? id=wnUpwdlu3YsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=It+Ain%E2%80%99t+Necessarily+So: +How+Media+Make+and+Unmake+the+Scientific+Picture+of+Reality&ei=4RNmSuPsAYfaNc63lOMB] There is much truth to the claim that peer-reviewed research is legitimate research. As we will see, the presence or absence of peer review proves important for evaluating the quality of the research in all five of the cases that we introduced above. Why is peer review often thought to indicate if not guarantee reliability? In science as in law, the argument goes, people shouldnt be judges in their own cases; its important for claims to be assessed by someone who it both knowledgeable and impartial. Thus one danger is that researchers might knowingly deceive, falsifying data to achieve a desired result; but scientific peer reviewers on the lookout for deception presumably deter a lot of it (just as cops walking the beat presumably deter crime). Human error on the part of researchers is far more common that outright deception, thought. Researchers can make mistakes that render their conclusions worthless; and even when they conduct their research properly, they are also all too likely to exaggerate its importance. A review by scientists familiar with the subject matter is likely to detect mistakes and to qualify exaggerated claims. Thus peer review is important because it helps determine whether a studys substantive conclusion follows logically from the procedures used to arrive at it and whether the conclusion makes a significant contribution to our knowledge. Finally, science itself is the process through which scientists test one anothers theories and evaluate and criticize one anothers research. Science is supposed to be cumulative, to comprise a body of knowledge that is logically consistent, testable, and self-corrective. In that sense, peer review is more than a practice adopted by scientists. In a fundamental sense it is science, because only a researchers peers will have the expertise needed to determine whether a research finding is scientific, in the sense that is adds to our knowledge and is consistent with what is already known. Science, then, consists of claims to knowledge that successfully with-stand criticisms from other scientists. Peer review is thought to provide an imprimatur of sorts because a scientists claims are more likely to be valid if theyve passed muster with competent scientific authorities. In science as in law, an unsupported assertion (or an assertion made by, say, a defendant in his own behalf) is rightly view more skeptically than an assertion

buttressed by the support of eyewitnesses. In effect, peer reviewers, the judges of science, are also the witnesses who add credibil-ity to the claims made by researchers.

A2: Privilege/Race/Class Distorts Ability to Make Truth Claims

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

The second view I want to consider is sometimes associated with versions of the first, but must be kept separate because it involves a quite distinctive and incompatible element. I will refer to this as standpoint theory. Here people's experience and knowledge is treated as valid or invalid by dint of their membership in some social category.'7 Here again Foster's arguments may be dismissed because they reflect his background and experience as a white, middle class, male teacher. However, this time the implication is that reality is obscured from those with this background because of the effects of ideology. By contrast, it is suggested, the oppressed (black, female and/or working class people) have privileged insight into the nature of society. This argument produces a victory for one side, not the stalemate that seems to result from relativism the validity of Foster's views can therefore be dismissed. But in other respects this position is no more satisfactory than relativism. We must ask on what grounds we can decide that one group has superior insight into reality. This cannot be simply because they declare that they have this insight; otherwise everyone could make the same claim with the same legitimacy (we would be back to relativism). This means that some other form of ultimate justification is involved, but what could this be?

In the Marxist version of this argument the working class (or, in practice, the Communist Party) are the group with privileged insight into the nature of social reality, but it is Marx and Marxist theorists who confer this privilege on them by means of a dubious philosophy of history.l8 Something similar occurs in the case of feminist standpoint theory, where the feminist theorist ascribes privileged insight to women, or to feminists engaged in the struggle for womens emancipation. l9 However, while we must recognize that people in different social locations may have

divergent perspectives, giving them distinctive insights, it is not clear why we should believe the implausible claim that some people have privileged access to knowledge while others are blinded by ideology. You should evaluate our arguments based on credibility and evidence reversion to personalized bases of knowledge eradicates the possibility of common knowledge and educational development. Hammersley, 93 Prof. Education and Social Research @ Centre for Childhood, Development and Learning @ Open U [Martyn, British Journal of Sociology, Research and 'anti-racism': the case of Peter Foster and his critics,
44.3, 11-93, JSTOR]
I suggest that

the assessment of substantive and methodological claims should be based on judgments about the plausibility and credibility of evidence with attempts to resolve disagreements such as that between Foster and his critics,
being pursued through a search for common ground and an attempt to argue back from that to some conclusion that all will accept. By 'plausibility' here I mean what I referred to earlier as consistency with existing knowledge whose validity is taken to be beyond reasonable doubt. By 'credibility I mean (Martyn Hammersley) the likelihood that the process that produced the claim is free of serious error. Here I am assuming that factual claims vary in their credibility both according to their own content and according to the circumstances in which they were produced. Where a claim is neither

sufficiently plausible nor credible to be accepted at face value, evidence for it must be examined in terms of its plausibility and credibility, and so on until a judgment can be made or until judgment must be suspended for want of the necessary evidence. Where there is initial disagreement, ideally this process will result in the acceptance by all of one or other of the two original positions, or (more likely) the construction of a third position( for example through clarification of the concept of racism); though unlike with foundationalism there is no guarantee offered that disagreement will be resolved. It seems to me that maximizing the chances that agreement will be reached in this way, and that the resulting consensus will capture the truth, requires a research community operating on the basis of the following norms: 1 The overriding concern of researchers is the truth of claims, not their political implications or practical consequences. 2 Arguments are not judged on the basis of the personal and/or social characteristics of the person advancing them, but in terms of their plausibility and credibility. 3 Researchers are willing to change their views if arguments from common ground suggest those views are false; and, equally important, they assume (and behave as if) fellow researchers have the same attitude - at least until there is very strong evidence otherwise. 4 Where agreement does not result, all parties must recognize that there remains some reasonable doubt about the validity of their own positions, so that whenever the latter are presented they require supporting argument, or reference to where such argument can be found. 5 The research community is open to participation by anyone able and willing to operate on the basis of the first four rules; though their contributions will be
judged wanting if they lack sufficient knowledge of the field and/or of relevant methodology. In particular, there must be no restriction of participation on the grounds of personal characteristics religious or political attitudes. In my view, a research community committed to the above

norms maximizes the chances of discovering error in empirical and theoretical claims, and of discovering the truth about particular matters. It encourages the cumulative development of a body of knowledge whose validity is more reliable on average than that of lay views about the same issues. This is not to say that in any particular

instance current research-based knowledge will be correct and commonsense wrong; simply that it will usually be closer to the truth. Furthermore, it should be noted that this advantage is bought at considerable cost in terms of the time taken to complete inquiries in this way, and (correspondingly)the limited size of the body of research-based knowledge that can be produced.

And, their framework is suicidalit cedes the opportunity to influence state policy and gives power to the elite WALT 1991 (Stephen, Professor at the University of Chicago, International Studies Quarterly 35) A third reason for decline was the Vietnam War. Not only did the debacle in Indochina cast doubt on some of the early work in the field (such as the techniques of systems analysis and the application of bargaining theory to international conflict), it also made the study of security affairs unfashionable in many universities. The latter effect was both ironic and unfortunate, because the debate on the war was first and foremost
a debate about basic security issues. Was the domino theory accurate? Was U.S. credibility really at stake? Would using military force in Indochina in fact make the U.S. more secure? By neglecting the serious study of security affairs, opponents of the war could not

