Interpretation—the affirmative should defend the outcome of the enactment of a topical plan by the United States federal government
They claim advantages independent of the plan and the imagination of governmental action.
1. “Resolved” before a colon reflects a legislative form.
Army Officer School 2004 (5-12
AND
)
The colon introduces the following: a.
AND
colon) That this council petition the mayor.
2. “United States federal government should” means the resolutional question concerns the imagination of outcome of the establishment of a policy by the government.
Jon M. Ericson 2003 (Dean Emeritus
AND
Guide, Third Edition, p. 4)
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action
AND
to perform the future action that you propose.
Reasons to prefer—
1. Fairness:
A. Predictable limits—there are limitless investigations of democracy assistance and debate practice, but the grammar of the resolution is based on enacting a policy. We can’t predict the infinite number of critical positions the aff allows because they are disconnected from the resolutional question of demands for government action.
B. Ground—their framework makes stable ground impossible because they can always claim ‘critical’ outweigh disads to the plan or shift their advocacy to avoid impact turns—must hold them to a central question for productive argumentation and idea testing to occur.
2. Education:
A. Switch-side testing—changing the ballot from a yes/no question about desirability of the plan undermines effective argumentation because there is no point of stasis to continually re-interrogate, removing the ability to test their ideas and others.
And, this idea testing is the best model for creating understanding and fostering tolerance.
Gordon Mitchell et al. 2007 (Eric
AND
, Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies 4)
It is our position, however, that
AND
as a ‘‘weapon of mass destruction.’’
B. Stasis—
1. Subject Formation—absence of shared yardsticks for argument and the mismatch of interpretational scope limits out the possibility of debate.
Diana Panke 2010 (Lecturer of Politics at the University College Dublin, Review of International Studies, Volume 36, Issue 01, January 2010 p. 145-168)
Discourses take place in many political, judicial
AND
the interpretational scope of the problem at stake.
2. Ideational Change—no chance of ideational change in their framework—lack of agreement over truth or between competing paradigms eliminates discussion.
Diana Panke 2010 (Lecturer of Politics at the University College Dublin, Review of International Studies, Volume 36, Issue 01, January 2010 p. 145-168)
Judicial discourses accelerate argumentative speech acts. Yet
AND
How are they defined? Are exceptions specified?
C. This is a voting issue—limiting discussion to the question being asked is a prerequisite to effective communication.
Ruth Lessl Shively 2000 (Assistant Professor of
AND
Political Theory, p. 181-2)
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative
AND
contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
-------------------------------------2NC ev -----------------------------------------------
1. Role of the second speaker—need to have dialogue over all ideas and be open to testing from a ‘second speaker’ to develop new understandings and better politics
Nikolas Kompridis 2005 (professor at the Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy at the University of Western Sydney, “Disclosing Possibility: The Past and Future of Critical Theory”, International
Journal of Philosophical Studies. p. 339-340)
Thus, to put it in my terms
AND
initiate better and more reflective ways of life.
3. Risky role-taking—MUST resist the aff’s version of ideal role playing and be open to testing. Failure to do so means even the most moral view can become abstracted from context and manipulated.
Nikolas Kompridis 2006 (professor at the Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy at the University of Western Sydney, “Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future”. p. 213-215)
The design of discursive procedures of justification,
AND
advance by the normative rules of practical discourses.
There is a topical version of their advocacy—a resolutionally engaged gesture of solidarity that’s opening to testing and revision—empirically proven
Oliver Marchart 2011 PhD works at the Institute for Medienwisschaften the University of Basel and teaches political theory at the University of Vienna. Democracy and Minimal Politics: The Political Difference and Its Consequences South Atlantic Quarterly (2011) 110(4)
Democratic Solidarity One thing should have become clear
AND
of radicalizing democracy: the concept of solidarity.
In fact, the notion of solidarity does
AND
translates it into the language of political demands.