Framework – 1NC
A) INTERPRETATION
“USFG” followed by “should” means the debate is about the desirability of enacting a government policy
Ericson 3 – Jon, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U
[The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4]cn
each topic contains
AND
that you propose.
“Resolved” means a yes/no question about policy adoption – the debate context is key
Parcher 1 – Jeff, J.D., Director for Communications at the Center for Community Change
[Feb 26, “Is the Resolution a Question?” Online]
(1) Pardon me if I turn
AND
of course. are answers to a question.
THUS, given a policy resolution, the role of the ballot is to answer a single yes/no question: Would the USFG implementing a [substantial increase in its democracy assistance] be more desirable than the status quo or a competitive alternative?
B) VIOLATION
The affirmative does not defend the USFG literally and immediately enacting such a policy. Instead, they ask you to [resolve some other question with the ballot].
C) PREFER OUR INTERPRETATION
1) Predictable Limits – they justify shifting the topic of debate to an infinite number of other questions, which rigs the game for the aff because we can’t adequately research and prepare against them.
And, the topic must be presupposed for meaningful debate to occur
Ehninger 70 – Douglas, Professor of Speech at U-Iowa
[Jun, Speech Monographs, p. 108]cn
some agreed upon
AND
argumentative interchange.
2) Reciprocal Ground – other frameworks are self-serving, because they divide ground on some non-resolutional basis – this hamstrings the neg since the aff could always just defend some one-sided issue like “Racism is bad.”
And, it’s easy to point out problems – the real ground for debate is over the implementation of imperfect policy solutions
Rosenthal 9 – Alan, professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University
[Jul, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/public/trust/LessonPlans_HS.pdf]cn
The environment is a rough one, but
AND
to the division in the ranks of Americans.
3) Topic Education – our interpretation best facilitates IN-DEPTH discussions about the important, timely policy questions raised by the resolution – topic education outweighs because we have the same stale critical theory debates every year; the topic is the only thing that changes.
And, in-depth learning about government policymaking is key to creating public intellectuals who can check dangerous elites and solve societal problems
McClean 1 – David, Ph.D
AND
, Molloy College, New York and Rutgers University
[“The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope,” www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion%20papers/david_mcclean.htm]cn
leftist critics continue to cite and refer to the eccentric and often a priori ruminations
AND
culture critics
4) Switch Side Debate – only our framework requires teams to defend both sides of important issues like State action, international relations, and [the Arab Spring]
Switch side debate promotes tolerance of others, prevents physical violence, and enhances students’ critical thinking skills and political agency – this spills over to solve real world problems
O’Donnell et al 10 – Tim, Professor of Communication at Mary Washington; research conducted by the International Debate Education Association, with Neil Butt, Stefan Bauschard, Joseph Bellon, Warren Decker, John Kastulas, William Keith, James Lyle, Danielle Verney O’Gorman, & Joseph Packer
[“A Rationale for Intercollegiate Debate in the Twenty First Century,” Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century, p. 44]cn
In addition to cultivating educational skills, participation
AND
public school system” (2001, 14).
D) THIS IS A VOTING ISSUE – our standards prove in-round and pre-round abuse, and your ballot helps create community norms that promote fair and educational debate
UTIL/Consequentialism Good – Frontline
The tunnel vision of moral absolutism generates evil – evaluating consequences is key for policymakers
Isaac 2 – Jeffrey, Professor of Political Science at Indiana University
[Spring, Dissent, vol. 49, no. 2]cn
Power is not a dirty word or an
AND
promotes arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.
2nc framework
3) Limits on debate maximize openness; they aren’t violent or exclusionary – refusing them is self-contradictory and locks in the status quo
Shively 2k – Ruth Lessl, Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M
[Political Theory and Partisan Politics, pp. 178-84]cn
The first point here is that ambiguists cannot embrace all disruptive actions or resist all attempts to categorize activities in terms of "good" and "Bad," "legitimate" and "illegitimate," "civil" and "uncivil."
AND
Thus, to say that rational persuasion is the end of political action
2) You can’t evaluate any of their truth claims; their unpredictability prevented us from adequately testing them – and real world audiences won’t find them persuasive
Murray 1 – David, Director of the Statistical Assessment Service, Professor at Georgetown; with S. Lichter, President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs
[“It Ain’t Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality,” p. 148-149]cn
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
AND
peer reviewers, the judges of science, are also the witnesses who add credibility to the claims made by researchers.
SSD – Only Our Offense
They can’t win offense – all of the supposed harms of switch-side debate are present when speakers don’t switch sides – that’s because the problem is the SPEAKER, not the type of debate
Cripe 57 – Nicholas M., Former Head of the Department of Speech @ Butler University
“Debating Both Sides In Tournaments Is Ethical,” The Speech Teacher vol. 6 is. 3
Some writers have charged that debating both sides results in various evils,
AND
a misunderstanding of the proper function of debate.
SSD – Only Our Offense
They can’t win offense – all of the supposed harms of switch-side debate are present when speakers don’t switch sides – that’s because the problem is the SPEAKER, not the type of debate
Cripe 57 – Nicholas M., Former Head of the Department of Speech @ Butler University
“Debating Both Sides In Tournaments Is Ethical,” The Speech Teacher vol. 6 is. 3
Debating both sides of a proposition is neither morally wrong nor hypocritical. Some writers have charged
AND
of debate.
SSD – A2: Out-of-Round Discussions Solve
Switch-side debate must be an in-round requirement – lack of competitive incentives means students won’t achieve its benefits elsewhere
Harrigan 8 – M.A. (Communications), Director of Debate at Michigan State U
[May, DEFENSE OF SWITCH SIDE DEBATE: A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, Available Online]cn
It has been argued that many of the benefits of switching sides could theoretically be achieved through alternative means
AND
. SSD is a timetested way to do that.
Out-of-round discussions can’t solve – only switch-side requirements ensure the full confrontation of opposing ideas, which is a prereq to good decisionmaking
Day 66 – Dennis, Professor of Speech at U-Wisconsin, Madison
[Feb, The Central States Speech Journal, p. 6]cn
Free speech is the
AND
incomplete so is debate incomplete.