A2: POLICY EDUCATION BAD

effectively challenge the official rationales for U.S. involvement. The persistent belief that opponents of war should not study national security is like trying to find a cure for cancer by refusing to study medicine while allowing research on the disease to be conducted solely by tobacco companies. Debating state policy allows us to shape institutions and resist domination Stannard, 06 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series Speech, April 18, http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberationdemocracy-and-debate.html) If Habermas is right, and I obviously believe he is, then academics cannot afford to be insulated from the lives of ordinary working people, but must instead co-participate in some kind of empowerment for all, perhaps by facilitating schools, and I would suggest debate programs, as safe deliberation zones, which can in turn inform liberatory politics. Above all, a commitment to deliberative democracy means removing the stigma from disagreement and confrontation, and teaching all
participants to be co-creators not only of the substance of debate, but the rulemaking of the conversational process itself. This debating can take place both inside and outside of schools. A commitment to deliberative democracy means a commitment to privileging the process of deliberation over other processes in shaping political life. In other words, inclusive rather than restrictive voting rights, more candidates on TV and not less, more resources committed to education not fewer, erring on the side of freedom of speech rather than restrictions, and above all, an emphasis on and respect for the conversational process itself as an active, inclusive, organic field of political truth-building. A democratization, in other words, of the building of collective truth. Sometimes this means conducting deliberative polls or favoring the referendum process. Other times it means making the political process more transparent, such as favoring open-door meetings and the like. Now, many people make pretty good arguments as to the

imperfections of these policies. The referendum process can be co-opted, bought out; sometimes even openness is antithetical to transparency, since cynical politicians can take advantage of openness for their own publicity, and sometimes people need to deliberate in private. But the great thing about deliberation as a commitment is that these criticisms can become part of the overall process of deliberative democracy. In a world where interested parties have the opportunity to speak and debate in good faith, we can criticize the referendum process, or explain why we cant always have open meetings. We can debate the rules themselves, in other words, debate the process itself. All of this suggests that, if deliberative ethics are an antidote to both authoritarianism and self-centeredness, we need more: More debate teams, more public discussion, more patient deliberation, more argument, more discourse, and more nurturing and promotion of the material entities that sustain them. And, policy education is necessary to prevent war and violence BERES 2003 (Louis Rene, Prof. of International Law at Purdue, Journal and Courier, June 5) The truth is often disturbing. Our impressive American victories against terrorism and rogue states, although proper and indispensable, are inevitably limited. The words of the great Irish poet Yeats reveal, prophetically, where our entire planet is now clearly heading. Watching violence escalate and expand in parts of Europe and Russia, in Northern Ireland, in Africa, in Southwest Asia, in Latin America, and of course in the Middle East, we discover with certainty that "... the centre cannot hold/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world/The blood-dimmed tide is loosed/and everywhere The Ceremony of innocence is drowned." Our response, even after Operation Iraqi Freedom, lacks conviction. Still
pretending that "things will get better," we Americans proceed diligently with our day-to-day affairs, content that, somehow, the worst can never really happen. Although it is true that we must go on with our normal lives, it is also true that "normal" has now become a quaint and delusionary state. We want to be sure that a "new" normal falls within the boundaries of human tolerance, but we can't nurture such a response without an informed appreciation of what is still possible. For us, other rude awakenings are unavoidable, some of which could easily

overshadow the horrors of Sept. 11. There can be little doubt that, within a few short years, expanding tribalism will produce several new genocides and proliferating nuclear weapons will generate one or more regional nuclear wars.
Paralyzed by fear and restrained by impotence, various governments will try, desperately, to deflect our attention, but it will be a vain effort. Caught up in a vast chaos from which no real escape is possible, we will learn too late that there is no durable safety in arms, no ultimate rescue by authority, no genuine remedy in science or technology. What shall we do? For a start, we must all begin to look carefully behind the news. Rejecting superficial analyses of day-to-day events in favor of penetrating assessments of world affairs, we must learn quickly to distinguish what is truly important from what is merely entertainment. With such learning, we Americans could prepare for growing worldwide anarchy not as immobilized objects of false contentment, but as authentic citizens of an endangered planet. Nowhere is it written that we people of Earth are forever, that

humankind must thwart the long-prevailing trend among all planetary life-forms (more than 99 percent) of ending in extinction. Aware of this, we may yet survive, at least for a while, but only if our collective suppression of purposeful fear is
augmented by a complementary wisdom; that is, that our personal mortality is undeniable and that the harms done by one tribal state or terror group

against "others" will never confer immortality. This is, admittedly, a difficult concept to understand, but the longer we humans are shielded from such difficult concepts the shorter will be our time remaining. We must also look closely at higher education in the United States, not from the shortsighted stance of improving test scores, but from

the urgent perspective of confronting extraordinary threats to human survival. For the moment, some college students are exposed to an occasional course in what is fashionably described as "global awareness," but such exposure usually sidesteps the overriding issues: We now face a deteriorating world system that cannot be mended through sensitivity alone; our leaders are dangerously unprepared to deal with catastrophic deterioration; our schools are altogether incapable of transmitting the indispensable visions of planetary restructuring. To institute productive student confrontations with survival imperatives, colleges and
universities must soon take great risks, detaching themselves from a time-dishonored preoccupation with "facts" in favor of grappling with true life-ordeath questions. In raising these questions, it will not be enough to send some students to study in Paris or Madrid or Amsterdam ("study abroad" is not what is meant by serious global awareness). Rather, all students must be made aware - as a primary objective of the curriculum - of

where we are heading, as a species, and where our limited survival alternatives may yet be discovered. There are, of course, many particular ways in which colleges and universities could operationalize real global awareness, but one way, long-neglected, would be best. I refer to the study of international law. For a country that celebrates the rule of law at all levels, and which
explicitly makes international law part of the law of the United States - the "supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution and certain Supreme Court decisions - this should be easy enough to understand. Anarchy, after all, is the absence of law, and knowledge of

international law is necessarily prior to adequate measures of world order reform. Before international law can be taken seriously, and before "the blood-dimmed tide" can be halted, America's future leaders must at least have some informed acquaintance with pertinent rules and procedures. Otherwise we shall surely witness the birth of a fully ungovernable world order, an unheralded and sinister arrival in which only a shadowy legion of gravediggers would wield the forceps.

And, the advantages of role playing outweigh risk of role confusion ANDREWS 2006 (Peter, Consulting Faculty Member at the IBM Executive Business Institute in Palisades, New York, Executive Technology
Report, August, www-935.ibm.com/services/us/bcs/pdf/g510-6313-etr-unlearn-to-innovate.pdf) Dare to believe that the impossible ideas might be true How does your list of new ideas help with unlearning? It

A2: ROLE CONFUSION

provides alternative views to directly challenge your set beliefs and frameworks. It provides the grains of sand that are the beginnings for pearls of wisdom. But only if you are willing to suspend disbelief. The natural tendency is to sift your ideas based on the ones that have clear, apparent value, that make the most sense. Often these ideas prove themselves right away. But none of these is likely to help with unlearning or to lead to truly disruptive innovations. Instead of categorizing and prioritizing your long (20 or more) list of ideas, give the ones that are the most intriguing and the most improbable a chance. See if you can talk yourself into them. If you do this well, you can use your arguments as a wedge to crack open your patterns of thought and action. If you can put together a line of reasoning that can convince others, youll be forced to reconsider and reformulate your own views. There is a danger to this. For the sake of argument (literally), Mark Twain built a case for Bacons being the author of Shakespeares plays. He started out believing the opposite and ended up convincing himself. But ultimately, you need to find a way to trust an alternate reality, at least for awhile. If you dont take crazy ideas seriously, you cant give them a fair chance and make them your own. Malcolm X proves that evidence-intensive switch side debate improves social activism BRANHAM 1995 (Robert, Professor of Rhetoric at Bates College, Argumentation and Advocacy, Winter) Norfolk had a fine library of several thousand volumes and prisoners were able to check out books of their choice. Malcolm X became a voracious and critical reader, discovering "new evidence to document the Muslim teachings" in books ranging from accounts of the slave trade
to Milton's Paradise Lost (X, 1965b, pp. 185-186). Malcolm X's "prison education, including Elijah Muhammad," writes Baraka, "gives him the form with which overtly to combine consciousness with his actual life" (p. 26). As Malcolm X sought new outlets for his heightened political consciousness, he

