| ... |
... |
@@ -1,95
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====Interp: Resolved means the affirmative must defend the implementation of a policy action by a government==== |
| 2 |
|
-**Parcher 1 (Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)** |
| 3 |
|
-Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
-AND |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question. |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
-====Their aff avoids neg prep. The topic is the basis for predictable limits – abandoning it means the affirmative can argue for anything which the negative cannot possibly prepare for.==== |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-====Topical fairness requirements are key to effective dialogue—monopolizing strategy makes the discussion one-sided and exclusionary==== |
| 16 |
|
-**Galloway 7**—Samford Comm prof (Ryan, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007) |
| 17 |
|
-Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
-AND |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
-substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy. |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
- |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
-====Vote neg – they destroy your ability to meaningfully evaluate the winner of the round based on who was the better debater which is the purpose of the judge, so you should reject arguments that prevent you from exercising that role. ==== |
| 26 |
|
- |
| 27 |
|
- |
| 28 |
|
- |
| 29 |
|
-====Reject the debater – the entire round is already skewed since the 1NC strategy is determined by the aff. A 1AR advocacy shift makes dialogue impossible since it escapes the entire 1NC and gives the neg only 6 minutes of the 2NR versus the aff’s 7 minutes.==== |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
- |
| 32 |
|
- |
| 33 |
|
-====This outweighs:==== |
| 34 |
|
- |
| 35 |
|
- |
| 36 |
|
- |
| 37 |
|
-====It governs their access to substantive arguments so it logically has to be decided before substance, since if I win it they shouldn’t have access to that argument to begin with – it’s a prior question==== |
| 38 |
|
- |
| 39 |
|
- |
| 40 |
|
- |
| 41 |
|
-====I couldn’t contest the aff to begin with – they can’t apply the aff against T since that assumes their aff was legitimate to begin with. They don’t get access to claims that weren’t contestable by me.==== |
| 42 |
|
- |
| 43 |
|
- |
| 44 |
|
- |
| 45 |
|
-====It directly concerns the role of the judge since the entire point of a judge is to decide who won the round==== |
| 46 |
|
- |
| 47 |
|
- |
| 48 |
|
- |
| 49 |
|
-====The topic is a more fair institutional norm. A fair topic that’s predictable to both sides is better for accessibility. ==== |
| 50 |
|
-**Galloway 7** - Ryan Galloway, assistant professor of communication studies and director of debate at Samford University, "DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE," Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007) |
| 51 |
|
-The central claim to this essay is that debate works best when it is dialogic |
| 52 |
|
- |
| 53 |
|
-AND |
| 54 |
|
- |
| 55 |
|
-controversy access to formulating their approach to both sides of the topic question. |
| 56 |
|
- |
| 57 |
|
- |
| 58 |
|
- |
| 59 |
|
-====A framework that maintains equitable dialogism is key to social inclusion and ecology==== |
| 60 |
|
-**Bebbington 7 ~~(Jan, Professor of Accounting and Sustainable Development; Judy Brown, Professor, Plant Sciences. PhD, Plant Pathology; Bob Frame, researcher at Landcare Research , Science Team Governance and Policy) "Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach" Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 20 Iss: 3, pp.356 – 381~~ AT** |
| 61 |
|
-This paper has sought to ground the discussion of engagement in SEA research in dialogic |
| 62 |
|
- |
| 63 |
|
-AND |
| 64 |
|
- |
| 65 |
|
-these impacts and change the reality of social groups and our natural ecology. |
| 66 |
|
- |
| 67 |
|
- |
| 68 |
|
- |
| 69 |
|
-====Substantive constraints on the debate are key to actualize effective pluralism and agonistic democracy ==== |
| 70 |
|
-John** Dryzek 6**, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649 |
| 71 |
|
-A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference |
| 72 |
|
- |
| 73 |
|
-AND |
| 74 |
|
- |
| 75 |
|
-need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate. |
| 76 |
|
- |
| 77 |
|
- |
| 78 |
|
- |
| 79 |
|
-====Debate inevitably involves exclusions and normative constraints—-making sure that those exclusions occur along reciprocal lines is necessary to foster democratic habits which turn and solves the whole case ==== |
| 80 |
|
-Amanda** Anderson 6**, prof of English at Johns Hopkins The Way We Argue Now, 33-6 |
| 81 |
|
-In some ways, this is understandable as utopian writing, with recognizable antecedents throughout |
| 82 |
|
- |
| 83 |
|
-AND |
| 84 |
|
- |
| 85 |
|
-project and leaves herself no recourse but to issue dogmatic condemnations and approvals. |
| 86 |
|
- |
| 87 |
|
- |
| 88 |
|
- |
| 89 |
|
-====Decisionmaking is key to all aspects of life –it’s the most important skill==== |
| 90 |
|
-**Steinberg and Freeley 8** *Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND **David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp9-10 |
| 91 |
|
-After several days of intense debate, first the United States House of Representatives and |
| 92 |
|
- |
| 93 |
|
-AND |
| 94 |
|
- |
| 95 |
|
-customer for out product, or a vote for our favored political candidate. |