| ... |
... |
@@ -1,19
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-A – Interpretation: Affirmative debaters must affirm the resolution through governmental implementation of a policy that ends restriction on constitutionally protected speech |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
-Resolved implies a policy |
| 4 |
|
-Louisiana House 05 |
| 5 |
|
-Resolution A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, |
| 6 |
|
-AND |
| 7 |
|
-, 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4) |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
-1. Predictable Limits - The resolution proposes the question the negative is prepared to answer and creates a bounded list of potential affs for us to think about. Debate has unique potential to change attitudes and grow critical thinking skills because it forces pre-round internal deliberation on a focused, common ground of debate. And, a limited topic of discussion that provides for equitable ground is key to decision-making and advocacy skills because it is key to have the negative be prepared to engage in the debate. |
| 10 |
|
-Steinberg and Freeley 08 |
| 11 |
|
-Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of |
| 12 |
|
-AND |
| 13 |
|
-particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion. |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-Fairness is key to effective dialogue~-~--monopolizing strategy makes discussion one-sided and subverts inclusion of the neg~-~-- turns their inclusion arguments |
| 16 |
|
-Galloway 7 |
| 17 |
|
-Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively |
| 18 |
|
-AND |
| 19 |
|
-substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy. |