turned to the weekly formal debates sponsored by the inmate team. "My reading had my mind like steam under pressure,"
he recounted; "Some way, I had to start telling the white man about himself to his face. I decided to do this by putting my name down to debate" (1965b, p. 184). Malcolm X's prison debate experience allowed him to bring his newly acquired historical knowledge and

critical ideology to bear on a wide variety of social issues. "Whichever side of the selected subject was assigned to me, I'd track down and study everything I could find on it," wrote Malcolm X. "I'd put myself in my opponent's place and decide how I'd try to win if I had the other side; and then I'd figure out a way to knock down those points" (1965b, p. 184). Preparation for each debate included four or five practice sessions. Debaters conducted individual research and also worked collaboratively in research teams (Bender, 1993). Visiting debaters "could not understand how we had the material to debate with them," recalls Malcolm Jarvis, Malcolm X's debate partner at Norfolk. "They were at the mercy of people with M.A.s and Ph.D.s to teach them," he explains. And, role playing solves the impactit reforms the state and allows us to challenge bad policy DONOVAN AND LARKIN 2006 (Claire and Phil, Australian National University, Politics, Vol 26:1) We do not suggest that political science should merely fall into line with the government instrumentalism that we have identified, becoming a slave social science (see Donovan, 2005). But, we maintain that political scientists should be able to engage with practical politics on their own terms and should be able to provide research output that is of value to practitioners. It is because of its focus on understanding, explanation, conceptualisation and classification that political science has the potential to contribute more to practical politics, and more successfully. As Brian Barry
notes, Granting (for the sake of argument) that [students of politics] have some methods that enable us to improve on the deliverances of untutored common sense or political journalism, what good do they do? The answer to that question is: not much. But if we change the question and ask what good they could do, I believe that it is possible to justify a more positive answer (Barry, 2004, p. 22). A clear understanding of how institutions

and individuals interact or how different institutions interact with each other can provide clear and useful insights that practitioners can successfully use, making or perhaps remaking a political science that directs research efforts to good questions and enables incremental improvements to be made (ibid., 19). In this sense, political science already has the raw material to make this contribution, but it chooses not to utilise it in this way: no doubt, in part, because academics are motivated to present their findings to other academics and not the practitioners within the institutions they study. Switch-side debate makes all future proposals better Matthews, and Metcalfe, 07 (David B. Matthews Defence Systems Analysis Division Defence Science and Technology Organisation and Mike Metcalfe School of Management University of South Australia, On the Implementation of Concept-Led and Participative Planning in the Development of the Defence Logistics Transformation Plan, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australian Department of Defense Land Operations Division, September, http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/9000/1/DSTOTR-2022%20PR.pdf)

The concept-led approach developed by the authors has been embedded within a modified action learning cycle reminiscent of Poppers (1969; 1972) hypothetico-deductivist model of inquiry. Accordingly, following the development of conjectures (in our case, action statements) inquiry should

be characterised by ingenious and severe attempts to refute them (Popper, 1969). It is only through surviving such attempted refutations that action statements gain credibility. Unfortunately, within the context of organisational planning, it is rarely feasible to test an action statement empirically (in the sense of implementing the action and observing its results). Not only is direct experimentation with organisations a risky (and potentially ethically fraught) affair, but any implementation of proposals would irreversibly change the organisation. Accordingly, testing is usually conducted along one of two lines, similar to those discussed in Chapter 4. These are by simulation, modelling and analysis within a modelcentric approach or by red-teaming, debate and argumentation within a discursive approach. Unsurprisingly, the authors recommend a general discursive framework for the testing of action statements. Such an approach is reminiscent of a judicial inquiry (as opposed to an empirical test). Action statements are tested through interrogation by those who have proposed alternative statements developed from different foundational concepts (akin to cross-examination). The benefits of a discursive approach include avoiding certain epistemic fallacies associated with over reliance on models and enabling participants to engage in a learning process via the attempted refutation of confederate action statements. In particular, participation in learning processes of this sort inevitably aids participants in the refinement of action statements in subsequent iterations of the action learning cycle. Simulation, modelling and analysis may be
provided as tools to support this learning process. However, as opposed to the model-centric approach, within the discursive approach such techniques are not seen as definitive. Rather, they represent simply another perspective on the possible implications of particular actions. The above approach takes its cues from Churchmans (1979) argument for systematically seeking different rationalities for testing the pre-suppositions in our own thinking as well as Ackoffs (1979a,b) call for replacing the problem-solving orientation of Operations Research with one that focusses on planning and system design. In the words of Ulrich (1994): What the systems designer [planner] needs beyond even new analytical techniques is a dialectic framework that would enable him to enter into a discourse with these other rationalities and to learn to understand them as what they are: mirrors of his own failure to live up to the systems idea. That is, what the planner ultimately needs is a discursive framework for testing his/her action

statements against those developed from different role-specific concerns, foundational presuppositions and/or concepts, whether through red-teaming, structured argumentative processes or group decision and negotiation processes. The overall aim is to develop a more critical understanding of the possible implications of action statements by uncovering potentially deleterious effects that would have remained hidden by the uncritical implementation of plans founded on a single perspective. Accordingly, the whole process should be an exercise in applied dialectics. Switch-side debate is goodit forces evaluation of arguments on both sides and improves advocacy skills for defending ones own positionconfusion only produces better results Keller Whittaker and Burke, 01 (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, "Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning," Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost)
These policy practice skills reflect the hallmarks of critical thinking (see Brookfield, 1987; Gambrill, 1997). The central activities of critical thinking are identifying and challenging underlying assumptions, exploring alternative ways of thinking and acting, and arriving at commitments after a period of questioning, analysis, and reflection (Brookfield, 1987). Significant parallels exist with the policy-making process--identifying the values underlying policy choices, recognizing and evaluating multiple alternatives, and taking a position and advocating for its adoption. Developing policy practice skills seems to share much in common with developing capacities for critical thinking. R.W. Paul (as cited in Gambrill, 1997) states that critical thinkers

acknowledge the imperative to argue from opposing points of view and to seek to identify weakness and limitations in one's own position. Critical thinkers are aware that there are many legitimate points of view, each of which (when thought through) may yield some level of insight. (p. 126) John Dewey, the philosopher and educational reformer, suggested that the initial advance in the development of reflective thought occurs in the transition from holding fixed, static ideas to an attitude of doubt and questioning engendered by exposure to alternative views in social discourse (Baker, 1955, pp. 36-40). Doubt, confusion, and conflict resulting from discussion of diverse perspectives "force comparison, selection, and reformulation of ideas and meanings" (Baker, 1955, p. 45). Subsequent educational theorists have contended that learning requires openness to divergent ideas in combination with the ability to synthesize disparate views into a purposeful resolution (Kolb, 1984; Perry, 1970). On the one hand, clinging to the certainty of one's beliefs risks dogmatism, rigidity, and the inability to learn from new experiences. On the other hand, if one's
opinion is altered by every new experience, the result is insecurity, paralysis, and the inability to take effective action. The educator's role is to help students develop the capacity to incorporate new and sometimes conflicting ideas and experiences into a coherent cognitive framework. Kolb suggests that, "if the education process begins by bringing out the learner's beliefs and theories, examining and testing

them, and then integrating the new, more refined ideas in the person's belief systems, the learning process will be facilitated" (p. 28). The authors believe that involving students in substantive debates challenges them to learn and grow in the fashion described by Dewey and Kolb. Participation in a debate stimulates clarification and critical evaluation of the evidence, logic, and values underlying one's own policy position. In addition, to debate effectively students must understand and accurately evaluate the opposing perspective. The ensuing tension between two distinct but legitimate views is designed to yield a reevaluation and reconstruction of knowledge and beliefs pertaining to the issue.

A2: RULES BAD (roleplaying shell)

And, even if they win a link, rules are good for role playing ANDREWS 2005 (Peter, Consulting Faculty Member at the IBM Executive Business Institute in Palisades, New York, Executive Technology
Report, July, www-935.ibm.com/services/us/imc/pdf/gt510-6190-red-teams.pdf) Disaster can force you to imagine the unimaginable. Unfortunately, the price is high, which is why Red Teams have come into vogue. While some Red Teams are merely review panels, the more ambitious ones are all about challenging assumptions, finding vulnerabilities and actively finding unconventional means to get a jump on mainstream (or Blue) planning teams. One key element is assuming an adversarial posture, taking

the perspective of the enemy or competitor. The U.S. military has been using Red Teams to test their planning for over 30 years (and longer, by other names). They have received new attention as a critical tool for fighting terrorism, but for businesses, they can help provide competitive advantage, especially as a means to expand exploration of innovations. The key benefits of a Red Team are: Identifying significant vulnerabilities Discovering new uses for innovations Challenging taboos and assumptions Providing a minority report on a new concept or idea Revealing the consequences of different perspectives; in particular, the perspectives of those with different goals and risk profiles. Red Teams can work at different levels strategic, operational and tactical. They can goad a Blue Team to be more creative. They can help to anticipate and explain irrational actions and choices by adversaries. In addition, they can help to identify, train and tap talent for the organization, talent that is vital in a fast-changing environment. The success of a Red Team depends on its composition, its support from
management, its relationship with the Blue Team, the goals, the available information and the rules of the game: Composition Putting together an effective Red Team is as much an art as a science. There is a need to include experts, but there also must be room for people who ask nave questions. Red Team members need to be able to inhabit the roles of adversaries and risk delivering bad news, but they also must stay on good terms with all parties. They need to understand the mindset and cultures of both their own organizations and the real-world adversaries. They need to be capable of detailed critical analysis, but they also need to be imaginative and iconoclastic. Most of all, they need to have the capability to communicate surprising concepts in clear, compelling language. Management support The Red Team must have the authority and standing to get a fair

hearing for its ideas and concepts. For most organizations, this means someone high up in management, but generally not the direct
manager of the Blue Team. In addition to enabling a fair hearing, the management must also provide material support, proper staffing and access to information/experts. And, they must provide continuity and stability or the Red Team may find itself blocked and ignored. Relationship with Blue Team The Red Team must have the trust of the Blue Team. Without trust, the Blue Team will hide key data and be reluctant to incorporate the views and insights of the Red Team. At the same time, the Red Team must not be co-opted by the Blue Team. It must maintain a level of independence and a willingness to make unpopular statements. Goals Ultimately, the required deliverables of the Red Team must be defined and there must be

some measures of success. This does not mean that the Red Team cannot cross boundaries and provide more than was agreed to, but there
must be a level of accountability. The Red Team needs to know what is promised and deliver on those promises. Available information There are times when the information the Red Team has available is restricted. It makes good sense that a Blue Team, creating a computer security system, would not need to reveal every aspect to a Red Team that is assuming the roles of black hat hackers (those people who would attempt to compromise system security without authorization). On the other hand, providing the Red Team with an open book on innovation plans makes sense. In fact, regularly meeting with and working with the Blue Team can benefit both teams, especially if a healthy competition develops. A sure sign that things are working well is if the Blue Team begins to incorporate and anticipate Red Team approaches as it pursues its own work. Rules of the game Given the competitive nature of the teams, the rules of engagement must be clear with regard to information, judgment of success, what comprises proof and when/how opinions and insights are offered. In addition, the consequences especially with regard to rewards and career advancement must be stated up front. Creative Red Teams will look at a variety of aspects that affect success in the real world culture, technologies, needs, rewards, laws, market research, risk factors and available resources. Their biggest payoffs will probably come from identifying assumptions and digging into the roles of adversaries. Unexamined assumptions are usually the biggest culprits in narrowing investigation and leading to

tunnel vision: things that could never happen, logical chains that cant be circumvented, values, taboos, false definitions and rules, to name a few. By researching the adversaries perhaps including people who are not even on the radar screen motivations, connections, different contexts, different values and risk factors can be explored in new ways. In fact, the best Red Teams are able to inhabit the roles of adversaries in ways that approach good acting. Our model of switch-side debate is on-balance good because it fosters critical thinking skills and expands our knowledge. Keller, et. al, 01 Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning, Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer 2001, EBSCOhost)
Discussion

debates have value as an active learning strategy to enhance student learning. On survey questions students expressed satisfaction with the debates. The majority of students were pleased with the debates as a class assignment. Most indicated that participation in the debates raised the level of their policy skills and knowledge. In addition, the educational value of
The results of the surveys suggest that and in written comments, debates was rated as higher than more traditional assignments. It should be noted, however, that a desire to report favorably on class experiences may have influenced reported satisfaction with the debates (i.e., acquiescence bias). Student comments supported the view that

debates promote critical thinking by encouraging serious consideration of both sides of a policy issue. Comments also indicated that the active learning approach had generated more classroom interest and energy than usual. On the other hand, some
comments noted how the debates might have detracted from a positive learning experience.

Students reported statistically significant increases in knowledge on topics covered during the course--a result which is reassuring for the instructors. Gains in self-reported knowledge from simply observing debates were equivalent to gains based on traditional forms of instruction. Observing a debate appears comparable to acquiring information through a class lecture or discussion. By contrast, debate participation generated significantly greater increases in self-reported knowledge than were obtained by observing debates or by learning through traditional forms of instruction. This result, which is consistent with the principles of experiential learning, suggests the educational advantage of using debates to engage students in learning.
All four hypotheses regarding changes in student-rated knowledge were supported by the analysis.

The findings are noteworthy considering the use of conservative nonparametric statistics on a small sample. However, the results should be interpreted somewhat cautiously due to certain study limitations. First, the dependent variable was self-reported and highly subjective in nature. The study did not contain objective measures of knowledge, and the findings pertain only to students' selfperceptions of their knowledge regarding particular topics. Second, although attrition from pretest to posttest was not associated with the pretest measures, differential attrition related to unmeasured factors, including objective knowledge of the topics, is a potential source of bias. Third, the assumption of independence among cases may be questionable given that students worked closely as members of debate teams. Finally, other plausible explanations for the general increase in knowledge over time, besides taking the class, cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the differential improvement in self-rated knowledge in favor of debaters would still be a credible finding, and this was a main objective of the analysis. Conclusion The purposes of this article were to examine the potential of student debates for fostering the development of policy practice knowledge and skills, to demonstrate that debates can be effectively incorporated as an in-class assignment in a policy course, and to report findings on the educational value and level of student satisfaction with debates. Based on a review of the literature, the authors' experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those debates, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be

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

However, the use of debates in a classroom setting is not without certain drawbacks. Schroeder and Ebert (1983) noted several limitations which were also encountered in this experience. First, staging debates presents logistical challenges for the instructor. These administrative concerns include creating teams, selecting topics, determining the debate format, and scheduling. Second, the amount of time devoted to the specific topic of a debate can detract from covering a wider scope of course material. Third, although debating encourages the examination of issues from two opposing positions, many policy dilemmas can be approached from several angles. A structured debate does not necessarily foster a multidimensional examination of policy options. Fourth, as in most group projects, some debate team members may have contributed more to the effort than others. Finally, the competitive aspects of debating may polarize the issue. For those interested in using debates as an instructional technique, the importance of thorough advance planning with respect to the mechanics of conducting the debates must be stressed. Flexibility to make adjustments during the process is equally important. Special attention should be given to debriefing sessions after debates to discuss perceptions of the debate experience, areas of common agreement, and possibilities for policy compromise and consensus. The integration of opposing views into a coherent and purposeful course of action is a central feature of the theoretical framework presented earlier, and students expressed a need for more resolution and closure. For example, one student suggested, "I think it would be more effective to do an active brainstorming/planning session for identifying solutions/alternatives following the debates."

following a debate, one student stated, "I thought the debate was good because it forced me to articulate the position, and that is something we will need to do to be advocates." Another student described how her opinion of debating changed, "When I first heard about this assignment, I really questioned its value. I thought it would be a waste of class time.
The final word on debates should come from students themselves. In the debriefing session immediately But I learned so much about family preservation services. I learned more than I ever would have any other way."

Rules are key to harness the educational value of competitive games like intellectual contests this accesses the educational value of fun Prensky, 01 Internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and designer in the critical areas of education and learning, Founder, CEO and Creative Director of games2train.com, former vice president at the global financial firm Bankers Trust (Marc, Fun, Play, and Games: What Makes Games Engaging, 2001, www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky %20-%20Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning-Ch5.pdf) fun in the sense of enjoyment and pleasure puts us in a relaxed, receptive frame of mind for learning. Play, in addition to providing pleasure, increases our involvement, which also helps us learn. Both fun and play however, have the disadvantage of being somewhat abstract, unstructured, and hard-to-define concepts. But there exists a more formal and structured way to harness (and unleash) all the power of fun and play in the learning process the powerful institution of games. Before we look specifically at how we can combine games with learning, let us examine games themselves in some detail.
So

Like fun and play, game is a word of many meanings and implications. How can we define a game? Is there any useful distinction between fun, play and games? What makes games engaging? How do we design them? Games are a subset of both play and fun. In programming jargon they are a child, inheriting all the characteristics of the parents. They therefore carry both the good and the bad of both terms.

Games, as we will see, also have some special qualities, which make them particularly appropriate and well suited for learning.

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

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

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

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

Enjoyment and fun as part of the learning process are important when learning new tools since the learner is relaxed and motivated and therefore more willing to learn.6 "The role that fun plays with regard to intrinsic motivation in education is twofold. First, intrinsic motivation promotes the desire for recurrence of the experience Secondly, fun can motivate learners to engage themselves in activities with which they have little or no previous experience." 7
"In simple terms a brain enjoying itself is functioning more efficiently." 8 "When we enjoy learning, we learn better" 9 Fun has also been shown by Datillo & Kleiber, 1993; Hastie, 1994; Middleton, Littlefield & Lehrer, 1992, to

increase motivation for learners. 10 It appears then that the principal roles of fun in the learning process are to create relaxation and motivation. Relaxation enables a learner to take things in more easily, and motivation enables them to put forth effort without resentment.

A2: SOCIAL LOCATION

And, privileging identity crushes debate and results in authoritarianism STANNARD 2006 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series
Speech, April 18, http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberation-democracy-and-debate.html) But the Academy is not only under attack from "outsiders," and not merely because the post-September 11 world has given the nod to sterile and commodified forms of patriotic communication and safe, symbolic dissent. Both inside and outside college life, the value of

discussion is increasingly under attack, under sabotage, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes violently, and the attackers are often not recognizable as such. We cower away from religious fanatics because we know they refuse to entertain the possibility of their incorrectness, but we fail to see our own failure to embrace the possibilities of our own incorrectness. We label other points of view "ideological" from vantage points we assume to be free of ideology, or we excuse our narrow-mindedness by telling ourselves that "ideology is inevitable." Part of this weakening of our commitment to open debate is our recent, seemingly liberating embrace of personal conviction over public deliberation, the self-comfort of personal narrative over the clumsy, awkward, and fallible attempt to forge consensus across the lines of identity and politics. The fetishization of personal conviction is no less threatening to the public forum than violent authoritarianismboth seek to render disagreement impossible, close off deliberation, and take us closer towards eventual, unnatural silence. And, all topics involve personal connectionsclaiming that a topic represents one group more than another disenfranchizes people in minority groups who care about policy issues FUGATE 1997 (Amy, Director of Forensics at Johnson County Community College, Argumentation and Advocacy, Spring)
One area that seems problematic is the argument that debate resolutions do not focus on real people but rather abstract ideas and hypothetical examples (Bartanen, 1995). While my experience has been with NDT topics, I cannot think of one topic which did not deal with "real

people". In fact, some years the topics seem eerily real! In one debate round last year, the affirmative argued in favor of increased United States assistance to the Palestinians. The negative argued that if the United States gave more assistance to the Palestinians it would cause the Israeli right wing to revolt with an impact of potential assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister. While the disadvantage was "hypothetical," it mirrored the real world when two weeks later, Rabin was assassinated. I would argue that topics which deal with the environment, the legal system, foreign assistance, military commitments, media, politics, United States relations with other countries, the different branches of our government, and so on are part of what makes academic debate "academic." I have even greater concern with deciding certain topic areas are more relevant to one gender or ethnic group than to another. There are several of my colleagues who would find it very difficult to be told that as women they aren't concerned with "masculine" issues such as nuclear disarmament. We have historical evidenceMalcolm Xs prison debates prove that role playing enhances social activism BRANHAM 1995 (Robert, Professor of Rhetoric at Bates College, Argumentation and Advocacy, Winter) Malcolm X later recalled of these early television appearances that "In the prison days, I had learned tricks to upset my opponents, to catch them where they didn't expect to be caught" and now was determined to supplement these with new skills tailored to "arguing on the air" (1965b, p. 244). In order to prepare himself for his public confrontations, Malcolm X continued the practice from his prison debates of pretending to be his opponent, so that he might anticipate the strongest possible arguments of his adversary. He reviewed tapes of prior speeches to identify successful and unsuccessful lines of argument. He carefully rehearsed his arguments, sometimes while driving his car (Perry, p. 179). He developed stock and highly effective responses to standard arguments that his opponents were likely to make. "One has the feeling," wrote Kenneth Clark in 1963, "that Minister Malcolm has anticipated every question anti is prepared with the appropriate answer, an answer which is consistent with the general position" of the NOI (p. 17). This commitment to systematic anticipation, strategic planning and briefing gave Malcolm X a decided advantage over most opponents (Branham, 1991, p. 97). Finally, debate is self-correctingeven if it is exclusionary, it trains people in the tools to change the process and fight domination STANNARD 2006 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series
Speech, April 18, http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberation-democracy-and-debate.html) Some of the most articulate criticisms of competitive, switch-side academic debate come

from the debate community itself. These criticisms have lately centered on things like the specialized and esoteric practices of debate, the underrepresentation of minorities in the activity, and the way in which debate practices feed, rather than fight, structures of domination. In other words, internal criticism of academic debate is very much like internal criticisms of the Academy in general: Were too specialized, were too white, and were exploited by hegemonic institutions. All of these criticisms are true, and yet, paradoxically, it is our experience in debate, along with our experience in the critical thinking of university education, that teaches us how to

articulate these arguments. The deliberative process is self-reflective and at least has the potential to be selfcorrecting.

A2: SPECTATORSHIP
And, we solve the spectator phenomenon JOYNER 1999 Christopher C. Joyner is a Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, Spring, 1999
[5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377]

Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing
contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal

propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional
law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making,

students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case.
The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into

the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of their team, they realize the
complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. 8 The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over

principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense. A debate exercise is particularly suited to an examination of United States foreign policy, which in political science courses is usually studied from a
theoretical, often heavily realpolitik perspective. In such courses, international legal considerations are usually given short shrift, if discussed at all. As a result, students may come to believe that international law plays no role in United States foreign policy-making. In fact, serious consideration is usually paid by government officials to international law in the formulation of United States policy, albeit sometimes ex post facto as a justification for policy, rather than as a bona fide prior constraint on consideration of policy options. In addition, lawyers are prominent advisers at many levels of the foreignpolicy-making process. Students should appreciate the relevance of international law for past and current US actions, such as the invasion of Grenada or the refusal of the United States to sign the law of the sea treaty and landmines convention, as well as for [*387] hypothetical (though subject to public discussion) United States policy options such as hunting down and arresting war criminals in Bosnia, withdrawing from the United Nations, or assassinating Saddam Hussein.

And, our Stannard evidence answers thisswitch-side debate creates deliberative democracy and encourages effective social activismheres more evidence that itsolves democracy and peace RAWLS 1999 (John Rawls, professor at Harvard, The Law of Peoples, p. 56-57)
How is the ideal of public reason realized by citizens who are not government officials? In a representative govemment, citizens vote for representativeschief executives, legislators, and the likenot for particular laws (except at a state or local level where they may vote directly on referenda questions, which are not usually fundamental questions). To answer this question, we say that, ideally, citizens are to think of themselves as if they

were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think it most reasonable to enact. When firm and widespread, the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate public reason, forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. Thus in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and support the idea of public reason, while doing what they can to hold government
officials to it. This duty, like other political rights and duties, is an intrinsically moral duty. I emphasize that it is not a legal duty, for in that case it would be incompatible with freedom of speech. Similarly, the ideal of the public reason of free and equal peoples is realized, or satisfied, whenever chief executives and legislators, and other government officials, as well as candidates for public office, act from and follow the principles of the Law of Peoples and explain to other peoples their reasons for pursuing or revising a people's foreign policy and affairs of state that involve other societies. As for private citizens, we say, as before, that ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were executives and legislators and ask themselves what foreign policy

supported by what considerations they would think it most reasonable to advance. Once again, when firm and widespread, the

disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal executives and legislators, and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate the public reason of free and equal peoples, is part of the political and social basis of peace and understanding among peoples.

A2: SPILLOVER EVENTUALLY

Critical theory must be tied to specific political institutionsits their obligation to link their arguments to policy McCLEAN 2001 (David, New School University, The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope, http://www.americanphilosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion%20papers/david_mcclean.htm) One might argue with me that these other intellectuals are not looking to be taken seriously in the construction of solutions to specific socio-political problems. They are, after all, philosophers engaged in something called philosophizing. They are, after all, just trying to be good culture critics. Of course, that isn't quite true, for they often write with specific reference to social issues and social justice in mind, even when they are fluttering about in the ether of high theory (Lukcs, for example, was a government officer, albeit a minister of culture, which to me says a lot), and social justice is not a Platonic form but parses into the specific quotidian acts of institutions and individuals . Social justice is but the genus heading which may be described better with reference to its species iterations- the various conditions of cruelty and sadism which we wittingly or unwittingly permit. If we wanted to, we could reconcile the grand general theories of these thinkers

to specific bureaucracies or social problems and so try to increase their relevance. We could construct an account which acts as a bridge to relevant policy considerations. But such attempts, usually performed in the reams of secondary literature generated by their devotees, usually make things even more bizarre. In any event, I don't think we owe them that amount of effort. After all, if they wanted to be relevant they could have said so by writing in such a way that made it clear that relevance was a high priority. For Marxians in general, everything tends to get reduced to class. For Lukcs everything tends to get reduced to "reification."
But society and its social ills are far too intricate to gloss in these ways, and the engines that drive competing interests are much more easily explained with reference to animal drives and fears than by Absolute Spirit. That is to say, they are not easily explained at all.

The argument that criticism precedes action only dooms their project to irrelevance McCLEAN 2001 (David, New School University, The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope, http://www.americanphilosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion%20papers/david_mcclean.htm) Yet for some reason, at least partially explicated in Richard Rorty's Achieving Our Country, a book that I think is long overdue, leftist

critics continue to cite and refer to the eccentric and often a priori ruminations of people like those just mentioned, and a litany of others including Derrida, Deleuze, Lyotard, Jameson, and Lacan, who are to me hugely more irrelevant than Habermas in their narrative attempts to suggest policy prescriptions (when they actually do suggest them) aimed at curing the ills of homelessness, poverty, market greed, national belligerence and racism. I would like to suggest that it is time for American social critics who are enamored with this group, those who actually want to be relevant, to recognize that they have a disease, and a disease regarding which I myself must remember to stay faithful to my own twelve step program of recovery. The disease is the need for elaborate theoretical "remedies" wrapped in neological and multi-syllabic jargon. These elaborate
theoretical remedies are more "interesting," to be sure, than the pragmatically settled questions about what shape democracy should take in various contexts, or whether private property should be protected by the state, or regarding our basic human nature (described, if not defined (heaven forbid!), in such statements as "We don't like to starve" and "We like to speak our minds without fear of death" and "We like to keep our children safe from poverty"). As Rorty puts it, "When one of today's academic leftists says that some topic has been 'inadequately theorized,' you can be pretty certain that he or she is going to drag in either philosophy of language, or Lacanian psychoanalysis, or some neo-Marxist version of

economic determinism. . . . These futile attempts to philosophize one's way into political relevance are a symptom of what happens when a Left retreats from activism and adopts a spectatorial approach to the problems of its country. Disengagement from practice produces theoretical hallucinations"(italics mine).(1) Or as John Dewey put it in his The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy, "I believe that philosophy in America will be lost between chewing a historical cud long since reduced to woody fiber, or an apologetics for lost causes, . . . . or a scholastic, schematic formalism, unless it can somehow bring to consciousness America's own needs and its own implicit principle of successful action."

A2: We are Making An Argument / Exercising Our Academic Freedom

Allowing any behavior under the guise of academic freedom risks the collapse of institutional support for debate Atchison and Panetta, 09 *Director of Debate at Trinity University and **Director of Debate at the University of Georgia (Jarrod, and Edward, Intercollegiate Debate and Speech Communication: Issues for the Future, The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, Lunsford, Andrea, ed., 2009, p. 317-334) A quick glance through most squads research files reveals arguments that might sound ridiculous to the average person, but have won debates. Why has the debate community been tolerant of arguments that are rarely persuasive to audiences outside debate? The answer to that question is that for much of its existence, the debate community has had a strong norm against censoring arguments while simultaneously presuming a strong insulation from the communities that support it. The debate community has been quick to defend the use of controversial arguments on the grounds that every idea should undergo rigorous testing, and if the idea is truly flawed, then it should be easily defeated. Although this approach to intercollegiate debate arguments has been accepted for many years, the recent push trend toward alternative argument approaches warrants reconsideration of intercollegiate debates status as an insulated activity. In an era of tightened budgets, directors are increasingly pressured to defend the benefits of intercollegiate debate. This is occurring at a time when debate is becoming more and more publicized. The three College Sports Television documentaries produced on the National Debate Tournament along with the increased use of video and audio recording by debate programs challenge the presumption that debate is an insulated activity. Arguments presented by debaters, on the other hand, have moved further and further toward the exotic. The norm against restricting arguments has expanded to include actions that performance artists have deemed resistance but that would not be covered by even liberal interpretations of academic freedom. The presumption of insulation, however, has remained the same. Some people still believe that what takes place in an individual debate has no bearing on anyone else inside or outside the debate community. There has been little community-wide response that demonstrates that directors, coaches, or debaters are concerned that argument choices may negatively influence their or other programs. The norm of argument freedom has become so strong that the threshold for acceptance is whether or not a behavior can be said to be making an argument. It does not take a very experienced argument scholar to recognize that there are few behaviors that cannot be construed as making an argument. From our perspective, the combination of intentionally provocative argument choices and the increased politicization of debate, risks the continued institutional support of intercollegiate debate (Atchison & Panetta, 2006). The debate as innovation perspective, outlined here, developed out of an intense focus on competition that rewarded debaters skills. The natural outgrowth of a competitive focus was for people to celebrate debaters wins with less concern over the arguments used to achieve the win. The presumption that individual debates had little to no affect on any other community fostered a vision of debate as a community that was willing to put any idea through the rigorous test of debate. The problem with this perspective, however, is threefold. First, the debate community is not as insulated as the proponents assume. Second, the norm of protecting freedom for arguments has allowed debaters to put the community at risk with behaviors that many administrators would find objectionable. Third, there is not a sufficient forum for discussing issues that affect the debate community as a whole. In the next section, we turn to examining the other end of the spectrum that presumes that every individual debate is a place for community change.

A2: WE SOLVE EDUCATION

Deep versus shalloweven if other approaches provide education, role playing provides the best educationswitch-side debate fosters deep-holistic learning SCHAAP 2005 (Andrew, University of Melbourne, Politics, Vol 25 Iss 1, February) According to an influential theory of teaching in higher education, people tend to approach learning either in a 'deep-holistic' or 'surface-atomistic' way (Ramsden, 1992, pp. 43ff.). Students who adopt a deep-holistic approach to learning seek to discover the meaning of an idea, text or concept by relating new information to previous experience and the broader context within which it is encountered. By contrast, students who adopt a surface-atomistic approach tend to simply reproduce information, accumulating particular facts or details without discovering and constructing relations between them. Ramsden (1992, pp. 53ff.) reports on research that shows that deep-holistic approaches to learning are related to higher-quality outcomes and greater enjoyment while surface-atomistic approaches are dissatisfying and
associated with poorer grades. Ramsden (1992, pp. 96102) identifies six key principles of teaching in higher education to promote a deep-holistic approach to learning. Effective teaching requires: engaging student interest; demonstrating concern and respect for students and student learning; providing appropriate feedback and assessment so that students can monitor their own learning; presenting students with clear goals and an intellectual challenge; giving students independence and control over their own learning; and modifying one's own teaching practice in response to student learning outcomes. In sum, effective teaching encourages students to relate to the subject material in a purposeful way.

Teaching methods that promote deep-holistic approaches to learning 'involve students in actively finding knowledge, interpreting results, and testing hypotheses against reality (often in a spirit of co-operation as well as individual
effort) as a route to understanding and the secure retention of factual knowledge' (Ramsden, 1992, p. 152). According to Ramsden there is no best teaching method. Nevertheless, some methods naturally encourage a deep-holistic approach to learning better than others. The traditional university lecture tends to be modelled on an implicit theory of teaching as transmitting information to students rather than one of making learning possible. While lectures can be engaging, stimulating and can involve students as active learners, this is often difficult to achieve and more often they encourage surfaceatomistic approaches to learning: students struggle to remember various isolated details and the lecturer appears as a remote authority rather than participating in a community of learning with his or her students. Consequently, Ramsden (1992, p. 167) insists that the best way to improve the effectiveness of teaching in higher education is to make lecturing 'less like a lecture (passive, rigid, routine knowledge transmission) and more like an active communication between teacher and students'. In contrast to lecturing, role playing naturally tends to promote a deep-

holistic approach to learning because it requires students to interact and collaborate in order to complete an assigned task. The context of the role play requires students to adopt different perspectives and think reflexively about the information they represent to the group. Some benefits of role playing identified by historian James Levy (1997, pp. 1418) are that it: helps overcome students' inhibitions to contribute because they feel that they do not know enough; stimulates student discussion and debate outside of the classroom; provides many teachable moments by revealing gaps in students' understanding that the instructor can address; encourages students to grapple with sophisticated issues that they might otherwise have failed to appreciate; and often challenges the teacher's own views. Effectivenesseducation provided by switch-side debate makes future proposals more effective because the lasting purpose of debate is to make us better decision-makers, this outweighs their arguments MATTHEWS and METCALFE 2007 (David B. Matthews Defence Systems Analysis Division Defence Science and Technology
Organisation and Mike Metcalfe School of Management University of South Australia, On the Implementation of Concept-Led and Participative Planning in the Development of the Defence Logistics Transformation Plan, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Australian Department of Defense Land Operations Division, September, http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/9000/1/DSTO-TR-2022%20PR.pdf) The concept-led approach developed by the authors has been embedded within a modified action learning cycle reminiscent of Poppers (1969; 1972) hypothetico-deductivist model of inquiry. Accordingly, following the development of conjectures (in our case, action statements) inquiry should be

characterised by ingenious and severe attempts to refute them (Popper, 1969). It is only through surviving such attempted refutations that action statements gain credibility. Unfortunately, within the context of organisational planning, it is rarely feasible to test an action statement empirically (in the sense of implementing the action and observing its results). Not only is direct experimentation with organisations a risky (and potentially ethically fraught) affair, but any implementation of proposals would irreversibly change the organisation. Accordingly, testing is usually conducted along one of two lines, similar to those discussed in Chapter 4. These are by simulation, modelling and analysis within a modelcentric approach or by red-teaming, debate and argumentation within a discursive approach. Unsurprisingly, the authors recommend a general discursive framework for the testing of action statements. Such an approach is reminiscent of a judicial inquiry (as opposed to an empirical test). Action statements are tested through interrogation by those who have proposed alternative statements developed from different foundational concepts (akin to cross-examination). The benefits of a discursive approach include avoiding certain epistemic fallacies associated with over reliance on models and enabling participants to engage in a learning process via the attempted refutation of confederate action statements. In particular, participation in learning processes of this sort inevitably aids participants in the refinement of action statements in subsequent iterations of the action learning cycle. Simulation, modelling and analysis may be
provided as tools to support this learning process. However, as opposed to the model-centric approach, within the discursive approach such techniques are not seen as definitive. Rather, they represent simply another perspective on the possible implications of particular actions. The above approach takes its cues from Churchmans (1979) argument for systematically seeking different rationalities for testing the pre-suppositions in our own thinking as well as Ackoffs (1979a,b) call for replacing the problem-solving orientation of Operations Research with one that focusses on planning and system design. In the words of Ulrich (1994): What the systems designer [planner] needs beyond even new analytical techniques is a dialectic framework that would

enable him to enter into a discourse with these other rationalities and to learn to understand them as what they are: mirrors of his own failure to live up to the systems idea. That is, what the planner ultimately needs is a discursive framework for testing his/her action

statements against those developed from different role-specific concerns, foundational presuppositions and/or concepts, whether through red-teaming, structured argumentative processes or group decision and negotiation processes. The overall aim is to develop a more critical understanding of the possible implications of action statements by uncovering potentially deleterious effects that would have remained hidden by the uncritical implementation of plans founded on a single perspective. Accordingly, the whole process should be an exercise in applied dialectics. And, accessrole playing reaches the most students with different learning styles GONZALES 2008 (Angelo, Ph.D. Candidate, Travers Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley, Teaching American
Political Institutions Using Role Playing Simulations, Feb 22, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/5/6/3/pages245631/p245631-1.php) Role-playing simulations, in particular, are an excellent teaching technique from both

a pedagogical and a substantive political science perspective. On the pedagogical side, role- playing simulations are a great way to reach students with all types of learning styles. The very nature of role-playing engages the strengths of tactilekinesthetic learners, and, when designed correctly, such simulations can reach both auditory and visual learners, as well. Additionally, as other researchers have demonstrated, role-playing simulations can actually enhance students understanding and retention of course material, especially when designed around a well-defined and limited set of learning objectives (Baranowski 2006; Frederking 2005; Lay and Smarick 2006). From a political science (American politics) perspective, role-playing simulations provide a useful way for students to learn about both the process of the American political system and the dynamics of American political institutions (Baranowski 2006; Ciliotta-Rubery and Levy 2000; Endersby and Webber 1995; Lay and Smarick 2006; Smith and Boyer 1996). As Smith and Boyer (1996, 690) argue, Simulations have the power to recreate complex, dynamic political processes in the classroom, allowing students to examine the motivations, behavioral constraints, resources and interactions among institutional actors.

A2: WONT BE POLICY MAKERS

And, the fact that we may not become policymakers makes this education more important, not less KELLER, WHITTAKER, AND BURKE, 2001 (Thomas E., James K., and Tracly K., Asst. professor School of Social Service
Administration U. of Chicago, professor of Social Work, and doctoral student School of Social Work, "Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning," Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost) Experiential learning, in the form of the practicum placement, is a key element in social work education. However, few social work students enroll

in political or policy oriented practica. In a survey of 161 CSWE-accredited programs (131 BSW, 30 MSW), Wolk and colleagues (1996)
found that less than half offered practica in government relations (BSW=20%, MSW=47%) and even fewer had placements in policy advocacy/development (BSW=15%, MSW=33%). Moreover, programs typically reported only one or two students participating in these types of placements, with the largest representation at a single school being 9 out of 250 MSW students (Wolk et al., 1996). Because few students

receive policy-related field education, introducing students to policy relevant skills and experiences via active learning exercises in the classroom assumes greater importance. Bonwell and Eison (1991) describe the general characteristics of active
learning in the classroom: * Students are involved in more than listening. * Less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more on developing students' skills. * Students are involved in higher-order thinking (analysis, synthesis, evaluation). * Students are engaged in activities. Greater emphasis is placed on students' exploration of their own attitudes and values. (p. 2) Experiential learning in the classroom may *

involve case studies, role plays, debates, simulations, or other activities that allow students to make connections among theory, knowledge, and experience (Lewis & Williams, 1994). These active learning strategies encourage students to think on their feet, to question their own values and responses to situations, and to consider new ways of thinking in contexts which they may experience more intensely and, consequently, may remember longer
(Meyers & Jones, 1993).

Policy debate might not change the world, but critical debate definitely wontonly theory with direct policy applications has any chance of influencing the state DONOVAN AND LARKIN 2006 (Claire and Phil, Australian National University, Politics, Vol 26:1) It would be nave to assume that a political science which uses the knowledge and insights derived from the systematic and detailed study of political institutions and phenomena, or even concepts, will be simply picked up by those involved in the political process. Policymakers, politicians, unions, NGOs and the rest of the actors involved in practical politics have objectives to pursue,
and political science is useful to them only where it helps them to clarify those objectives or to realise them. In many instances, politicians would not be helped by advice from political scientists any more than fish would be able to swim better if they got advice from ichthyologists (Barry, 2004, p. 24); clearly, even at best, only a proportion of useful political science will be taken up and there are numerous filters that might see potentially workable ideas ignored (see Stone, Maxwell and Keating, 2001). And practical matters such as the differences in the time frames to which academics and those involved in practical politics work will clearly persist. But, the concern of the discipline must be less with ensuring the impact

of individual pieces of work, or the work of particular individuals, and more with ensuring that there is a critical mass of usable political science to which practitioners can turn. This is still not a guarantee that it will be picked up by political practitioners, but producing research without this aim in mind is a guarantee that this will not happen.

A2: YOU ENDORSE THE STATE

This is totally wrongrole playing the state does not endorse it any more than the cast of Hogans Heroes are actually nazis because they played them on TVtheir argument assumes that everyone in debate is a complete idiot who cannot tell the difference between a game and realitythe mere fact that they pointed this out should be enough warning to prevent us from doing it And, we have topic-specific evidence about why debating state policy is goodthats our Schaap and Kagan evidenceheres morewe can rein in the worst excess of the state and prevent violence WALT 1991 (Stephen, Professor at the University of Chicago, International Studies Quarterly 35)
A second norm is relevance, a belief that even highly abstract lines of inquiry should be guided by the goal of solving real-world problems. Because the value of a given approach may not be apparent at the beginninggame theory is an obvious examplewe cannot insist that a new approach be immediately applicable to a specific research puzzle. On the whole, however, the belief that scholarship in security affairs should be

linked to real-world issues has prevented the field from degenerating into self-indulgent intellectualizing. And from the Golden Age to the present, security studies has probably had more real-world impact, for good or ill, than most areas of social science. Finally, the renaissance of security studies has been guided by a commitment to democratic discourse. Rather than confining discussion of security issues to an elite group of the best and brightest, scholars in the renaissance have generally welcomed a more fully informed debate. To paraphrase Clemenceau, issues of war and peace are too important to be left solely to insiders with a vested interest in the outcome. The growth of security studies within universities is one sign of broader participation, along with increased availability of information and
more accessible publications for interested citizens. Although this view is by no means universal, the renaissance of security studies has been shaped by the belief that a well-informed debate is the best way to avoid the disasters that are likely when national policy is

monopolized by a few self-interested parties. Action through the state doesnt uphold it, but the claim that we should never debate state politics makes change impossible and essentializes the state KRAUSE AND WILLIAMS 1997 (Keith and Michael, Critical Security Studies, p. xvi) First, to stand too far outside prevailing discourses is almost certain to result in continued disciplinary exclusion.
Second, to move toward alternative conceptions of security and security studies, one must necessarily reopen the question subsumed under the modern conception of sovereignty and the scope of the political. To do this, one must take seriously the prevailing claims about the nature of security. Many of the chapters in this volume thus retain a concern with the centrality of the state as a locus not only of obligation but of effective political action. In the realm of organized violence states also remain the preeminent actors. The task of a critical approach is not to deny the

centrality of the state in this realm but, rather, to understand more fully its structures, dynamics, and possibilities for reorientation. From a critical perspective, state action is flexible and capable of reorientation, and analyzing state policy need not therefore be tantamount to embracing the statist assumptions of orthodox conceptions. To exclude a focus on state action from a critical perspective on the grounds that it plays inevitably within the rules of existing conceptions simply reverses the error of essentializing the state. Moreover, it loses the possibility of influencing what remains the most structurally capable actor in contemporary world politics. The state and domination is inevitable --- only a risk that our interpretation fosters democracy capable of combating oppression Stannard, 06 (Matt, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Wyoming, Spring 2006 Faculty Senate Speaker Series Speech, April 18, http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2006/04/deliberationdemocracy-and-debate.html)
If it is indeed true that debate inevitably produces other-oriented deliberative discourse at the expense of students' confidence in their first-order convictions, this would indeed be a trade-off worth criticizing. In all fairness, Hicks and Greene do not overclaim their critique, and they take care to acknowledge the important ethical and cognitive virtues of deliberative debating. When represented as anything other than a political-ethical concern, however, Hicks and Greene's critique has several problems: First, as my colleague J.P. Lacy recently pointed out, it seems a tremendous causal (or even rhetorical) stretch to go from "debating both sides of an issue creates civic responsibility essential to liberal democracy" to "this civic responsibility upholds the worst forms of American exceptionalism." Second, Hicks and Greene do not make any comparison of the potentially bad power of debate to any alternative. Their implied alternative, however, is a form of forensic speech that privileges personal conviction. The idea that students should be able to preserve their personal convictions at all costs seems far more immediately tyrannical, far more immediately damaging to either liberal or participatory democracy, than the ritualized requirements that students occasionally take the opposite side of what they believe. Third, as I have suggested and will continue to suggest, while a debate project requiring participants to understand and often "speak for" opposing points of view may carry a great deal of liberal baggage, it is at its core a project more ethically deliberative than institutionally liberal. Where Hicks and Greene see debate producing "the liberal citizen-subject," I see debate at least having the potential to produce "the deliberative human

being." The fact that some academic debaters are recruited by the CSIS and the CIA does not undermine this thesis. Absent healthy debate programs, these think-tanks and government agencies would still recruit what

they saw as the best and brightest students. And absent a debate community that rewards anti-institutional political rhetoric as much as liberal rhetoric, those students would have little-to-no chance of being exposed to truly oppositional ideas. Moreover, if we allow ourselves to believe that it is "culturally imperialist" to help other peoples build institutions of debate and deliberation, we not only ignore living political struggles that occur in every culture, but we fall victim to a dangerous ethnocentrism in holding that "they do not value deliberation like we do." If the argument is that our participation in fostering debate communities abroad greases the wheels of globalization, the correct response, in debate terminology, is that such globalization is non-unique, inevitable, and there is only a risk that collaborating across cultures in public debate and deliberation will foster resistance to dominationjust as debate accomplishes wherever it goes. Indeed, Andy
Wallace, in a recent article, suggests that Islamic fundamentalism is a byproduct of the colonization of the lifeworld of the Middle East; if this is true, then one solution would be to foster cross-cultural deliberation among people on both sides of the cultural divide willing to question their own preconceptions of the social good. Hicks and Greene might be correct insofar as elites in various cultures can either

forbid or reappropriate deliberation, but for those outside of that institutional power, democratic discussion would have a positively subversive effect.